8061

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 06, 2017, 03:32:13 AM »

In your previous post you said "what you're failing to consider is that the night sky is not a euclidean space; it's a curved surface." Just what are you talking about? In RET the sky isn't a "curved surface". It's not a surface at all. What reason is there to think that we would see it as a surface around us? None.

What you have posted is a desperate attempt to claim that euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the universe.

Don't you see how insane that is to arbitrarily declare that the celestial bodies are painted on some kind of surface? In your second post you claim that this is just how it appears to us. But why? Because astronomers need geometry to be completely different to explain how this could work? I see no reason, none at all, for why the bodies should appear to us as if they were painted on a surface. This claim is a complete astronomical fantasy.

8062

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 06, 2017, 03:10:09 AM »

All I can say is to be skeptical and try thinking for your own self for once. Posting a picture of a person with a semi-transparent bigger "celestial sphere" surrounding the earth with celestial bodies painted on it is not reality.

If we paint lines on that celestial sphere we can create some curved lines, since the surface is curved, but just how does that apply to the situation in question? Are the sun and moon in RET painted on a spherical pane of glass surrounding the earth? Ridiculous.

There are only three points of interest here. Arrow1, Arrow2, and the observer. The arrows are pointing at each other and no matter where the observer stands the arrows are still pointing at each other. Pretty basic.

Please do not imagine a universe where there is a celestial sphere of glass around the world with the celestial bodies painted on it and tell us this is reality. Every child of five knows that this is not true even in the Round Earth model!

8063

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 05, 2017, 11:20:08 PM »

You are trying to do geometry (something I'm sure you once argued couldn't be trusted  over long distance as it couldn't be proved) on the flat plane of the observed sky, where two items apparently the same size should have angles that are true, when said objects are not only along way off in a third dimension but one of them is 400 times further away than the other.

So straight lines aren't straight when long distances are involved? 

8064

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 05, 2017, 03:04:17 PM »

Is anyone else going to attempt to defend the heliocentric model?

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaperOnline.pdf

This purpose of this paper does not even attempt to explain why the effect happens at all. The purpose of this paper is an attempt to derive an equation. From the paper:

Comparing the observed and expected directions of incoming light at the moon, we derive an equation for the magnitude of the moon tilt illusion that can be applied to all configurations of sun and moon in the sky.

In the paper there is a passing reference that "straight lines become great circles on a celestial sphere":

The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers
know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere.
Minnaert [5] gives only a passing reference: “...the line connecting the horns of the
moon, between its first quarter and full moon, for instance, does not appear to be
at all perpendicular to the direction from sun to moon; we apparently think of this
direction as being a curved line. Fix this direction by stretching a piece of string taut
in front of your eye; however unlikely it may have seemed to you at first you will now
perceive that the condition of perpendicularity is satisfied”.

Celestial sphere?

I'm pretty sure that if we had two balls with arrows pointing at each other, or really just two arrows pointing at each other, they would continue pointing at each other no matter how far away they were from the observer. Open a 3D modeling program and try it. At what point do things become a "celestial sphere" and we are looking through a fish-eye lens?

Apparently they could not explain the effect with any sort of supporting evidence, so they just made something up about the universe looking curved when you look at it. The author even admits that astronomy textbooks avoid talking about the subject altogether. Is it out of shame? The topic of "straight lines look curved in our universe..." seems like a pretty important topic of discussion and deserves a real explanation with real supporting evidence.

Straight lines look curved when they get far away because.... why again? None of the links you have given have answered this at all. They only make offhanded remarks that when we look at the universe it's like we are looking through a fish-eye lens, because of the "celestial sphere"... as if the earth, stars and other objects around you would even matter at all in a simple geometric scene with two bodies and an observer.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should be able to see how ridiculous and flimsy this explanation is.

8065

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 05, 2017, 01:55:16 PM »

Remember that the next time you get a reply that actually answers your question. If you cannot take in the relation between distance and perspective as outlined in Nirmala's reply, it makes perfect sense why you still believe the earth is flat and resort to ignorance and ignoring actual, fact based answers that doesn't support your wishful thinking.

Does geometry stop working when things are 93 million miles away?

http://muddycolors.blogspot.com/2011/06/todd-lockwood-curvilinear-perspective.html

The author of this link is just talking pseudoscience to explain the effect. If there are two balls with arrows on them pointing at each other, and those balls get further and further away in the distance, is there ever a point in Ecludian Geometry where the arrows are not pointing at each other?

Clearly not!

We will need to see something more rigerous of this effect to say otherwise, something more tangible than the ridiculous "oh when you look out at the universe it's like looking through a fisheye lens" that author gives. The explanation is clearly against Ecludian Geometry, and provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.

8066

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 05, 2017, 01:24:26 PM »

That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?

Fair enough, then prove that they would line up in a small scale model then. And remember that considering a standard issue office globus, the distance to the moon object is about 10 meters.

Nobody needs to "defend" the heliocentric model any further than the reply you actually got already. You disregard the reply because it doesn't conform to your wishful thinking. If you want to be taken serious, Tom, you need to start presenting some actual evidence. Just like us "round earthers", even the flat earth movement must be sick and tired of you making them look like blatant idiots by now.

The reply I got merely said that they shouldn't expect to be lined up because the sun is 93 million miles away.

We are going to need a better explanation than that.

And while you're at it, Tom, please respond to the 3 videos I linked you in the Shaq thread. I know you saw them, and I know you can't refute them. If you can't, just say it. Don't go silent.

You want me to go off-topic in this thread by talking about an off-topic post you made in another thread? I don't think so. Your videos were ignored in the Shaq thread for a reason. Please stay on topic.

8067

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 05, 2017, 04:16:47 AM »

Is anyone else going to attempt to defend the heliocentric model?

8068

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 04, 2017, 07:40:12 PM »

That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?

8069

Flat Earth Community / Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 04, 2017, 02:14:32 PM »

I came across a youtube video which asks some interesting questions about the angles of the sun and moon.

8070

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: April 04, 2017, 01:38:59 AM »

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12921.msg212605;topicseen#msg212605

Perhaps there are some - point them out to me and give me suffiecient evidence that they exist, then show me how a flat earth can explain them. That is, explain them in a way that does not rely on quotes from Earth: Not a globe. I don't believe that Rowbotham has ANY scientific credibility - stop using his flawed experiments as evidence and start using real evidence.

Dr. Rowbotham has plenty of credibility. In his day Rowbotham toured Europe giving lectures at many prominent universities. At the conclusion of every lecture he would debate with the brightest minds of the day over the shape of the earth. Dr. Rowbotham was successful in swaying many members of the audience over to his position. A widespread Zetetic movement began, demanding that the government look into the sphere issue.

The following are a few quotes of the press after Rowbotham's lectures. I believe these reviews speak for themselves:

"ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.--No doubt many of our readers have been mystified and surprised within the last week by the announcement that, in three lectures, at the Northampton Mechanics' Institute, a gentleman who calls himself 'Parallax,' would undertake to prove the earth not a globe, &c., &c. . . . We were highly gratified by the manner in which this important subject was handled by 'Parallax'--a pseudonym which the lecturer informed his audience he had adopted in order to avert the effect of an insinuation that his startling announcement is but the morbid desire of an individual to be known as the propounder of a philosophy boldly at variance with that of the great astronomers of the past and present. His subject was handled in a plain and easy manner, his language and allusions proving him a man of education and thought, and certainly not a pedant. The experiments mentioned, divested of technicality in their recital, and understandable by all, were of such a nature as to cause a start of surprise at their simplicity and truthfulness. . . . It is not for us to pronounce a verdict upon so important an issue; 'Parallax' may be in error, but as far as his reasonings from fact and experiment go, there is much to set scientific men thinking. His arguments consist of facts, and such as are patent to all degrees of mental capacity. . . . In the discussions which followed, 'Parallax' certainly lost no ground, either in answer to questions or to some broad assertions quoted from learned authorities."--South Mid-land Free Press, August 14th, 1858.

-

"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

-

"EARTH NOT A GLOBE.--On Monday last a gentleman adopting the nom de plume of 'Parallax'--a very appropriate name, seeing that the basis of his arguments is the relation to each other of parallel lines--commenced a series of lectures at the Public Hall on 'Zetetic Astronomy,' a system directly opposed to the great Newtonian theory. That he is a clever man, and has studied the matter deeply, and that he is master of his subject, and thoroughly convinced of its truth, is apparent; and his arguments are certainly very plausible. The lecture drew large audiences, and among those present we noticed (here a list is given of many of the leading men and families of the district). 'Parallax' commenced by explaining the word 'Zetetic,' which had been adopted, because they did not sit in their closets and endeavour to frame a theory to explain certain phenomena, but went abroad into the world, and thoroughly investigated the subject. Lengthy and animated discussions ensued; votes of thanks were passed to the lecturer and the chairman-- Nixon Porter, who declared that he was much struck with the simplicity and candour with which the lecturer had stated his views; and, after a promise by 'Parallax' that he would pay another visit to Warrington, the audience dispersed."--Warrington Advertiser, March 24th, 1866.

You may find additional reviews here.

8071

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: April 04, 2017, 01:34:11 AM »

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13592.msg209768;topicseen#msg209768

His mind was not open about his possible findings, even if he was truthful he may have introduced a bias into the results. The point I was making was that Rowbotham's theories are a poor attempt to corroborate scientifically what he interpreted as the word of the Bible. He is untrustworthy because he has a vested interest in the outcome (the truth of his Holy Book).

Dr. Rowbotham starts his work as an honest inquiry into the shape of the Earth, starting afresh without interpreting the results of experiments to any one particular theory or predisposition. Tests are tried and facts are collected without ascribing to any one existing theory. The entirety of Rowbotham's work is to let the results of an experiment speak for itself.

A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority.

8072

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: April 04, 2017, 01:27:10 AM »

Another attack on Astronomy:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2

There is more to astronomy then you think apparently. I already talked about comets and meteors and how they cant work in a fe. You claim the Au is wrong yet way before they au they new the order of the planets and they could tell some size.

Astronomical figures have varied wildly throughout the years. The AU has wildly jumped throughout the ages, from 3, 20, 50, to 200 million miles. Astronomical theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humor and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one predisposition one day, and at other times with another.

The system of Copernicus was admitted to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following is a direct quote from Copernicus himself:

"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

Well, you started right off the bat by saying "Look out your window", a statement that has been overturned time and time again.

By looking outside of our windows and studying the natural world around us we can do away with dogma and begin to seek afresh, for our own selves, the true nature of the earth and universe. We are Zetetics here at the Flat Earth Society. Skeptics who seek to learn the truth.

The term Zetetic is actually derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes.

Zetetics are in direct opposition to "theoretics." Theoretics are people who are speculative, imaginary, not tangible; scheming - but not proving.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13592.msg209776;topicseen#msg209776

Logic will not solve physics and chemistry.

Physics and Chemistry are constantly and forever changing, updating and reverting. Even the hard sciences are a loose collection of "maybe" and "what if."

Astronomy in particular is completely observational. Theories are contrived and molded into pre-existing ones. The lights in the sky are given meaning and turned into worlds upon which imaginative dreamers of the day can escape into. Every couple of months we will hear about astronomers discovering a new object in the night sky that "might" harbor life. Or maybe we will hear about a newly discovered object that "might" collide with us. Forever reaching, forever imagining, these astronomers are nothing more sophisticated fortune tellers.

8073

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: April 04, 2017, 01:24:06 AM »

Some history:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12967.msg191240;topicseen#msg191240

Even in Rowbotham's day, the idea of a Round Earth was as dogmatic as stone. A whirl of constantly changing fact and conjecture which were systematically brainwashed into children from the age of three. 

Here is a direct quote from Dr. Rowbotham:

"It is ... candidly admitted that there is no direct and positive evidence that the world is round, that it is only 'imagined' or assumed to be do in order to afford an explanation of 'scores of phenomena'. This is precisely the language of Copernicus, of Newton, and of all astronomers who have labored to prove the rotundity of the earth, It is pitiful to the extreme that after so many ages of almost unopposed indulgence, philosophers instead of beginning to seek, before anything else, the true constitution of the physical world, are still to be seen laboring only to frame hypotheses, and to reconcile phenomena with imaginary and ever-shifting foundations. Their labor is simply to repeat and perpetuate the self-deception of their predecessors."

Rowbotham believed that Newtonian astronomy was a 'juggle and a jumble of fancies and falsehoods; an elaborate theoretical trick ' enough to make the unprejudiced observer revolt with horror from the terrible conjunction which has been practiced upon him'.

In the face of this elitist conspiracy, the only solution, Rowbotham declared, was to replace conventional science with a true and practical free-thought method. He promoted as a back-to-basics approach to knowledge, in which experiments were tried and facts were collected not only to corroborate any existing theory but to start from scratch to uncover the great universal and primary truths.

A man well ahead of his time, Rowbotham's life work and inquiry was able to predict the movements of the continents one hundred years before tectonic plate shifting was discovered. He was able to accurately and mathematically predict lunar eclipses, the tides, and a number of phenomena in his model of the Earth. He also published a book called Zetetic Astronomy which accurately explained the movements of the stars and completely rewrote Newtonian mechanics from the ground up.

Besides his honest investigation to the true shape of the earth, Rowbotham patented safety mechanisms for trains, vulcanized rubber, nutritional elixirs, and a number of other notable inventions. As a true Zetetic, Rowbotham did not simply make theories while sitting in a closet like Newton and Copernicus. Dr. Rowbotham used his wealth to sail the world in his life-long study of the earth and the cosmos.

8074

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: April 04, 2017, 01:16:46 AM »

why was my post edited? nbd, just curious. was the image i linked doing something funky?

Your post was accidentally edited. The quote and modify buttons are right next to each other. I wasn't able to restore your image.

You are arguing that we should assume that the color (or lack of color) in a star's spectrum has anything to do with what it is made out of, without experimental evidence to back that up. Who sampled these stars? That is pretty flimsy, and the collection of data is really little more than an observation rather than an experiment.

We can't even recreate stellar fusion in a lab. It's a hypothesis. How are we supposed to know what colors this hypothetical process produces?

8075

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: April 03, 2017, 05:30:50 PM »

A few quotes I may include in this chapter:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nikolatesl401270.html

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

--Nikola Tesla

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/591410

Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king.. its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.

--Nikola Tesla

8076

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars

« on: March 28, 2017, 04:35:57 PM »

Of course there aren't. The minute prediction of the coming solar eclipse and detailed information about where it can be observed is a proof of your [Citation needed] claim.

Just go to NASA's Eclipse Web Site  -> Resources -> Eclipses and the Soros where we read:

"The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."

That is the only method given for finding the eclipse on that entire website. The modern astronomers at NASA are not using orbital models. They are using a method created thousands of years ago by the Ancient Babylonians, a society of people who believed that the earth was flat.

8077

Flat Earth Community / Re: Shaquille O'Neal believes that the earth is flat

« on: March 28, 2017, 04:29:12 PM »

I doubt he cares what you and I think of him. But he'd probably get a good laugh if he read this thread. 

You are not making very much sense. In some posts you seem to be saying that Shaq does not like to be called an idiot. Shaq seems to agree with that through what he said in his second statement.

In other posts you seem to be saying that Shaq wanted the world to thing that he was an idiot with his first statement. He gets off on that and doesn't care about public opinion.

You are being pretty contradictory. Please clarify.

I can't clarify it to you because you don't seem to know what a joke is.

One way people joke around is to say something that people will think is outrageous just to get a re-action(people wondering if they are crazy) . A short time later they laugh and say they were just joking. If they did it right, everybody laughs. Revealing that you were just joking is part of the joke. If you leave it hanging nobody laughs. This may sound silly, especially to someone as dry and humorless as yourself but it happens all the time.

What are you talking about? Does Shaq care about public opinion and everyone calling him an idiot or not?

If no, he doesn't care, then why does he communicate that he does care?

If yes, he does care, then why did he deliberately leave everyone to think that he was an idiot?

8078

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars

« on: March 28, 2017, 04:20:51 PM »

You might want to run that by with some of your developer friends, TextWarrior for instance.

You don't think it's possible to make a javascript that can repeat a pattern?

Other than that, please keep up the defense. This thread is becoming my favorite thread as well. You rarely get to see someone make such a fool of himself, repeatedly.

What defense? The RE side consists solely of claiming that there are accurate orbital models when there are not.

8079

Flat Earth Community / Re: Shaquille O'Neal believes that the earth is flat

« on: March 28, 2017, 01:30:09 PM »

I doubt he cares what you and I think of him. But he'd probably get a good laugh if he read this thread. 

You are not making very much sense. In some posts you seem to be saying that Shaq does not like to be called an idiot. Shaq seems to agree with that through what he said in his second statement.

In other posts you seem to be saying that Shaq wanted the world to thing that he was an idiot with his first statement. He gets off on that and doesn't care about public opinion.

You are being pretty contradictory. Please clarify.

Maybe Shaq wanted to see how many people are gullible enough to believe that he's dumb enough to think that the earth is flat.

Why are you avoiding the question? It's either Shaq doesn't care about public opinion and being called an idiot or he does care about public opinion and doesn't like being called an idiot.

In his second statement he is clearly saying that he didn't like what people were saying about him. So, an explanation please?

8080

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'm looking for a volunteer, a true flat earth believer.

« on: March 28, 2017, 12:28:46 PM »

I sent another reply before seeing your invitation to discuss it here.

You say, "Mapping the world is a ridiculously simple task?"

Mapping a two dimensional object onto a two dimensional sheet of paper is ridiculously simple....in comparison to mapping a three dimensional object to a two dimensional piece of paper. The latter requires the use of perspective. The former does not. Again, a small enough area makes this obvious, so a blueprint or elevation drawing of a 20,000 square foot building is for all practical purposes completely accurate and does not require the use of perspective techniques. If I want to focus on one corner of the building/blueprint, I just move my eyes over that part of the blueprint to get an accurate sense of the proportions of the rooms in that corner. However an artist's rendering of that same building as it appears from a distance would need to use all of the tricks of perspective to make it look proportional due to the introduction of a third dimension to the drawing (the distance from the artist's eyes to the various parts of the building). So the artist would draw a distant part of the building with smaller dimensions and a nearer part of the building with larger dimensions. If a builder tried to build the building by using the dimensions of the artist's view, the building would be bizarrely proportioned.

Sorry, but I don't see how anything of you said really has mapping the world trivially easy.

All of the distances are known and have been measured on the surface of the earth or in the air in numerous surveys.

Please provide us the database of the measured distances between every point on earth if you think that all of this exists somewhere. This is the second time I have asked.

All the map maker would need to do if the earth was flat is enter all of those distances. Someone on youtube actually tried to do this with the flat earth map by adjusting it to show distances that correspond to actual flight times:   Unfortunately, he was unable to adjust his map to take into account all of the flight times and distances. To check this,you just need to look at some of the flights I have already mentioned, i.e. Sydney to Johannesburg versus Sydney to Santiago. Or you can just look at the flight from Sydney to Perth and realize his map is grossly inaccurate. On his map, the distance from Sydney to Perth is much greater than the distance from the Panama Canal to the north pole.

Did he use the bi-polar model of the earth? Were his numbers for flight times from a website that merely gave a predicted estimate?

And I notice you did not address the simple fact that all of the distances between any two points on earth correspond exactly and perfectly to scale when using a globe.  Why do you suppose that is the case?

I have yet to see evidence from you that this is the case.

Do you not find it intriguing at the very least that a ball shaped representation of the earth is completely accurate when any two-dimensional representation is invariably inaccurate? Why would any two dimensional representations of the earth have any distortion if the earth were truly flat (and therefore the earth was two-dimensional for the purposes of map making)? Even a flat representation of the United States incurs these distortions if you use a large enough scale and measure carefully enough.

Navigators sure seem to have been using these inaccurate maps to navigate the world for hundreds of years. What makes you think that they could not use an inaccurate globe?

Your response that maps are not accurate is a classic straw man argument. I did not say maps are accurate. I said the globe is accurate. How do you explain that fact?

Navigators are able to use those inaccurate maps to navigate, despite Greenland being the size of Africa. How do we know that the globe is accurate?

You also said, "Where is your evidence that the distance between every point on earth is completely accurate? You are just waving your hands around without any real large scale evidence to point to."

The evidence is all of the recorded info throughout history about the distances between two points when traveled by foot, car, ship or airplane.

Where are these records then? Come on.

All of the flight times and distances I have quoted in this thread and tens of thousands more are accurate when plotted on a globe.

It appears that you merely went to Kyak.com and got some flight estimates. How do we know that those estimates will meet reality? 1 out of 4 flights are delayed.

How much evidence do you need? It is easy to test for yourself. Pick any two cities, say Sydney and Perth. Measure them on a globe with a clearly marked scale and then compare that to a driving map showing distances or a flight path showing distances.

Any inaccuracies would be due to the shape of the roads on the ground, but in the air, they will compare to within a small degree. Remember that even airplanes must follow "highways" in the sky, so some inaccuracies would be introduced. But the results will be more accurate and consistent than any two dimensional map ever created. And in the case of the flat earth maps I have seen so far, the consistency and accuracy is many orders of magnitude greater on a globe.

Again, please show us where these accurate measurements have taken place.