Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jomples

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 19, 2022, 10:38:19 PM »

I am also not sure that there are that many flights between South America and Africa. I did find people discussing the route in 2018 and suggesting that flights don't exist.

If you do put in some flight routes between countries into a flight tool, you get some pretty odd results:

It's worth noting that even the Fortaleza to Portugal route still makes zero sense on a map with the split in the Atlantic.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 19, 2022, 09:04:08 PM »
If you've got to be spoon fed, you could start by opening the open-source (Jomples gave you a link if you have problems with the internet) and search the vessel Hyundai Jakarta.  A data window will open, giving its alleged voyage details.  Then do some maths.

So you just assumed a bunch of things and claimed it to be fact, and don't actually have data for us. I see.

Read what I wrote,, and dispute the facts.

What facts? You provided no sources or links for which we can get log information from.

All of the log data is available if you have an account.

Hundai Jakarta

So a path across three degrees proves this? Where are the full logs?

I believe you have to pay to access the full datasets. I'm working on figuring out how to get logs.

[Edit: You do need to pay- but you can get a 7 day free trial, after which it's 1300 dollars a year. So probably cancel before then. If you sign up at all.]

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 19, 2022, 08:50:14 PM »
Read what I wrote,, and dispute the facts.

What facts? You provided no sources or links for which we can get log information from.

Tom- go into the mapping tool provided and click on one of the ships. If you hover your cursor over one near the coast and it has a name, it's within range of Coastal AIS and you can see some details about it. If it's out of range, then satellite tracking is used, and you have to pay for that. That's what Duncan's telling you to do.

Again, the reason I included MarineTraffic was to show the density of ships that are currently in the Atlantic. It's a live map, so either someone's faking ship location data, commercial vessels are taking some pretty wacky routes, or (my personal favorite) there's no giant split in the Atlantic.

You wanted to see ship routes, so I included, which has a timelapse of 2012 shipping routes. I'm still working on finding a repositorie of manifests.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 19, 2022, 07:06:23 PM »
I understand the source of confusion now. What I said in my post was:
The Atlantic has been regularly traversed by ships since the late 15th to early 16th century, and trade routes are well documented.
I never said that ships regularly traveled from Africa to Sourh America. That was you. However, the doldrums are a fairly thin area, and although that region was dangerous, other regions weren't.

Sorry for not saying what the source I linked was, I was relying on context. This: is, an opensource shiptracking site. It shows the realtime location of thousands of maritime vessels. I merely wanted to show you that shipping occurs throughout the Atlantic. It's actually pretty cool, you can find all sorts of things through the clusters of ships, like trade routes or what I assume to be military convoys: Take a look.

As far as actual trade routes- this map shows individual ships as well, but moving a bit quicker.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 19, 2022, 05:50:32 PM »
The doldrums have an infamous reputation primarily for becalming ships- if you look at a map of trade winds, you can see that areas where trade winds intersect have little or no winds. You even included that in your quote "that infamous belt of calms"

If you look just a little bit further than skin deep, you can see why the doldrums are dangerous- with sailing ships as the primary method of transportation, entering an area with very little wind was deadly. For example, if you check the NOAA website:

Now that ships with engines are primarily used, the doldrums have become much less of a threat and are just as frequently traveled as the many other routes between Africa and South America:

As for that GPS measurement- again, the answer to this is referenced in the blog post. The ship is traveling through the water at 7 knots- but with a back current. It's like a headwind in a plane, which is why their speed relative to the earth (on the GPS) is only 2 knots. The post explains this-
If you are only doing 5 knots through the water and are tacking along, zig-zagging your way down the coast, then a 2 knot current is a considerable hindrance; but it is not the end of the world.  However, as we drew closer to the coast it became clear that the current was actually flowing at far more than the rate advertised.

As for my shipping references from the 15th and 16th century- I was merely referring to the amount of time humans have been crossing the Atlantic regularly- since Christopher Columbus. I'm aware Vikings and Portuguese fishermen crossed it first. Since then, shipping activities have greatly intensified.

ICR... This is a debate forum. You can't just say that someone's wrong, or 99.9% of information is against them without backing it up. You have to actually make and support points. You don't have high ground to demand information. Coming from a fellow round earther, please take some time to find some specific evidence.

Flat Earth Theory / The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 19, 2022, 04:59:19 PM »
In my experience with the Flat Earth Models, I've most frequently come across 3 models- Monopole North-Centered seems to be the most common, and then Monopole South-Centered and Bipolar crop up sometimes. This trifold nature presents a certain difficulty- many Round Earth arguments only address Monopole North-Centered. As such, argument for each model is used interchangeably. I think it would be valuable to address each of these one at a time.

I'm starting with Bipolar because it presents the most immediate problem. The wiki itself says "The continental layout is unknown and has yet to be fully researched due to ambiguities of jet streams, flight routing, and non-direct flights". Any single attempt at finding a hole in one continental layout can be addressed with another layout. So lets knock them out all at once.

All arguments will reference "splits". These are simply divisions in the bipolar model which are not present in the globe model. I'm coming at this from a Globe point of view because that's the predominant model, and thus the frame of reference the average person would expect.  For example, in this model,

there is a "split" in the Pacific.

The first layout which can be discarded is any layout which splits populated landmasses. I don't expect this to be a point of contention- if there was a split through North America, people would notice. Even if there was a split through Siberia, people would notice, because of the Trans-Siberian Railroad.

The second layout which can be discarded is any split through the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic has been regularly traversed by ships since the late 15th to early 16th century, and trade routes are well documented. It also is the shortest route between North America and Europe, and is regularly traversed by planes and ships. This discards maps such as this:

The third layout is the predominant one for bipolar models. This places the split somewhere in the Pacific ocean, and is most common likely due to the size of the Pacific Ocean. Because of the this, civilians do not traverse the Pacific ocean as often as they do the Atlantic. These images have the split in the Pacific ocean:

However, there are a multitude of problems with this configuration of the bipolar model.

First of all, there is yours truly. I have flown from Brisbane, Australia, to Dallas, Texas, probably 8 to 10 times. The flight took approximately 17 hours. After a while, Qantas stopped running the Brisbane to Dallas route, and since then I've taken the Brisbane to Los Angeles route. This is an extremely long flight in either of these, passing over either Asia, or Africa. I'm one of many who have flown from Australia to America.

Additonally, many other flights exist which cross the Pacific. These include Auckland to Santiago, Manila to Los Angeles, and Tokyo to Mexico City, to name but a few. allows anybody to see almost every flight route in existence, just by clicking on a departure airport. I'm aware of the Issues in Flight Analysis article- but that deals mainly with using flight time to analyze distance, not with the existence of a flight route that would pass off the edge of the earth in a certain model.

Finally there's the existence of shipping lanes. Living in America, many goods will come from China, and they are brought on cargo ships. The Pacific might see fewer civilian crossings than the Atlantic, but it sees a great deal of commercial traffic. shows the amount of traffic crossing the Pacific at every latitude.

This discards splits in the Pacific. So what's left? Where could the split possibly be drawn other than the Pacific, Atlantic, or somewhere it bisects populated land?

Looking forwards to debating this.

Alright, let's get into this.

I chose this article specifically because it concerns one specific mechanism or theory, it's just a bit narrower in scope than some other things.

My first point of contention is with the curved shadow section. It contains two gifs, one showing a model of the moon with a flat object casting a shadow

 and the other showing an image of what the moon actually looks like.

There seems to be a notable difference here. Yes, the shadow on the model is curved, but it curves with the surface of the moon. From the point of an observer looking up at the moon while a straight shadow is cast upon it, the shadow is notably different from the one actually observed. This is what the gifs illustrate.  I just find it odd that evidence counter to the model being proposed is actually in the article. It says "Compare the warping of the shadow in the above example to the shadow on the real Moon during a Lunar Eclipse:", and there's a noticeable difference in the nature of the shadow.

The second main part of this also has some issues- it explains how the shadow on the moon seems to rotate during an eclipse, by about 120 degrees, and then shows this image:

without really saying why. It seems to be completely removed from any modelling, and could benefit from clarification. Again, the article explains a phenomenon without giving any explanation as to why it happens in the flat earth model. I could guess the author's intention- by creating a model which shows the moon moving out of the ecliptic, it shows a possible reason for why the shadow changes angles. I have another reason.

One of the sources shown is a timelapse of the total lunar eclipse which occured October 27, 2004:

I chose this one because it has a lot of data points and we know precisely where it was taken. I entered it into a round earth eclipse calculator

In the image, the moon starts partially shaded, having come up from behind a hill. The shadow moves up from the lower left of the moon (in the timelapse, until it covers the entire body. The moon becomes red, and there is a light section which moves from the right of the moon, across the top, and over to the left. Finally, the shadow uncovers the moon, moving off to the left. Using the calculator, you can see that the path the shadow takes is also easily explained by the Round Earth Model.

This doesn't debunk the wiki article, though, so I'll now examine the same mechanism in a flat earth model. This is what sinks this explanation.

I took this image from the wiki

 and exported it into a free graphing program.
I then extrapolated the circles to their full size. I haven't figured out how to embed images I upload, but I've attached them here.

There's a problem here. Rather obviously, the edge of daylight curve dwarfs the moon's path. For the model to look like this, the arc of the moon would have to be significantly off center from the earth, or the daylight curve would. So this diagram can't work

I'll be responding to posts as usual. Let's focus on this one article, though.

Recently I saw Tom talking about how Round Earthers haven't disproved a single wiki article yet. So, I thought I'd give it a try. The focus of this thread is Please stay focused on this. Thanks.

The actual flight paths are vastly different than what you drew with your graphic.
Funny thing, that, he drew them that way to be straight on a flat Earth. Just saying.

Ahh very good that you understand that.

Just wanted to reply- I was off yesterday on a trip to the zoo. The fact you drew them this way reflects a problem which a lot of Flat Earthers and Round Earthers have. This is confirmation bias. The fact is, the flights don't take the routes that would make more sense on a flat earth. Like stack said, their routes make more sense on a round earth. The overall routes for these flights do make a fair bit of sense in a flat world because they seem to take a fairly direct route, and I'll concede that. But in a round world they also make sense, because of the economics of the airline business.

You have achoice when you encounter information that doesn't conform with your world view. You can discard, ignore, or reshape it until your worldview is untouched. That's not a sound method. Or, you can examine it to find out why it works that way. Everything is more than skin deep.

[Edit: I had a section here addressing an argument I misremembered as being part of this thread. I've reposted in the correct channel]

The actual flight paths are vastly different than what you drew with your graphic.
Funny thing, that, he drew them that way to be straight on a flat Earth. Just saying.

I picked the two furthest flight routes on a Flat Earth map. But on a Globe Earth map they are quite short (12,000km and 12,500km). The fact that there are no direct flights is part of my point.

Makes sense, thank you for clarifying your argument. Let it be known that we've explained the reasoning behind the lack of direct flights between these places- it's the same reason there won't always be a direct train line connecting two nearby stops. Doesn't make sense to run the tracks if nobody's going to use it. This is doubly true for planes, because they cost a lot more per flight than a train does. Airlines operate flights on fairly thin profit margins, if seats aren't getting filled, the route will be canceled.

I then proved that even the shortest flights available travel the longest way possible on a Round Earth map and quite efficiently on a Flat Earth map.
I believe you're aware that these are multistage flights. stack's just shown that your routes aren't quite optimized, but you haven't responded to that as far as I'm aware. Additionally, I did find a shorter route for Auckland to Cape Town that corresponds quite nicely to the Globe Earth, but I'm not sure you saw that. And again, there's a reason that route is circuitous, and it's not because it costs the airlines more.

The target has never moved. I asked you to find me a flight I can book.
We've told you- I've told you- a perfectly suitable explanation for why a direct flight doesn't exist- you dismissed it. Please address it. You are not the moderator of this debate, you're a participant. You've been told why airlines don't fly those routes, and crucially you've been shown routes similar to the ones you proposed which do exist and can be booked- and you dismissed them.

If you can't understand what I have done then that's evidence that your faith in a round earth is grounded in nothing other than blind belief as you are unable to even conceptualise in your mind basic contrasts between how flight routes on a Flat Earth vs Round Earth should behave.
A touch of disjointed reasoning. You've explained your argument a bit better now, and thanks for that. But please refrain from blind attacks. Or whatever. I'm not a mod, it's not my place to police your behavior.

You talk of blind belief, but then you repeat a single talking point regardless of what others bring up. Yes, these flights take odd routes, because they're odd flights to take. Book a private jet if you want to fly directly from Perth to Buenos Aires, because practically nobody else will. Those few travelers from Perth who do go will hop on a plane to DOH Hamad International, with hundreds of other travelers who are going to Cairo, and Athens. Then they'll fly to to Sao Paolo with hundreds of other passengers who are going to Sao Paolo or Bogota, and came from Bali, and Sydney. And then they'll take a little bunny hop to their final destination. Routes don't exist to get you where you want to go ASAP, they exist to fill seats. That's how they should behave, in any world.

New question.. Why are there never any planes in the Southern Hemisphere on flight radar?

"Flightradar24 relies on volunteers around the world for the majority of our coverage." (,com%20and%20in%20Flightradar24%20apps.)

"You can help us increase the flight tracking coverage in your area. You can build your own receiver, or even apply to host a receiver that Flightradar24 provides for free." (

There's less land mass in the Southern Hemisphere, so fewer places where people can host receivers.

I will mention, transponder data for flights is fairly publicly available. There are just fewer direct flights in the Southern hemisphere- less landmass and people.

You've yet to address any of my responses, by the way- especially the route that I planned that, I don't know, does actually take you much more directly. Airplanes aren't like cars- a flight will only be scheduled where it makes sense. An airline will always plan the routes which make it the most money, and that doesn't include a direct long-haul flight between two non-hub airports. I understand that these routes look a bit wacky, but that makes sense when you take into account the actual logistics of airline operation.

But there are plenty of other direct routes in the southern hemisphere. Here are the largest ones I found, using

Sydney to Johannesberg- currently in operation
Sydney to Santiago- last flown in 2020
Auckland to Santiago- currently in operation
Perth to Mauritius- last flown in 2020

Notice anything? Half of these flights stopped due to Covid. The entire airline industry, in fact, has been shifting, because airlines figured out that operating super long flights that weren't between hubs made no since. Like AATW said, 90% of people live in the northern hemisphere. Additionally, only 33% of the world's land is in the southern hemisphere, and a third of that is Antarctica. It makes more sense to route people through routes that are traveled more often, barring a few cases.

Even shorter flights are still wildly different.
Melbourne to Perth is a 4 hour flight, and on a globe Earth model it's a 1,677 mile flight. Including a half hour of taxi and hold time, and you get 1,677 miles in 3 hours and 30 minutes, which works out to about 480 mph, or a perfectly reasonable airline cruising speed.

On a flat earth it's 4,300 miles. 4,300 miles in 3 hours and 30 minutes works out to 1,228 mph, or mach 1.6.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Melbourne. I've always wanted to fly on a Concorde.

(Addition- new replies came while I was typing- the two direct flights that I mentioned which are still running operate one a day or less, so it's relatively rare to have a plane in that section of the Pacific)

If I understand the goal of the investigation correctly, it is this- because of Perth's location, the fastest route goes from Perth, to Quatar, to Sao Paolo, to Buenos Aires. It looks like a big arc towards the equator, and I understand what he's getting at- it does look like one that would take place on a flat Earth. I haven't even looked at the other one, but I'd wager it's similar.

But these examples are very much cherry picked.  The aim is not to show that there are no non-stops, but that these flight paths make more sense when plotted on flat earth. If your only concern is distance as the crow flies. Otherwise, it's more complex. Perth's in the middle of bloody nowhere, and it's just about as easy to fly one way as the other. It's just a matter of logistics. The fastest routes for these happen to take large detours because of scheduling. But there are so many other routes that... don't do this. Case in point, direct from Johannesburg to Sydney.

BTW, I found a route that doesn't go super far north from Auckland to Cape Town. It's just slightly more expensive- Auckland to Sydney (3 h 50 min), Sydney to Johannesburg h 5 min), Johannesburg to Cape Town (2 h 10 min). Total of 20 h 5 min, but keep in mind that doesn't include the time it takes to get up and down from cruising altitude, as well as runway time.

This metaphor will be rather lengthy and disconnected from the situation, but I think it’s the best way to explain it. Let’s say that an airline is a bakery. They have an oven that they can use to make any kind of cupcake, but it makes them in batches of 500 (around the average seating load of an A380.) Let’s say that somebody who wants to fly from Perth to Buenos Aires is represented by someone who likes caramel carrot cupcakes.
 They exist, sure, but there aren’t a lot. If the bakery made a batch of caramel carrot cupcakes, they’d throw most of them out, and lose a lot of money.

You’re saying that because the bakery doesn’t make caramel carrot cupcakes, they can’t make caramel carrot cupcakes, and therefore they can’t make cupcakes with caramel at all. They can. But it makes no sense. However, plenty of people like caramel chocolate cupcakes. And the bakery makes them. I’m showing you a caramel chocolate cupcake. But you keep on asking why there aren’t any caramel carrot cupcakes. I'd go on, but that would be stretching the metaphor.

I'll participate in your investigation, though. For the sake of argument. But just a couple of quick things before I start:

1. Have you already found these routes, and if so could you just post them and let us check them? It would save a great deal of time for all involved.
2. As an experienced flyer, let me just add before the debate starts that lengthy layovers are common on lesser-flown routes, because plane schedules don't always line up. You can spend a comparable amount of time in airports as you do in the air. I had a 12 hour layover in Dallas once, which wasn't fun. Just in case I see where this is going.

Some airlines don't fly direct routes because they don't make sense. If you're doing an long haul flight, you have to be able to fill seats on those planes. Perth and Buenos Aires have a combined total of about 5 million people. Both are moderately substantial population centers. But how many people in Perth have business in Argentina? Same thing with Auckland to Cape Town. Cape Town's fairly big, about 4 million, but Auckland has 1.3 million. Again, would it logistically make sense to operate a direct flight? Or does it make sense to have those people get on other flights that travel between more populated locations- flights which will fill more easily? That's the airline business model.

The flights you asked us to find don't make logistical sense in either world- not enough people to fill flights. But more importantly, the cities you mentioned aren't really cities with airports that are hubs. They have international airports, but regions will typically have certain international airports that serve as gateways to the rest of the world, and will handle a great deal of passengers both direct and transfer- London Heathrow, Dallas Fort Worth, LA International, Sydney International, Johannesburg International.

TL;DR: Direct flights don't exist between those airports because that's not how airlines work and it wouldn't make sense in any world. I've answered your question to the best of my ability, now please answer mine.

Found this chap. Aussie bloke who flew from Sydney to Johannesburg, verified on Twitter. Looks like he left behind schedule and arrived ahead. I know this probably won't prove much, but I'm now checking to see if he posted anything before leaving and after arriving, so I can see if there are timestamps. Will edit with findings.

I've personally taken several flights from Brisbane, Australia to Dallas and vise versa. Not sure how useful that is. As I recall, it took about 17 hours. Long enough to fit in quite a few in flight movies. I will say that I usually slept for a while, but I did stay up the whole time once, and I managed to fit in 5 movies and 6, almost 7, episodes of Top Gear, which seems in line with the flight time. The in-flight entertainment systems include a very nice map that lets you see where you are at any point, how long you've been flying, how long is left.  I don't think Quantas flies that route any more, but it was one of the longest in the world at one point.

Sidebar, if anyone flies Quantas at any point, try getting upgraded to first class somehow. It's almost never full, and it's palatial. I took some flights back and forth on company dollar for a relocation, and racked up enough frequent flier points to upgrade from business class. Worth it.


Pages: [1]