[AceAzure]

Hi all,

I've been getting into this flat earth thing after viewing the !lluminat! card which of course have predicted other things. So ofc this is very interesting to me.

I find the curvature argument hard to fault and I don't believe in NASA at all so I do see the validity in some of the points presented. So I told a friend and his point was that maybe you can use flights to measure it.

Being a designer, I put this to the test, measuring it in a design program and this is the result of my experiment. I used the website http://flightbookings.airnewzealand.co.nz and booked a flight from Auckland (NZ) to Buenos Aires (Argentina) and then one from Auckland to Shanghai.

So apparently, the flat earth model for this flight path does not add up as well as the globe one. Can anyone elaborate as to why?

Thanks & peace.



http://imgur.com/CqbNLnw

[BlueMoon]

Slight correction:  For the Mercator projection you were counting pixel distances, but since the Mercator is a projection of a globe, and doesn't take great circles into account like flights do, it's definitely not the most accurate representation.  (Fun fact: the lines you used on your map are known as rhumb lines or loxodromes.)  Your best bet would be to just plot it out on Google Earth. 

[rabinoz]

Hi all,

I've been getting into this flat earth thing after viewing the !lluminat! card which of course have predicted other things. So ofc this is very interesting to me.

I find the curvature argument hard to fault and I don't believe in NASA at all so I do see the validity in some of the points presented. So I told a friend and his point was that maybe you can use flights to measure it.

Being a designer, I put this to the test, measuring it in a design program and this is the result of my experiment. I used the website http://flightbookings.airnewzealand.co.nz and booked a flight from Auckland (NZ) to Buenos Aires (Argentina) and then one from Auckland to Shanghai.

So apparently, the flat earth model for this flight path does not add up as well as the globe one. Can anyone elaborate as to why?

Thanks & peace.



http://imgur.com/CqbNLnw

The second map you have used is just a Mercator Projection of the Globe, not the Globe. East-West distances are increasingly exaggerated as you move away from the Equator.
Even the first map you showed is simply another Projection of the Globe - the North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal Projection. The only correct distances on that map are distances from the centre (North Pole).

The simplest way to check the distance from Auckland  to Buenos Aires is to use Google Earth.

I am working on a tablet now and can't easily do that, but I have Sydney to Santiago (similar route, flown by QANTAS) on the Globe and a similar Azimuthal Projection - the Gleason's Map. Here are the routes on the Gleason's MAP and Google Earth:

Shortest Sydney to Santiago on     "Gleason Map", about 25,400 km

Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on     "Google Earth", about 11,400 km

The distance on the Gleason map had to be scaled from the Equator to North Pole distance of 10,000 km.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Extra correction the 2nd map isn't the Mercator projection, it looks like the Equirectangular projection

[Unsure101]

... So apparently, the flat earth model for this flight path does not add up as well as the globe one. Can anyone elaborate as to why?

Um, yeah. Because the the flat earth model doesn't work.

[AceAzure]

Thanks all for clearing that up a bit.

I used a different method than "Google earth" and used an Air Distance calculator website http://www.distancefromto.net/ and the findings are MUCH more similar to the hours from NZ website.

If this data is true -- and I believe the formula is based off the Global Earth due to "Great circle distance" -- how would it be possible for the Flat Earth??? This just proves the Globe earth apparently..

— The red line on the map indicates the Great Circle Distance.
— The black line is the Rhumb line between the two points.

The great-circle or orthodromic distance is the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere, measured along the surface of the sphere (as opposed to a straight line through the sphere's interior).

I am working on a tablet now and can't easily do that, but I have Sydney to Santiago (similar route, flown by QANTAS) on the Globe and a similar Azimuthal Projection - the Gleason's Map. Here are the routes on the Gleason's MAP and Google Earth:

Nice data, so what's your conclusion on your case?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Been over a million times:

There is no flat earth map.

AEP isn't accurate for latitude.

[BlueMoon]

Been over a million times:

There is no flat earth map.

AEP isn't accurate for latitude.

Of course.  It is just a projection of a globe after all.  AEP is only really useful for telling distance from a central point, and for looking good on the UN flag. 

[AceAzure]

Been over a million times:

There is no flat earth map.

AEP isn't accurate for latitude.

Well that's good to know, however really discredits the youtubers advocating the Flat earth flight path theories since the flat map is really just for looks. And simultaneously lets the global earth off the hook on the flight paths for this particular experiment.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Been over a million times:

There is no flat earth map.

AEP isn't accurate for latitude.

Well that's good to know, however really discredits the youtubers advocating the Flat earth flight path theories since the flat map is really just for looks. And simultaneously lets the global earth off the hook on the flight paths for this particular experiment.

Well no one put Globe Earth "on the hook" in the first place.

I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.

[Luke 22:35-38]

First of all welcome to the forum. Second as everyone else said its incorrect to compare a flat earth map to a flat map. You need to compare between a flat earth map with something like google earth.

[BlueMoon]

I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.

So it's not enough that hundreds of polar satellites do that exact same thing every single orbit, over both poles, all the time?  Because it should be enough for anyone. 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.

So it's not enough that hundreds of polar satellites do that exact same thing every single orbit, over both poles, all the time?  Because it should be enough for anyone.

Hearsay bro. If NASA told you the moon was actually cheese would you believe it? Or if they brought you a rock from the moon would you believe it was actually from the moon?

[BlueMoon]

I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.

So it's not enough that hundreds of polar satellites do that exact same thing every single orbit, over both poles, all the time?  Because it should be enough for anyone.

Hearsay bro. If NASA told you the moon was actually cheese would you believe it? Or if they brought you a rock from the moon would you believe it was actually from the moon?

How is that hearsay?  What else could the satellites be? 

[Luke 22:35-38]

I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.

So it's not enough that hundreds of polar satellites do that exact same thing every single orbit, over both poles, all the time?  Because it should be enough for anyone.

Hearsay bro. If NASA told you the moon was actually cheese would you believe it? Or if they brought you a rock from the moon would you believe it was actually from the moon?

How is that hearsay?  What else could the satellites be?

Aliens, holograms, or everybody is lying or seeing things or are mistaking things like planes for satellite.

[rabinoz]

Been over a million times:

There is no flat earth map.

AEP isn't accurate for latitude.

So, what IS the shape of the earth?
ALL the arguments I have seen from you have been against the Heliocentric Globe.
Then you effectively claim that the earth is not flat, because if "There is no flat earth map", the earth is not flat!

So just what do you believe. You claim to be an earth shape agnostic, all of you arguments have been against the Globe!
You don't like gravitation, but the Globe must have gravitation to "work".
A Geocentric Globe model is simply not tenable! You simply cannot have the whole universe rotation around the earth - it doesn't.
What is left?
You seem like a "religious agnostic" who is always arguing against the existence of any Deity - in my book that equals an atheist!

What about a little consistence in your position?

[rabinoz]

Well no one put Globe Earth "on the hook" in the first place.

I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.

For a start this thread was about the airline route from Auckland to Buenos Aries. There is no way that would go near the South Pole.
I gave the Sydney to Santiago route because, as I stated, "I had prepared it earlier".
It looks like your are on the wrong thread for information about flights OVER the South Pole!

Airline routes from Australia or New Zealand to/from South America or South Africa do not fly over the South Pole for the simple reason that the shortest routes are not over the South Pole.

And even if we claimed they flew directly over the South Pole, would you believe us?

What sort of "documented and independently verified" evidence would dedicated flat earthers accept. Any evidence collected is automatically dubbed fake, CGI or the product of liars. There is plenty of evidence that earth is a Globe.
For a start the dimensions (circumferences at various latitudes) of the real Earth do not fit on a plane surface!

Indoctrinated Flat Earthers simply cannot be convinced by evidence - they just invent another theory to explain away that evidence (look at "Universal Acceleration", "bendy light", "atmospheric magnification", impossible "perspective" and all the things "Aether" is calle on to do).

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Been over a million times:

There is no flat earth map.

AEP isn't accurate for latitude.

So, what IS the shape of the earth?
ALL the arguments I have seen from you have been against the Heliocentric Globe.
Then you effectively claim that the earth is not flat, because if "There is no flat earth map", the earth is not flat!

So just what do you believe. You claim to be an earth shape agnostic, all of you arguments have been against the Globe!
You don't like gravitation, but the Globe must have gravitation to "work".
A Geocentric Globe model is simply not tenable! You simply cannot have the whole universe rotation around the earth - it doesn't.
What is left?
You seem like a "religious agnostic" who is always arguing against the existence of any Deity - in my book that equals an atheist!

What about a little consistence in your position?

I'm definitely not an atheist, I have an entire thread in the philosophy and religion forum about how creation pertains to flat earth theory. I'll regret telling you about it because I'm sure you'll go in there itching to knock down every point I've made.

My whole goal is to knock down assumption, propaganda and bias, and then see what's left of any theory. I've approached relativity, gravity, evolution, origin of life, and obviously earth's shape with the same methodology.

I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.

[AceAzure]

Been over a million times:

There is no flat earth map.

AEP isn't accurate for latitude.

So, what IS the shape of the earth?
ALL the arguments I have seen from you have been against the Heliocentric Globe.
Then you effectively claim that the earth is not flat, because if "There is no flat earth map", the earth is not flat!

So just what do you believe. You claim to be an earth shape agnostic, all of you arguments have been against the Globe!
You don't like gravitation, but the Globe must have gravitation to "work".
A Geocentric Globe model is simply not tenable! You simply cannot have the whole universe rotation around the earth - it doesn't.
What is left?
You seem like a "religious agnostic" who is always arguing against the existence of any Deity - in my book that equals an atheist!

What about a little consistence in your position?

I'm definitely not an atheist, I have an entire thread in the philosophy and religion forum about how creation pertains to flat earth theory. I'll regret telling you about it because I'm sure you'll go in there itching to knock down every point I've made.

My whole goal is to knock down assumption, propaganda and bias, and then see what's left of any theory. I've approached relativity, gravity, evolution, origin of life, and obviously earth's shape with the same methodology.

I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.

I'm pretty much with you on that. But just this part sounds naive - "None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists". What you learn in school is useless to the argument because of government control, it needs to be put into effective use in the real world, so for instance an Astronaut would be the better profession to see for yourself. Then again, they say all Astronauts took an oath to !lluminat!

PS. Whatever happened to Virgin Galactic? I haven't stayed in touch and want to know when they are going to send people up into space, those people should know the truth.

[rabinoz]

I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.

You say, probably quite correctly that "None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists." and since I presume that you are not either, how ever do you hope to gather this information!

There is not the slightest chance that any one person in their lifetime could gather all the information you seem to want.

That is why the current theories have been built up and refined one the centuries (actually over millenia).

Sure, we "go off second hand information", but even where we had first hand information, by the time it got to you it would be second hand.
Famous historical scientists had theories that simply "did not stand the test of time". For example, Galileo had a "sloshing theory" about the cause of tides

Defeated by the tides
The Copernican worldview has prevailed - not, however, Galileo’s theory of the tides. Clearly inspired by the behaviour of water when boats come to a halt, Galileo Galilei concluded that the ebb and flow of the tides resulted, similarly, from the acceleration and deceleration of the oceans.

Not all that silly, but he did not factor in the importance of the moon's gravitation.

And even when we say that "The Copernican worldview has prevailed", that is not strictly correct. True, he suggested that the Sun was the "centre" of the solar system, but he hypothesised that all the planets moved in circular orbits. It took the detailed data gathered of Tycho Brae (who, by the way, believed in Geocentrism) and the work of Johannes Kepler to show that they actually moved in (very nearly) elliptical orbits. And then finally the work of Newton to show why they moved in this way.
I find it amazing how these early astronomers recorded so much detail simply in notebooks. The planet Neptune was not "officially discovered" until the mid-1800s, but there is evidence that in 1613 Galileo actually recorded this object moving through the "fixed stars", never identified. It seems now accepted that this "object" was the planet Neptune.

No, there is not a chance that any one person can gather all this evidence on their own!

But, my main point is that we can gather corroborating evidence that supports one theory of the the other, but on our own we simply cannot hope to get convincing evidence to prove the matter one way or the other.
To my mind this is the weakness of many who claim to believe in "Zetetic Cosmology".
So many seem to see obvious things (such as: the earth/horizon looks flat), then when this does not fit other observations they come up with  other ideas, purely from their imagination, to explain these, without any supporting evidence.

By the way: In my previous post I was never trying to imply that you may have been a "religious" atheist or agnostic. I was just using that as an example when you claimed you were an "earth shape agnostic", yet seeming to always argue against the globe.