[3DGeek]

OK folks - I'm going to jump through a few steps on the way to a proof - it's going to take many days and lots of posts, so just follow along as we go.

I'll include multiple sources for each claim so we know there is no funny business going on.

STEP 1: To keep things easy - I want to use a service called: http://www.worldatlas.com/travelaids/flight_distance.htm - it provides a simple way to type in the names of two cities and it tells you the flight distance between them.

I do understand that our flat earth brethren are not going to believe what it says without evidence.   So STEP 2 will be to test whether it works or not.

STEP 2: Since FET differs from RET to the greatest extent in the southern hemisphere - it makes sense to use Qantas airline's non-stop flights as a way to compare the distance the Qantas claims they are flying against the worldatlas site.   So - here's where we go:

    https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en

This tells us the distance and flight time in hours and minutes between various destinations.  These are the PUBLISHED travel times.   We may need to use other data later to confirm that the times are right...and because we know that Qantas only flies 747-400 aircraft over these long haul routes - we can compare the known cruising speeds of the aircraft to their estimated travel time to be sure that there are no HUGE errors in their data.   If necessary I can find the specifications of these aircraft - range and speeds.   Also, we'll need to look at the flights both to and from each destination to confirm that the jet stream isn't giving them a massive speed boost in one direction versus the other.

Don't worry - we'll be backing up this data very soon.

But to start with, let's look at some basic flight data:

Qantas say that Sydney to Johannesburg (South Africa) is 11,044 km and takes 11 hours 45 minutes to get there and 11 hours and 55 minutes to get back...so the Jet stream adds 5 minutes one way and subtracts 5 the other way.   Not a big deal.  If you check other routes, the outgoing and return flights times are always within 15 minutes.   Incidentally - this blows away the FE claim that jetstreams account for the 220% increase in speed needed to do Sydney-Santiago in the claimed time on EITHER the FE map shown on the Wiki OR Tom's new map that includes antarctica.  Neither map can be explained away in light of this data.

Worldmap say that this flight is 11,119 km...which is 115 more than Qantas - but we're within about 1% here - so that's pretty close.

Taking some more routes:

Sydney-Dubai is 12,039 according to Qantas and 12,008 km according to Worldmap...better than 1%.
Sydney-Singapore is 6,289 according to Qantas and 6235 km according to Worldmap...again, better than 1%
Sydney-Dallas is 13,816 according to Qantas and 13,756 km according to Worldmap...same deal.

So we can certainly get the idea that:

 a) Qantas and Worldmap seem to agree on these distances to within about 1% - so it's not that one is "great circle" and the other is "fixed compass heading".
 b) They didn't come up with EXACTLY the same numbers - which suggest that they aren't both using the same equations or the same source data.

Clearly we have independent sources here - and they agree quite well.

You can sit there all day and find different Qantas routes (although you need to be sure they are DIRECT flights) - and the Worldmap numbers agree.

We don't have to just use flights into Australia and back.

Anchorage to Honolulu - Qantas says 4,471 km - Worldmap says 4,490 km.
Calgary to Halifax - Qantas says 3,745 km - Worldmap says 3,794km.

Now - what about flight times and airplane ranges?

Qantas fly the Boeing 747-400 exclusively on long distance routes.  Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#747-400 for the exact variant of the aircraft they fly.  The straight 747-400 is by far the most popular of the 747 series.  Further down the Wikipedia article, you can see the Cruise speed of the aircraft is 933 kph and the range is 13,490km...but wait?  That can't be right - the Sydney-Dallas flight is 13,816km.   This is actually a subtle point.  That range if for the PW4000 engines - but if you look further up the page, it says that Qantas once flew non-stop from London to Sydney - which is 18,000 km.   And the reason for that is that it was a "delivery flight" - no passengers, no luggage, no freight.   So how are Qantas flying full loads to Dallas?   Turns out they are using the 747-400ER (Extended range) version.  They bought just six of them and they use them for their Australia/USA routes...and it adds another 800km of additional range to the basic airplane.

Incidentally - at the altitude theses airplanes fly, 933 kph is Mach 0.85 - well below the speed of sound.  At full speed (which guzzles fuel!) they can make 1000kph which is mach 0.92.   That's important...no matter what, a subsonic airplane can't go past mach 1 without some serious problems!

If you doubt the veracity of Wikipedia - note the little blue numbers in square brackets next to most of these facts...those link to other documents that will confirm what they say.

OK - so all is explained - this plane can fly those distances - but there isn't a whole lot of fuel to spare.

Let's look at flight times to confirm what we're seeing:

Sydney-Dubai is 12,039km - and the posted flight time is 13hrs 40mins - giving us a theoretical speed of 880 kph - which is well within the airplane's ability.
Sydney-Johannesburg is 11,044 km - and 11 hours 45 mins (with the jet-stream) which is 940 kph...but 11 hours 55mins (against the jetstream) 926 kph.  That's fast - and it may be they are pushing the plane above cruising speed to do that...definitely possible.

...again, we pick flights can do this all night - the answer is the same - the aircraft are flying within their published limits - but not by a massive degree.

Even if Qantas and WorldAtlas are somehow collaborating to fake their distance data - the flight times can't be off by much.

Another data point:

   https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/otp_annual.aspx

This is a summary of the performance of Qantas (and other) airlines that fly from Australia.   It says that 86% of Qantas flights take off on time and 88% of them arrive on time.  Qantas are one of the best airlines in the world for timeliness - so we can largely discount Tom's assertion that they are late 25% of the time...it's 12%.  What this means is that the times they quote are the actual times it take to make the trip at least 88% of the time.   Since they are arrive on time more often than they leave on time - they have the limited ability to catch up a bit if they take off later than they should.

Right - I'm out of time to do more on this "research" today...more will be coming soon.

So - conclusions from this post that (I hope) everyone is OK with:

* Qantas and Worldmap agree pretty well on every distance we can check.  You can keep doing this all day...they always agree quite well.
* Qantas and Worldmap aren't using the same software or the same data - these are clearly independent sources.
* The Qantas aircraft can fly no more than about 14,000km - and at a max speed of 1000kph and a long-range speed of around 933 kph.
* Assuming we believe the speeds and ranges for these aircraft - the distances and travel times given by Qantas and WorldAtlas have got to be very close to the truth.
* The official statistics say that Qantas really do fly these routes at the times they claim.

Next we'll try to use these data sources to confirm or deny the flat earth hypotheses and try to imagine a flat earth map that could work.

FE'ers - if you have disputes with these data items - please let me know here - and I'll find more evidence for you.

[TomInAustin]

OK folks - I'm going to jump through a few steps on the way to a proof - it's going to take many days and lots of posts, so just follow along as we go.

I'll include multiple sources for each claim so we know there is no funny business going on.

STEP 1: To keep things easy - I want to use a service called: http://www.worldatlas.com/travelaids/flight_distance.htm - it provides a simple way to type in the names of two cities and it tells you the flight distance between them.

I do understand that our flat earth brethren are not going to believe what it says without evidence.   So STEP 2 will be to test whether it works or not.

STEP 2: Since FET differs from RET to the greatest extent in the southern hemisphere - it makes sense to use Qantas airline's non-stop flights as a way to compare the distance the Qantas claims they are flying against the worldatlas site.   So - here's where we go:

    https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en

This tells us the distance and flight time in hours and minutes between various destinations.  These are the PUBLISHED travel times.   We may need to use other data later to confirm that the times are right...and because we know that Qantas only flies 747-400 aircraft over these long haul routes - we can compare the known cruising speeds of the aircraft to their estimated travel time to be sure that there are no HUGE errors in their data.   If necessary I can find the specifications of these aircraft - range and speeds.   Also, we'll need to look at the flights both to and from each destination to confirm that the jet stream isn't giving them a massive speed boost in one direction versus the other.

Don't worry - we'll be backing up this data very soon.

But to start with, let's look at some basic flight data:

Qantas say that Sydney to Johannesburg (South Africa) is 11,044 km and takes 11 hours 45 minutes to get there and 11 hours and 55 minutes to get back...so the Jet stream adds 5 minutes one way and subtracts 5 the other way.   Not a big deal.  If you check other routes, the outgoing and return flights times are always within 15 minutes.   Incidentally - this blows away the FE claim that jetstreams account for the 220% increase in speed needed to do Sydney-Santiago in the claimed time on EITHER the FE map shown on the Wiki OR Tom's new map that includes antarctica.  Neither map can be explained away in light of this data.

Worldmap say that this flight is 11,119 km...which is 115 more than Qantas - but we're within about 1% here - so that's pretty close.

Taking some more routes:

Sydney-Dubai is 12,039 according to Qantas and 12,008 km according to Worldmap...better than 1%.
Sydney-Singapore is 6,289 according to Qantas and 6235 km according to Worldmap...again, better than 1%
Sydney-Dallas is 13,816 according to Qantas and 13,756 km according to Worldmap...same deal.

So we can certainly get the idea that:

 a) Qantas and Worldmap seem to agree on these distances to within about 1% - so it's not that one is "great circle" and the other is "fixed compass heading".
 b) They didn't come up with EXACTLY the same numbers - which suggest that they aren't both using the same equations or the same source data.

Clearly we have independent sources here - and they agree quite well.

You can sit there all day and find different Qantas routes (although you need to be sure they are DIRECT flights) - and the Worldmap numbers agree.

We don't have to just use flights into Australia and back.

Anchorage to Honolulu - Qantas says 4,471 km - Worldmap says 4,490 km.
Calgary to Halifax - Qantas says 3,745 km - Worldmap says 3,794km.

Now - what about flight times and airplane ranges?

Qantas fly the Boeing 747-400 exclusively on long distance routes.  Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#747-400 for the exact variant of the aircraft they fly.  The straight 747-400 is by far the most popular of the 747 series.  Further down the Wikipedia article, you can see the Cruise speed of the aircraft is 933 kph and the range is 13,490km...but wait?  That can't be right - the Sydney-Dallas flight is 13,816km.   This is actually a subtle point.  That range if for the PW4000 engines - but if you look further up the page, it says that Qantas once flew non-stop from London to Sydney - which is 18,000 km.   And the reason for that is that it was a "delivery flight" - no passengers, no luggage, no freight.   So how are Qantas flying full loads to Dallas?   Turns out they are using the 747-400ER (Extended range) version.  They bought just six of them and they use them for their Australia/USA routes...and it adds another 800km of additional range to the basic airplane.

Incidentally - at the altitude theses airplanes fly, 933 kph is Mach 0.85 - well below the speed of sound.  At full speed (which guzzles fuel!) they can make 1000kph which is mach 0.92.   That's important...no matter what, a subsonic airplane can't go past mach 1 without some serious problems!

If you doubt the veracity of Wikipedia - note the little blue numbers in square brackets next to most of these facts...those link to other documents that will confirm what they say.

OK - so all is explained - this plane can fly those distances - but there isn't a whole lot of fuel to spare.

Let's look at flight times to confirm what we're seeing:

Sydney-Dubai is 12,039km - and the posted flight time is 13hrs 40mins - giving us a theoretical speed of 880 kph - which is well within the airplane's ability.
Sydney-Johannesburg is 11,044 km - and 11 hours 45 mins (with the jet-stream) which is 940 kph...but 11 hours 55mins (against the jetstream) 926 kph.  That's fast - and it may be they are pushing the plane above cruising speed to do that...definitely possible.

...again, we pick flights can do this all night - the answer is the same - the aircraft are flying within their published limits - but not by a massive degree.

Even if Qantas and WorldAtlas are somehow collaborating to fake their distance data - the flight times can't be off by much.

Another data point:

   https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/otp_annual.aspx

This is a summary of the performance of Qantas (and other) airlines that fly from Australia.   It says that 86% of Qantas flights take off on time and 88% of them arrive on time.  Qantas are one of the best airlines in the world for timeliness - so we can largely discount Tom's assertion that they are late 25% of the time...it's 12%.  What this means is that the times they quote are the actual times it take to make the trip at least 88% of the time.   Since they are arrive on time more often than they leave on time - they have the limited ability to catch up a bit if they take off later than they should.

Right - I'm out of time to do more on this "research" today...more will be coming soon.

So - conclusions from this post that (I hope) everyone is OK with:

* Qantas and Worldmap agree pretty well on every distance we can check.  You can keep doing this all day...they always agree quite well.
* Qantas and Worldmap aren't using the same software or the same data - these are clearly independent sources.
* The Qantas aircraft can fly no more than about 14,000km - and at a max speed of 1000kph and a long-range speed of around 933 kph.
* Assuming we believe the speeds and ranges for these aircraft - the distances and travel times given by Qantas and WorldAtlas have got to be very close to the truth.
* The official statistics say that Qantas really do fly these routes at the times they claim.

Next we'll try to use these data sources to confirm or deny the flat earth hypotheses and try to imagine a flat earth map that could work.

FE'ers - if you have disputes with these data items - please let me know here - and I'll find more evidence for you.

This is a great exercise.  I would recommend using Flight Aware as it tracks flights in as close to real time as you can get without getting telemetry from the actual aircraft.  This is one of the services that use the flight track data that is used by travelers worldwide.  You can look at the flight plans filed by the crew as well. 

I personally use it when ever I fly or meet someone at an airport.



This exercise could actually help build an FE map.

https://flightaware.com/live/

[TomInAustin]

69 views and not a peep of a response.   This topic is the best example of the impracticality of an FE map.  I have not seen a single answer to the flight distance and times question that made any sense.   Surely Tom Bishop has an answer.

[Merkava]

Surely Tom Bishop has an answer.

Tom never has a real answer, and we all know why these FET nutjobs completely avoided this thread.

I'd sure really like to know why none of them decide:  "Hey, I'll go on a sweet vacation and while I'm at it, just time a flight and find out if billions of people are idiots or if it's just the hundred of us FE'ers."  I mean really, if you thought the world was flat, who wouldn't hop on a plane?

[Tom Bishop]

If the earth were a globe (convex) we should expect to see more than 180 degrees when the interior angles are added between any three connecting flight routes which create a triangle.

Lets assume that these values on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en are accurate values from flight logs:

Brisbane   Darwin   2849km   4hr 05min   Qantas
...
Darwin   Perth   2649km   3hr 50min   Qantas
...
Perth   Brisbane   3605km   4hr 10min   Qantas

   

Inputting those figures into an SSS Triangle Theorem Calculator to get the interior angles of the triangle those three sides create:

Angles:
A = 46.6692 °
B = 81.857 °
C = 51.4738 °

Adding up the angles: 46.6692 ° + 81.857 ° + 51.4738 ° = 180 °

Therefore the earth is flat.

-----------

Lets try some international flights for added resolution:

Sydney   London (LHR)   17174km   23hr 20min   Qantas
...
London (LHR)   Dubai   5493km   7hr 40min   Qantas
...
Dubai   Sydney   12039km   13hr 40min   Qantas

Angles:
A = 7.77844 °
B = 17.2553 °
C = 154.966 °

7.77844 ° + 17.2553 ° + 154.966 ° = 179.99974 °

Therefore the earth is slightly concave.

-----------

Another international flight route:

Los Angeles   Sydney   12052km   14hr 30min   Qantas
..
Honolulu   Los Angeles   4114km   5hr 10min   Codeshare
..
Honolulu   Sydney   8154km   10hr 0min   Qantas

Angles:
A = 7.60894 °
B = 15.2149 °
C = 157.176 °

7.60894 ° + 15.2149 ° + 157.176 ° = 179.99984 °

Therefore the earth is slightly concave.

[Curious Squirrel]

Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degree triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degree. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.

[Curious Squirrel]

Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degree triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degree. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.

The amount those two were off is easily explained by rounding errors. Show me a set of three sides that match the criteria I set, that return a total angle less than or greater than 180 degrees by one degree or more using that calculator. If you can I'll admit I'm wrong. But using that calculator and giving only side measurements, I don't believe it's possible. As a reminder the criteria is: a+b>c, where side c is the longest.

[inquisitive]

Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degree triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degree. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.

Example please of 3 lengths that dont make 180deg.  The calculator is based on straight lines, not ones on a sphere.

[WanderingMan]

OK I'll bite, I'm curious and skeptical of your proof Tom. In order to assume the SSS angle theorem, your theory must assume that the planes fly in straight lines to their destination.  Lets look at this.  I want to see for myself if your argument that the earth is flat holds water.  I took your first 2 itineraries and plotted them approximately on the FE world map posted on this site: Brisbane -> Sydney ->Perth -> Sydney and  Sydney -> London -> Dubai -> Sydney.  So these do indeed create triangles as can be expected from 3 points on a plane.  Looking good so far.  Please feel free to correct my airport placements if they are in error.

Based on your previous response it seems that you agree with 3DGeek that WorldAtlas and Qantas publish approximately accurate travel distances and times. Lets take these distances (same distances you used in your SSS angle calculations) and see what they look like on the map.

For the AUS loop: 2849km, 2649km, 3605km respectively. (Red Dots and lines)  Seems plausible based on my rough approximation of city locations on the FE world map.

Next for the INTL loop: 17174km, 5493km, 12039km respectively. (Yellow Dots and lines) Sydney to London (flight 1) and London to Dubai (flight 2) seem to match up relatively well.  Flight 2 appears to be just less than 1/3 the length of flight 1 if we look at the lengths of the yellow lines.  Flight 3 however doesnt match up, it should be just more than 2/3 the length of flight 1, but it's nearly the same length.  OK, that's a little weird but its difficult to approximate line lengths.  Let's not rely on this for this proof.

To summarize so far, plotting airport locations on an FE map when the airports are in close proximity makes sense but it is difficult to approximate exact line lengths and airport locations on a small map.

Let's continue to dig a little deeper.  Tom let's look at your Triangle Theory. Geometry, that's something I can get behind.  I still want to refer to the map that I attached because I feel it is close enough to prove or disprove the SSS Theorem that Tom offers.

AUS loop:
A = 46.6692 °
B = 81.857 °
C = 51.4738 °
So we have 3 acute angles based on this calculation. Let's look at the map. Looks like one obtuse angle is in there.  Hmm, that's strange.  Anyway let's move to the International loop.  Looking at the map I would have to be way off on my city approximations in order for the angles Tom calculated to be correct.

INTL Loop:
A = 7.77844 °
B = 17.2553 °
C = 154.966 °
Two acute and one VERY obtuse angle. I would have to have at least two of those airports on the wrong CONTINENT if these angles were to match up.

So Tom it seems to me this is very shaky "Proof" that the earth is flat.  The response I'm expecting is that the distances are not correct, that airlines do not fly in straight lines, or that airlines do not fly at cruising speeds.  All of these arguments contradict the assumption your worked on to create the proof you presented earlier in this thread. Unless you can provide a reason why you must contradict yourself I cannot accept it.  3DGeek showed us two independent sources proving flight distances as well as calculations based on facts showing that they are plausible. 

Also, I started this response before you responded to Curious Squirrel, but I'd like to field a response to that one as well; the sum of the angles of a triangle will always be 180 degrees, no more, no less. This is in every math text book ever printed, I won't go through the proof on that I'll leave that burden to you.  The reason your calculations do not add up to 180 every time due to rounding error.  +/-.0003 is not significant enough to base this argument off of.

[TomInAustin]

If the earth were a globe (convex) we should expect to see more than 180 degrees when the interior angles are added between any three connecting flight routes which create a triangle.

Lets assume that these values on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en are accurate values from flight logs:

Brisbane   Darwin   2849km   4hr 05min   Qantas
...
Darwin   Perth   2649km   3hr 50min   Qantas
...
Perth   Brisbane   3605km   4hr 10min   Qantas

   

Inputting those figures into an SSS Triangle Theorem Calculator to get the interior angles of the triangle those three sides create:

Angles:
A = 46.6692 °
B = 81.857 °
C = 51.4738 °

Adding up the angles: 46.6692 ° + 81.857 ° + 51.4738 ° = 180 °

Therefore the earth is flat.

-----------

Lets try some international flights for added resolution:

Sydney   London (LHR)   17174km   23hr 20min   Qantas
...
London (LHR)   Dubai   5493km   7hr 40min   Qantas
...
Dubai   Sydney   12039km   13hr 40min   Qantas

Angles:
A = 7.77844 °
B = 17.2553 °
C = 154.966 °

7.77844 ° + 17.2553 ° + 154.966 ° = 179.99974 °

Therefore the earth is slightly concave.

-----------

Another international flight route:

Los Angeles   Sydney   12052km   14hr 30min   Qantas
..
Honolulu   Los Angeles   4114km   5hr 10min   Codeshare
..
Honolulu   Sydney   8154km   10hr 0min   Qantas

Angles:
A = 7.60894 °
B = 15.2149 °
C = 157.176 °

7.60894 ° + 15.2149 ° + 157.176 ° = 179.99984 °

Therefore the earth is slightly concave.

LOL.  Show me a triangle that does not have 180 degrees as the sum of the angles.  Nice try Tom but now let's look at the OP.

[inquisitive]

With a bit more accuracy:

Formula =DEGREES(ACOS((B2^2+B3^2-B1^2)/(2*B2*B3)))

157.17614057
7.60894152
15.21491791

180.00000000

51.47378604
46.66921095
81.85700302

180.00000000

If you leave a bit off the number the total will obviously be less than 180.

[Merkava]

Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degree triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degree. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.

Your the gift that keeps on giving.  You spent the entirety of my first thread hating on calculators.  Now I find you've been off inventing your own new calculators that add the angles of TRIANGLES that don't add to 180°  Wait..... Holy Crap.....  Bro, you have found it........  THE BISHOP CONSTANT.   

[TomInAustin]

Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degrees triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degrees. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.

A triangle on a plane will always equal 180 degrees.  Always.. excluding rounding.  A triangle laid out on a sphere will always be greater than 180.  You, as usual, proved nothing but your blindness and ignorance of the real world.

[inquisitive]

After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.

[Curious Squirrel]

After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.

He appears to have decided to walk away from/ignore at least two other subjects on these forums recently when evidence was presented after he claimed we never give any evidence. Shame, be interested to see what he actually had to say on some of these topics, assuming he didn't simply attempt to direct to other sources, or deflect to a different issue.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.

Oh, you are so mistaken! He’s the crusty Trump of the FE world, revered, never questioned by his minions.
 
You would have thought that after messing up the beach photos in the Bishop experiment, he would have changed his name, but no, he came back with the famous video and the angles of the moon debacle, anyone else would have burnt their computer from embarrassment and gone to live under a rock after the slapping he got there but here he is, Teflon Tom.

[TomInAustin]

After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.

Oh, you are so mistaken! He’s the crusty Trump of the FE world, revered, never questioned by his minions.
 
You would have thought that after messing up the beach photos in the Bishop experiment, he would have changed his name, but no, he came back with the famous video and the angles of the moon debacle, anyone else would have burnt their computer from embarrassment and gone to live under a rock after the slapping he got there but here he is, Teflon Tom.

Oh Lord, I am too new to know about the Bishop experiment.  Do you have a link?

The man is hopeless, I have never seen anyone scurry away from a debate as fast as he does.  But, my prediction was he would ignore this thread all around so I have to give him a tiny bit of credit.

[Curious Squirrel]

After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.

Oh, you are so mistaken! He’s the crusty Trump of the FE world, revered, never questioned by his minions.
 
You would have thought that after messing up the beach photos in the Bishop experiment, he would have changed his name, but no, he came back with the famous video and the angles of the moon debacle, anyone else would have burnt their computer from embarrassment and gone to live under a rock after the slapping he got there but here he is, Teflon Tom.

Oh Lord, I am too new to know about the Bishop experiment.  Do you have a link?

The man is hopeless, I have never seen anyone scurry away from a debate as fast as he does.  But, my prediction was he would ignore this thread all around so I have to give him a tiny bit of credit.

Sure thing, it's on the wiki! The Bishop Experiment. I also suggest checking out Electromagnetic Accelerator where The Bishop Constant is located, although we've never gotten a hold of the "much longer and nastier expression as x approaches infinity" that I'm aware of. As such, no one can really verify the equation, nor help find just what that number might be.

Agreed, credit for at least attempting to address what was presented. Although I wanna know where 3D got off to, as this ends sounding like a part 1 and I'm really curious where he was going with all of this. Is there any way to like, ping him and ask about it?

[TomInAustin]

After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.

Oh, you are so mistaken! He’s the crusty Trump of the FE world, revered, never questioned by his minions.
 
You would have thought that after messing up the beach photos in the Bishop experiment, he would have changed his name, but no, he came back with the famous video and the angles of the moon debacle, anyone else would have burnt their computer from embarrassment and gone to live under a rock after the slapping he got there but here he is, Teflon Tom.

Oh Lord, I am too new to know about the Bishop experiment.  Do you have a link?

The man is hopeless, I have never seen anyone scurry away from a debate as fast as he does.  But, my prediction was he would ignore this thread all around so I have to give him a tiny bit of credit.

Sure thing, it's on the wiki! The Bishop Experiment. I also suggest checking out Electromagnetic Accelerator where The Bishop Constant is located, although we've never gotten a hold of the "much longer and nastier expression as x approaches infinity" that I'm aware of. As such, no one can really verify the equation, nor help find just what that number might be.

Agreed, credit for at least attempting to address what was presented. Although I wanna know where 3D got off to, as this ends sounding like a part 1 and I'm really curious where he was going with all of this. Is there any way to like, ping him and ask about it?

Interesting.  I assume there are no pictures of the Bishop Experiment?   But since he goes there any time he doubts the shape of the earth it should be easy to replicate.

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
—Tom Bishop