[Tom Bishop]

In fact I wrote earlier:

The advantage of flight times is that many people travel by air, ordinary people who don’t necessarily work for government agencies. Time is not the same as distance, but the FE theory would then require that airlines fly slower or faster in order to conform to the FE model. But (a) what incentive would commercial airlines have and (b) it’s actually very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the required aircraft speed for each route. I.e. if the earth were flat, air traffic controllers or pilots would have to work out precisely what speeds to fly in order to make it seem that the earth was round. Why would they bother? Why would any commercial company do that? How would it even be possible?

This addresses the speed/time objection. If the distances implied by the time are inaccurate because of changes in speed, why are they consistently inaccurate, i.e. consistent with RE but not FE. The only explanation would be a concerted – and very difficult – effort by commercial organisations to dupe the public.

What flight times? Where are the flight logs you are using? You have posted no such comprehensive analysis.

What makes you think that airplanes fly the shortest path to their destination without regards to laws or airspace? What makes you think that usage of jetstreams is not standard practice?

This sounds like a big project to put together. Get to it.

[Tom Bishop]

In fact here is an excellent site https://creation.com/a-direct-test-of-the-flat-earth-model-flight-times which compares flight times with the conventionally calculated distances. Note the argument that commercial airlines would not waste fuel.

PS I notice that the site ‘obtained a map from the Flat Earth Society website’. My argument bypasses that need. If we agree that the flight times are roughly consistent with the ‘great circle’ distance of spherical-earth theory, the challenge is to represent those distances on a flat piece of paper.

From that link:

"Flight times and (great circle) distances were obtained from various online databases and calculators."

Discredited.

[Tumeni]

What makes you think that the Flat Earth is laid out in the manner of a Northern Azimuthal projection?

What studies have you performed on the earth to show that the map, which we put out for mere visualization purposes only, and which was provided alongside other possibilities, is the real map of the earth?

Until you can show why this map you are trying to disprove has any merit at all I do not see what there is to answer for.

Where's your real map? Where's your map which actually has some merit?

[Tontogary]

Figures were posted that supposedly proves us wrong. You are expected to show how that figure was generated.

The question "how were those figures generated?" is basic information that you should be expected to know.

What reasoning is there for anyone to accept those numbers as a certain truth if you cannot explain or show where they come from?

You don't appear to read posts very carefully. I started with the assumption that the distances were correct, and I showed that they couldn't be represented on a flat piece of paper. I said that if FE agree with it couldn't we could move to those assumptions.

Obviously we will not be agreeing with the assumption that the distances are correct. Your figures come from a website that uses Google Maps. Distances in Google Maps are based on spherical coordinates and spherical geometry.

Tom, I have posted in at least 3 other threads the information on how we on board a ship verify distances, verified using equipment that is calibrated to the earth, so if the earth is flat, or global, then the final distance is flat or global, and therefore it is independent of GE reality.

You were active on those other threads, yet did not answer or acknowledge what i was saying.

On the thread regarding use of flight data you conceded that Doppler radar might be an accurate measurement of speed. Well we use it for measuring/calibrating our ships log, which then records distance. Therefore we are pretty sure we are actually measuring distance. As you agreed that this method would be acceptable, then you must also agree that our measurement should be acceptable.

We do have a record of distances steamed, against distance calculated.

I can measure to an accuracy of about 1.5% the distance between 2 ports in the world.
There are tables published on those distances, and routes taken, and by actually steaming those routes, we verify the distances which are calculated, but then measured, and verified.

Surely using equipment that does not rely upon a GE would be acceptable to you?

Instead of using flight times, it is easy enough to calcualte distances between ports instead and use them. Then look at those distances instead, ie between ports rather than airports.

Ships have been doing this for hundreds of years, and i am pretty certain that we would notice if we were way wrong, we would run out of fuel, food, water, and we would die. We dont.

[Tom Bishop]

Figures were posted that supposedly proves us wrong. You are expected to show how that figure was generated.

The question "how were those figures generated?" is basic information that you should be expected to know.

What reasoning is there for anyone to accept those numbers as a certain truth if you cannot explain or show where they come from?

You don't appear to read posts very carefully. I started with the assumption that the distances were correct, and I showed that they couldn't be represented on a flat piece of paper. I said that if FE agree with it couldn't we could move to those assumptions.

Obviously we will not be agreeing with the assumption that the distances are correct. Your figures come from a website that uses Google Maps. Distances in Google Maps are based on spherical coordinates and spherical geometry.

Tom, I have posted in at least 3 other threads the information on how we on board a ship verify distances, verified using equipment that is calibrated to the earth, so if the earth is flat, or global, then the final distance is flat or global, and therefore it is independent of GE reality.

You were active on those other threads, yet did not answer or acknowledge what i was saying.

On the thread regarding use of flight data you conceded that Doppler radar might be an accurate measurement of speed. Well we use it for measuring/calibrating our ships log, which then records distance. Therefore we are pretty sure we are actually measuring distance. As you agreed that this method would be acceptable, then you must also agree that our measurement should be acceptable.

We do have a record of distances steamed, against distance calculated.

I can measure to an accuracy of about 1.5% the distance between 2 ports in the world.
There are tables published on those distances, and routes taken, and by actually steaming those routes, we verify the distances which are calculated, but then measured, and verified.

Surely using equipment that does not rely upon a GE would be acceptable to you?

Instead of using flight times, it is easy enough to calcualte distances between ports instead and use them. Then look at those distances instead, ie between ports rather than airports.

Ships have been doing this for hundreds of years, and i am pretty certain that we would notice if we were way wrong, we would run out of fuel, food, water, and we would die. We dont.

Doppler radar was not used for these distances in question.

[Tontogary]

Nice try Tom, but since when has Doppler radar ever been used for directly determining distance?

You agreed to assume that Doppler was an acceptable method of measuring speed.

I suggest you actually read what i wrote, and what you read.

As you dont seem to have any other objections, other than the above false statement, then you will halve no problem with he rest of the post?

[Tontogary]

What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate.

Again, we agreed radar is accurate and was before GPS even came about.  Let's all just pretend GPS is invalid and go with radar speeds.  That way we can get the discussion back on track.  Deal?

I don't mind assuming that Radar is accurate.

Here is your quote tom

[juner]

Here is your quote tom

Did you have anything to add beyond quoting a block of text? If not, don't bother replying. Warned.

[Tontogary]

Here is your quote tom

Did you have anything to add beyond quoting a block of text? If not, don't bother replying. Warned.

The quote was relevant to my previous post, so i believe it was warranted.

What i maybe should have said was

Here is your quote tom, where you agreed to accept that radar was an acceptable m,ethos of determining speed, and therefore would be acceptable as a method of validating our equipment, and is relevant to the thread.

The method we use for verifying our equipment is based on Doppler radar, and it therefore of a value to this discussion.

[edby]

Here is your quote tom

Did you have anything to add beyond quoting a block of text? If not, don't bother replying. Warned.

The quote was relevant to my previous post, so i believe it was warranted.

What i maybe should have said was

Here is your quote tom, where you agreed to accept that radar was an acceptable m,ethos of determining speed, and therefore would be acceptable as a method of validating our equipment, and is relevant to the thread.

The method we use for verifying our equipment is based on Doppler radar, and it therefore of a value to this discussion.

This was obvious, I don't know why you were warned.

[edby]

This sounds like a big project to put together. Get to it.

Where does the burden of proof lie?

In any case, you ignored the information in this chart. See also https://creation.com/a-direct-test-of-the-flat-earth-model-flight-times



This uses a standard scientific methodology of taking two different and independent data sets that purport to measure the same thing, and compares them. In this case, (1) reported flight times, and (2) reported great circle distances.

If, as you suggest, there is a significant error in aircraft speed, caused by delays or change in route etc, this would show up in the correlation. The onus of proof is now on you to explain this in a way that is consistent with FE.

[AATW]

This was obvious, I don't know why you were warned.

Agreed. Junker, that was ridiculous.
The quote was completely relevant to the discussion and backed up Tonto's claim that Tom accepted the accuracy of Doppler radar.
And he didn't just quote it, he also explained why it was relevant.

"Flight times and (great circle) distances were obtained from various online databases and calculators."
Discredited.

And here Tom is once again refusing to believe things which show him to be wrong. Lazy.
The point is, you dispute those online calculators, but the results show them to be accurate.
I've flown a lot over the last few years with work. If you're on a long haul flight you can see the "time to destination", it shows you where you are, what is nearby, how fast you're going, how long it is to your destination. Are you suggesting that all this is inaccurate? That they don't really know how fast they're going? How close they are to arriving? How, then, do they keep on arriving on time? And yes, yes, I know flights can be delayed sometimes. But once they're in the air in my experience they mostly get you there in the time they say they're going to.

Just claiming the airline industry don't know how fast they're going or where they are or how far they're travelling because the distances prove you wrong make you look like an idiot.

[edby]

And here Tom is once again refusing to believe things which show him to be wrong.
 

I have only been here 24 hours, but I looked at some older threads and I admit there does appear to be a pattern. Now this relates to the question of irrationality, which I raised in a separate thread. Is ignoring contrary evidence itself evidence of irrationality? Irrationality is maintaining contrary patterns of belief. So ignoring evidence does not necessarily entail irrationality. If you haven’t seen the evidence, you haven’t acquired a contrary belief.

OTOH, why is the person ignoring the evidence? If they felt it was easily refuted, they would refute it immediately. The fact that they don’t, suggests that they consciously or unconsciously accept the evidence.  There is the famous story (possibly apocryphal) of the man who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, for fear that it might confirm a theory he did not want to believe.

I shall persist a bit longer. My goal is to understand why FEers maintain their belief system, in the face of what appears to be massive contrary evidence. Note I haven’t considered any evidence that requires complex scientific instrumentation, or accepting the statements of the scientific establishment. Just people looking at their watches at airports, plotting reported flight times on flat paper, etc.

[Tom Bishop]

The distances used in the OP don't come from doppler radar measurements. What does that topic have to do with this discussion?

[AATW]

And here Tom is once again refusing to believe things which show him to be wrong.
 

I have only been here 24 hours, but I looked at some older threads and I admit there does appear to be a pattern. Now this relates to the question of irrationality, which I raised in a separate thread. Is ignoring contrary evidence itself evidence of irrationality? Irrationality is maintaining contrary patterns of belief. So ignoring evidence does not necessarily entail irrationality. If you haven’t seen the evidence, you haven’t acquired a contrary belief.

OTOH, why is the person ignoring the evidence? If they felt it was easily refuted, they would refute it immediately. The fact that they don’t, suggests that they consciously or unconsciously accept the evidence.  There is the famous story (possibly apocryphal) of the man who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, for fear that it might confirm a theory he did not want to believe.

I shall persist a bit longer. My goal is to understand why FEers maintain their belief system, in the face of what appears to be massive contrary evidence. Note I haven’t considered any evidence that requires complex scientific instrumentation, or accepting the statements of the scientific establishment. Just people looking at their watches at airports, plotting reported flight times on flat paper, etc.

What makes it irrational is the selective way evidence is ignored.
Tom has said a few times recently "if the evidence of a round earth is so strong, why can't you provide any irrefutable proof?"
And the answer is if someone is willing to stretch credulity to breaking point you can refute any evidence.
I said in another thread that there's a reason why in a UK court a case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it is impossible to prove anything absolutely outside of the limited language of mathematics.
So a ridiculous conversation which I imagined in another thread could go:


"I don't believe kangaroos exist"
"What? But every biologist recognises that kangaroos exist."
"That is just argument from authority, that doesn't prove anything."
"But...ok, I've seen a kangaroo!"
"Liar! You're part of the great kangaroo conspiracy. Or maybe you just think you have"
"What?! Ok, look. Here's a photo I took of a kangaroo."
"Looks fake to me, your Photoshop skills are quite impressive though."
"Fine...here's some film of one then from a nature documentary."
"Yeah, made by people who want to perpetuate the great kangaroo myth. Have you heard of CGI?"
"Right! Look. We're at a zoo, there's a kangaroo..."
"...Looks animatronic to me..."


Point being, if someone is determined enough to dispute or dismiss or call fake anything which shows them to be wrong about something then they'll never accept anything as definitive proof.
And that's what Tom does. It's what you have to do if you want to cling on to flat earth belief.
The story about Galileo is interesting, on the Wiki page about Rowbotham there is a similar story:

When finally pinned down to a challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to a test, [Rowbotham] appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard A. Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and proceeded to the beach where a telescope had been set up. His opponents had claimed that only the lantern of the Eddystone Lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be visible. In fact, only half the lantern was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed his opponents were wrong and that it proved the Earth was indeed flat

It's hard to reason with people like that. I do it because I don't think this nonsense should be left unchallenged.

Someone said to me that this is different from other conspiracy theories. You can believe that the moon landings were faked but in doing so you don't have to deny the very nature of reality itself as you have to if you're going to believe in a flat earth.

[edby]

The distances used in the OP don't come from doppler radar measurements. What does that topic have to do with this discussion?

Agree, but you need to address the correlation objection. See the chart above. Science confirms its results by comparing evidence from different sources.

[Tom Bishop]

And here Tom is once again refusing to believe things which show him to be wrong.
 

I have only been here 24 hours, but I looked at some older threads and I admit there does appear to be a pattern. Now this relates to the question of irrationality, which I raised in a separate thread. Is ignoring contrary evidence itself evidence of irrationality? Irrationality is maintaining contrary patterns of belief. So ignoring evidence does not necessarily entail irrationality. If you haven’t seen the evidence, you haven’t acquired a contrary belief.

OTOH, why is the person ignoring the evidence? If they felt it was easily refuted, they would refute it immediately. The fact that they don’t, suggests that they consciously or unconsciously accept the evidence.  There is the famous story (possibly apocryphal) of the man who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, for fear that it might confirm a theory he did not want to believe.

I shall persist a bit longer. My goal is to understand why FEers maintain their belief system, in the face of what appears to be massive contrary evidence. Note I haven’t considered any evidence that requires complex scientific instrumentation, or accepting the statements of the scientific establishment. Just people looking at their watches at airports, plotting reported flight times on flat paper, etc.

What makes it irrational is the selective way evidence is ignored.
Tom has said a few times recently "if the evidence of a round earth is so strong, why can't you provide any irrefutable proof?"
And the answer is if someone is willing to stretch credulity to breaking point you can refute any evidence.
I said in another thread that there's a reason why in a UK court a case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it is impossible to prove anything absolutely outside of the limited language of mathematics.
So a ridiculous conversation which I imagined in another thread could go:


"I don't believe kangaroos exist"
"What? But every biologist recognises that kangaroos exist."
"That is just argument from authority, that doesn't prove anything."
"But...ok, I've seen a kangaroo!"
"Liar! You're part of the great kangaroo conspiracy. Or maybe you just think you have"
"What?! Ok, look. Here's a photo I took of a kangaroo."
"Looks fake to me, your Photoshop skills are quite impressive though."
"Fine...here's some film of one then from a nature documentary."
"Yeah, made by people who want to perpetuate the great kangaroo myth. Have you heard of CGI?"
"Right! Look. We're at a zoo, there's a kangaroo..."
"...Looks animatronic to me..."


Point being, if someone is determined enough to dispute or dismiss or call fake anything which shows them to be wrong about something then they'll never accept anything as definitive proof.
And that's what Tom does. It's what you have to do if you want to cling on to flat earth belief.
The story about Galileo is interesting, on the Wiki page about Rowbotham there is a similar story:

When finally pinned down to a challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to a test, [Rowbotham] appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard A. Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and proceeded to the beach where a telescope had been set up. His opponents had claimed that only the lantern of the Eddystone Lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be visible. In fact, only half the lantern was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed his opponents were wrong and that it proved the Earth was indeed flat

It's hard to reason with people like that. I do it because I don't think this nonsense should be left unchallenged.

Someone said to me that this is different from other conspiracy theories. You can believe that the moon landings were faked but in doing so you don't have to deny the very nature of reality itself as you have to if you're going to believe in a flat earth.

Most of these discussions do not end with us crying "fake". It is possible to create a reasoned argument that is difficult to dispute. You just are not smart enough.

[AATW]

Most of these discussions do not end with us crying "fake". It is possible to create a reasoned argument that is difficult to dispute. You just are not smart enough.

You don't have to be smart to dispute evidence as I've shown above. You just have to be determined to cling to your beliefs.
Your last sentence adds weight to my theory that you are just a troll and don't believe any of this.

But if you are serious then it's weird how you think of yourself as smart when you spent two days not being able to understand a simple experiment with a laser and a boat - talking to me in a condescending way and saying it was me who didn't understand it...before you finally realised I was right.
And then what did you do...?
Yep, called it fake.

Your starting point was "the earth is flat so the experiment must be flawed".
You posted a video which had a bunch of spurious objections to it.
I explained patiently why all those objections were spurious.
And when you finally understood the experiment and realised your objections were wrong...you just declared it fake and ran away.

But yeah, you're definitely the smart one in this conversation...

[edby]

.. It is possible to create a reasoned argument that is difficult to dispute..

I  have given a closely reasoned argument, as follows:

1. I showed how reported flight distances could not be made consistent with a flat projection. You objected that the existing projection might not be the right one, but I replied that my argument applied to any flat projection. You seem to have accepted this, but moved on, objecting that the reported flight times were incorrect.

2. To the objection that reported flight times might not reflect true distance, I provided an X-Y graph showing the strong correlation between one method of measurement (GCD) and another (reported flight times).

You need to reply to this reasoning.

[Tontogary]

The distances used in the OP don't come from doppler radar measurements. What does that topic have to do with this discussion?

If you bothered to read my post, you would see the relevance,

but once again just for you tom;

 We use Doppler to calibrate/verify our distance log
We use the log to verify/compare distance steamed against calculated distance
The accuracy is within 1.5% which is within accepted margins or error.
The beauty of this method is that the distance log is calibrated to the earth. If the earth is flat, then it is calibrated on a flat earth, and if it is global, it is calibrated on a global earth. The resulting distances are whatever the distance is ie. on a flat earth or a globe earth.
This removes your objections about distances being calculated on the presumption of any particular earth shape.

We can show that the distances we calculate and that are tabulated between PORTS is accursate to within 1.5%

Taker those distances and use them to try to make a model of the shape of the earth. You will get a shape, and i suspect i know what the shape will be.

Try it Tom, you might be enlightened, but strongly suspect you will not.