We look for directions to get somewhere through the air, sea or by land and using the coordinate system of Latitude/Longitude works very well for getting us to our destination.
You need to verify that the distances are accurate, not that you can travel from coordinate A to coordinate B.
It has worked so reliably that I can do it with a map and compass or a fancy GPS and I will still get to my destination repeatably. When the distances of the lines of Latitude and Longitude are plotted on a physical piece of media, they naturally curve and bend to form a sphere. That sphere is the result of generations of empirical testing repeated with ever increasing degrees of sophistication and yet not once has it been wildly off target.
Please show these "generations of empirical testing"
By comparison, the FE community doesn't have even the most rudimentary map that is capable of being used for navigation over long distance in any southern continent.
Incorrect.
The FE model can't explain flights in half of the known world without resorting to an explanation of magic to explain why the FE flights break the rules of physics. I thought that the Zetetic Method was all about observable testable hypothesis, but I've yet to see anyone from the FE community even remotely consider testing their hypothesis against a null. Unless the FE model is capable of physically measuring and plotting out the distances of the southern hemisphere accurately
What are you talking about? The monopole model was phased out after the discovery of the South Pole.
So far there is no solid empirical evidence that the earth is flat so I must revert to the null. That is the scientific method.
Atually the Scientific Method involves experimentation to confirm your hypothesis. You have provided none of your own, and none of others.
That will answer all points raised.
Point #1 & 2: Travel between coordinates using a globed earth mapping system has repeatedly worked for all of human travel since the invention of aircraft at the very least. Despite your insistence that the distances are not accurate, autopilot aircraft have successfully used those distances and vectors to arrive at their destination hundreds of times per day. Autonomous vehicles use a combination of GPS and Radar to navigate obstacle courses successfully without human interference so the coordinate system must be accurate enough. Repeat testing for several generations of human travel between 2 points by land sea and air constitute empirical evidence. If the coordinate systems of Lat/Long were dramatically wrong, planes, cars and boats would routinely end up way off course. They don't. Had they been wildly inaccurate in the southern hemiplane, a new system would by necessity have to be developed and tested. The globed earth coordinate system accurately delivers passengers to their destinations every day. The FE model doesn't.
Point #3: If such a map exists with a map legend including a distance scale, please point me to it so that I may attempt a long distance trip in the southern hemiplane using it and a metered wheel on the surface of the flat earth to test its accuracy. I would think that crossing a single southern hemiplane continent in multiple intersecting directions should be sufficient to assess accuracy. Again a margin of error of under 5% would be expected if the FE map is accurate.
Point #4: Using the bi-polar model, flights between the southern hemiplane continents are calculated to take longer lengths of time than there is physical fuel to achieve. The explanation that has been provided thus far is that somehow the effects of Aetheric Wind has made all southern hemiplane flights travel faster than Mach 2 without the accompanying sonic boom associated with breaking the sound barrier. However, the mechanism of measuring Aether has yet to be provided.
Point #5: You are mistaken about the scientific method of conducting research. When you test a hypothesis to prove yourself correct, you introduce confirmation bias. With confirmation bias, you alter data sets, ignore specific data points and draw erroneous conclusions to support your expected outcome. When the scientific method of testing is properly applied in a research setting, you collect all data with the intent to prove yourself wrong and only upon failing to do so, do you declare your hypothesis supported. Never proven, just supported. In science, only laws of above contestation because laws can be fundamentally expressed through nothing more than mathematics.
The FE community has stated the hypothesis that the FE exists, searched for data to prove itself correct and as a result has introduced confirmation bias. When data is supplied that casts doubt on your hypothesis, the confirmation bias is magnified by the unilateral dismissal of the data. This is how confirmation bias leads to erroneous conclusions based on cherrypicked data. Had you instead attempted to find data to challenge the validity of the hypothesis first, we might not be having this conversation.
By the way, has anyone from the FE community on this forum ever conducted peer reviewed published research before? Just curious about how technical I should be getting.
Thank You,
CriticalThinker