[edby]

There are some other threads on this, but those rely on flight times being inconsistent with existing ‘flat earth maps’. The objection to that of course is that there is no flat earth cartography, and no one is saying that existing FE maps are correct.

There was also a strange claim by Tom Bishop in this thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0 about the angles of a triangle.

Here is a challenge that doesn’t rely on angles or any existing map, but simply on observed distances between cities. FEers are absolutely welcome to challenge that asumption, but then the argument can move on. If I take the distances given here https://www.distancecalculator.net, which should be absolutely consistent with flight times (please challenge if not).

London – Cape Town 5988m
London – Buenos Aires 6922m
Buenos Aires – Cape Town 4273m
London – New York 3465m
Buenos Aires – New York 5304m
Cape Town – New York 7816m

Note I am using four cities and six distances. I believe this is the absolute minimum needed for the challenge, though I haven’t proved it.

The challenge is to represent those distances on a flat piece of paper. For my part, I drew the lines in the order shown above, using the distance in miles divided by 1,000 in centimetres. Thus the distance London – Cape Town is 6.988 cm = about 7cm. 

For the rest you will need a schooldays compass. Whatever the order you draw, you will find it possible to draw 5 of the six lines accurately on a piece of paper.
The challenge is the sixth line. I ended up with Cape Town – New York. Unfortunately I measured that at 6.7cm, whereas the ‘official’ distance corresponds to 7.8cm, i.e. more than a 1,000 miles out.

My challenge to flat earthers is to reproduce that experiment above, in a way that is consistent with the FE assumption. If you want to challenge the distances themselves, i.e. the data source, the argument can move on.

The simplest explanation, in accordance with Ockham’s razor, is that the paper could be folded, say on the hinge New York- Cape Town. Then you can travel the shorter distance under the paper. In real life, you could drill a huge tunnel under the Atlantic, and avoid flight sickness.

This whole thing is about the scientific method, which is about constructing a model of reality, and seeing whether it matches our observations of reality. The model here was a flat piece of paper with lines drawn between points. I found this did not match the observations.

I suppose you could argue there was a warp in space-time that explained the discrepancy. OK, but the very simplest explanation (going back to Ockham) is that the earth is roughly spherical. This is what science is about.

[edby]

There is a good post on the accuracy of flight times/distances here https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9213.0 . However the argument based on that depends on a Flat Earth map. Clearly the flight data is inconsistent with that data, but it is simple for an FE defender to say 'Ah but the true FE map does not look like that'.

The demonstration I have put forward is a general one: given four cities and six distances, and assuming the distances are correct, it is impossible for any FE map to correspond to that data.

Any map at all.

So either the FE supporter denies geometry (non-Euclidean geometry, that is) or the argument centres on the accuracy of flight timing, on which there is copious data.

Silence on all of my three (?) posts so far. Let's see.

[AATW]

Because no map is possible with the given distances between cities they just deny the distances. It’s the old “this is true so anything which shows it not to be true must be wrong” argument.

It might be better to use distances between cities in mainland America, or on some other landmass where the distances can be verified by means other than flights.

[edby]

Because no map is possible with the given distances between cities they just deny the distances. It’s the old “this is true so anything which shows it not to be true must be wrong” argument.
It might be better to use distances between cities in mainland America, or on some other landmass where the distances can be verified by means other than flights.

You have been around this forum longer than I (today), and probably you are right. The problem with America is that its area is relatively small, and the method I used (a sheet of paper and a pencil) only works for large distances. Also, the same objection applies to U.S. distances. Perhaps the maps have been altered by the government?

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?

[AATW]

Everything you've said is perfectly logical. But logic won't get you very far on here. As someone said to me when I was new here "welcome to the crazy"!
In order to deny distances across the Atlantic are known, Tom has gone as far as claiming that ships which sail across the Atlantic laying cable don't actually know how much cable they use.
It's quite hard to argue with someone who suffers cognitive dissonance that badly (or is a troll, perfectly possible)

[edby]

[..] But logic won't get you very far on here. [..]

Oh dear.

But let's see what FEers say. Are there any here? I have made a few posts, inviting replies, but radio silence so far.

[Tom Bishop]

There are some other threads on this, but those rely on flight times being inconsistent with existing ‘flat earth maps’. The objection to that of course is that there is no flat earth cartography, and no one is saying that existing FE maps are correct.

There was also a strange claim by Tom Bishop in this thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0 about the angles of a triangle.

Here is a challenge that doesn’t rely on angles or any existing map, but simply on observed distances between cities. FEers are absolutely welcome to challenge that asumption, but then the argument can move on. If I take the distances given here https://www.distancecalculator.net, which should be absolutely consistent with flight times (please challenge if not).

London – Cape Town 5988m
London – Buenos Aires 6922m
Buenos Aires – Cape Town 4273m
London – New York 3465m
Buenos Aires – New York 5304m
Cape Town – New York 7816m

Note I am using four cities and six distances. I believe this is the absolute minimum needed for the challenge, though I haven’t proved it.

The challenge is to represent those distances on a flat piece of paper. For my part, I drew the lines in the order shown above, using the distance in miles divided by 1,000 in centimetres. Thus the distance London – Cape Town is 6.988 cm = about 7cm. 

For the rest you will need a schooldays compass. Whatever the order you draw, you will find it possible to draw 5 of the six lines accurately on a piece of paper.
The challenge is the sixth line. I ended up with Cape Town – New York. Unfortunately I measured that at 6.7cm, whereas the ‘official’ distance corresponds to 7.8cm, i.e. more than a 1,000 miles out.

My challenge to flat earthers is to reproduce that experiment above, in a way that is consistent with the FE assumption. If you want to challenge the distances themselves, i.e. the data source, the argument can move on.

The simplest explanation, in accordance with Ockham’s razor, is that the paper could be folded, say on the hinge New York- Cape Town. Then you can travel the shorter distance under the paper. In real life, you could drill a huge tunnel under the Atlantic, and avoid flight sickness.

This whole thing is about the scientific method, which is about constructing a model of reality, and seeing whether it matches our observations of reality. The model here was a flat piece of paper with lines drawn between points. I found this did not match the observations.

I suppose you could argue there was a warp in space-time that explained the discrepancy. OK, but the very simplest explanation (going back to Ockham) is that the earth is roughly spherical. This is what science is about.

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.

[edby]

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.

I specifically stated I was not making any assumptions about any specific map. My argument applies to any attempt to represent the observed distance on a flat piece of paper.

Indeed I wrote, in the very post you quoted 'Here is a challenge that doesn’t rely on angles or any existing map, but simply on observed distances between cities.'

[inquisitive]

There are some other threads on this, but those rely on flight times being inconsistent with existing ‘flat earth maps’. The objection to that of course is that there is no flat earth cartography, and no one is saying that existing FE maps are correct.

There was also a strange claim by Tom Bishop in this thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0 about the angles of a triangle.

Here is a challenge that doesn’t rely on angles or any existing map, but simply on observed distances between cities. FEers are absolutely welcome to challenge that asumption, but then the argument can move on. If I take the distances given here https://www.distancecalculator.net, which should be absolutely consistent with flight times (please challenge if not).

London – Cape Town 5988m
London – Buenos Aires 6922m
Buenos Aires – Cape Town 4273m
London – New York 3465m
Buenos Aires – New York 5304m
Cape Town – New York 7816m

Note I am using four cities and six distances. I believe this is the absolute minimum needed for the challenge, though I haven’t proved it.

The challenge is to represent those distances on a flat piece of paper. For my part, I drew the lines in the order shown above, using the distance in miles divided by 1,000 in centimetres. Thus the distance London – Cape Town is 6.988 cm = about 7cm. 

For the rest you will need a schooldays compass. Whatever the order you draw, you will find it possible to draw 5 of the six lines accurately on a piece of paper.
The challenge is the sixth line. I ended up with Cape Town – New York. Unfortunately I measured that at 6.7cm, whereas the ‘official’ distance corresponds to 7.8cm, i.e. more than a 1,000 miles out.

My challenge to flat earthers is to reproduce that experiment above, in a way that is consistent with the FE assumption. If you want to challenge the distances themselves, i.e. the data source, the argument can move on.

The simplest explanation, in accordance with Ockham’s razor, is that the paper could be folded, say on the hinge New York- Cape Town. Then you can travel the shorter distance under the paper. In real life, you could drill a huge tunnel under the Atlantic, and avoid flight sickness.

This whole thing is about the scientific method, which is about constructing a model of reality, and seeing whether it matches our observations of reality. The model here was a flat piece of paper with lines drawn between points. I found this did not match the observations.

I suppose you could argue there was a warp in space-time that explained the discrepancy. OK, but the very simplest explanation (going back to Ockham) is that the earth is roughly spherical. This is what science is about.

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.

/thread

Please tell us how you believe the earth is set out, you must have some ideas.

[edby]

My challenge to any Flat Earther is to take those distances and represent them in any way on a piece of paper. This requires no reference to any existing map. Pretend we haven't seen any map of the earth at all, but we are given the six distances between four places. Suppose that is all the information we have, and nothing else. Then represent those distances to scale on a flat piece of paper.

[Tom Bishop]

My challenge to any Flat Earther is to take those distances and represent them in any way on a piece of paper. This requires no reference to any existing map. Pretend we haven't seen any map of the earth at all, but we are given the six distances between four places. Suppose that is all the information we have, and nothing else. Then represent those distances to scale on a flat piece of paper.

How do you knot that the distance from London to CapeTown is 5988 Miles? How was it measured? How do you know that the figure doesn't come from computed spherical coordinates?

In your post you link to distancecalculator.net website... which uses Goole Maps... which bases distances on the assumption of a globe.

[inquisitive]

My challenge to any Flat Earther is to take those distances and represent them in any way on a piece of paper. This requires no reference to any existing map. Pretend we haven't seen any map of the earth at all, but we are given the six distances between four places. Suppose that is all the information we have, and nothing else. Then represent those distances to scale on a flat piece of paper.

How do you knot that the distance from London to CapeTown is 5988 Miles? How was it measured? How do you know that the figure doesn't come from computed spherical coordinates?

In your post you link to distancecalculator.net website that uses Goole Maps... which bases distances on the assumption of a globe.

Do you have any evidence that the WGS84 model is incorrect?  Strange it is only you who has a problem with distances.

Have you completed your measurements of the angle of the sun?

[AATW]

My challenge to any Flat Earther is to take those distances and represent them in any way on a piece of paper. This requires no reference to any existing map. Pretend we haven't seen any map of the earth at all, but we are given the six distances between four places. Suppose that is all the information we have, and nothing else. Then represent those distances to scale on a flat piece of paper.

And of course, the answer is it's not possible. This has been demonstrated before in other threads. And that proves the earth can't be flat.
Hooray! We found the indisputable proof Tom is looking for. They can finally shut this place down!



...except no, the obvious explanation is that the earth IS flat and those distances are wrong.
(I see as I wrote this Tom has already started going down this path)
Welcome to the world of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Fun, isn't it? 

[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?

[inquisitive]

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

If they prove you wrong what are your figures?   Please comment on WGS84.

[edby]

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.

[edit] I specifically said 'If you want to challenge the distances themselves, i.e. the data source, the argument can move on.'

More later, bedtime.

[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.

[inquisitive]

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.

Why are you refusing to discuss the WGS84 model?

[edby]

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.

[edby]

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.

PPS A neat correlation chart of flight time and distance.