The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: edby on July 19, 2018, 05:04:57 PM

See below for a plot of flight distances versus flight times.
Methodology:
1. Take airport pairs where there is a direct flight from one airport to the other, and where a flight time is available. 354 pairs in all.
2. Obtain the latitude and longitude of each airport.
3. Use the Haversine formula to determine the distance in km between the airports, using the assumption that the earth is a sphere 6,371km in radius.
4. Plot the distance against the time (see below).
Observations
The distance assumption is clearly based on RE, however the flight time is simply the observed time taken (from published flight times admittedly, but any flat earth observer could easily check these by taking the flights). If the earth is an approximate sphere, we would expect to see a high but not exact correlation between RE distance and time.
The average speed varies between 288 km/h between Paris and Brussels and 939km/h between Jo'burg and Sydney. Generally for shorter times (less than 6 hours) the average speed falls. Hypothesis: this is caused by the time taken to reach maximum speed from zero. One could probably work out an exact relationship, I haven't tried.
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/6/61/Flight_times2.jpg)

We've discussed this.
How are kilometers gauged on the left hand side in that chart? Spherical coordinate distances from Longitude and Latitude systems? How do you measure that sort of large distance without using the standard Longitude and Latitude system?
That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.
That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.
No, the airline does.
And they know how long their flights take.
Planes fly at a fairly standard cruising speed and that graph demonstrates that, time and distance largely correlate.
It's almost like they know how far they're flying and how fast and they have a map which works.
Actually I think Tom's problem is the yaxis. This distance depends on spherical assumptions, and I suspect he thinks the logic is somehow circular.

It's not the same.
(i) I collected the data myself (ii) there are many more data points (more than 350 in all) (iii) I used the proper formula to compute the RE predicted distance between the locations. The other experimenter used a piece of string and a globe, from memory.
I am now implementing a formula to compute the corresponding FE distance based on the azimuthal equidistant projection. The estimate will vary depending on the map chose, of course.
To avoid all confusion, here is the original graph
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/a/ae/Flight_times.jpg)

That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.
Yes, because it is worked out using the lat and long of the airport, and a formula which uses RE assumptions. Is that not OK?

This is fantastic work. A really nice piece of investigation.

It's not the same.
(i) I collected the data myself (ii) there are many more data points (more than 350 in all) (iii) I used the proper formula to compute the RE predicted distance between the locations. The other experimenter used a piece of string and a globe, from memory.
If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.

It's not the same.
(i) I collected the data myself (ii) there are many more data points (more than 350 in all) (iii) I used the proper formula to compute the RE predicted distance between the locations. The other experimenter used a piece of string and a globe, from memory.
If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.
I do not agree with your logic.
This type of experiment does not require that the Earth must be a sphere. Instead, this type of experiment supports the hypothesis that it is. The logic goes like this:
a) If the system and model is correct, this graph will make a straight line.
b) If the graph is NOT a straight line, then the system and model are incorrect.
So we try it out. If the line comes out curvy, we know that the system and model are flawed in some way.
It comes out as a line, so that means we do not have any cause to suspect the model based on this test.
This becomes a little sticky now. This test does not prove the model is correct. What it does is fail to disprove it.
This helps bolster the evidence for the model. As we say, we do not "prove" things in science, but we can "disprove" things.

The Latitude and Longitude coordinate system does operate under the assumption that the earth is a sphere. Those are spherical coordinates.
If you are comparing spherical coordinates to spherical coordinates, you will get, ...wait for it..., a sphere.

The Latitude and Longitude coordinate system does operate under the assumption that the earth is a sphere. Those are spherical coordinates.
If you are comparing spherical coordinates to spherical coordinates, you will get, ...wait for it..., a sphere.
I sometimes wonder whether you read the posts at all, or did you just not understand, or maybe you're deliberately trying to obscure the results?
Let me spell it out
If the relationship between lat/long and distance between points is truly a sphere, then this graph must make a straight line.
If the graph does NOT make a straight line, we will have disproved that spherical relationship.
We did NOT disprove that spherical relationship.
Do you understand?

The Latitude and Longitude coordinate system does operate under the assumption that the earth is a sphere. Those are spherical coordinates.
If you are comparing spherical coordinates to spherical coordinates, you will get, ...wait for it..., a sphere.
We are not comparing spherical coordinates to spherical coordinates. We are comparing distances computed from spherical coordinates with flight times. The flight times would be the same whether or not the earth was flat.

For comparison, here are the same flight times but now plotted using an estimate of FE distance from the same coordinates. The correlation is not so strong. The outliers are caused by southern hemisphere locations, for example Buenos Aires to Auckland (RE distance 10,355km, FE distance 25,006).
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/c/c5/Flight_times_FE.jpg)

Here also are RE speeds compared with FE speeds.
Generally for shorter flight times the speeds are lower. My hypothesis is that the plane has to accelerate to full speed then decelerate back to zero again. For short flights, it will never attain full speed. Both models conform to this, however for southern latitudes the FE plane has to fly at much higher speeds to cover the much larger distances, often breaking the sound barrier.
[edit] The highest FE speed was from Perth to Auckland (2,200 km/h), once again an effect of the southerly latitudes.
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/6/66/Flight_speed.jpg)

What "FE" map are you using? The monopole model is for illustration purposes only and, in fact, was replaced by our predecessor society with a featureless two pole version in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole.
There is no map.
You are going to have to account for all possibilities.

An interesting quote:
http://www.travelandleisure.com/traveltips/airlinesairports/whyflightstakelonger
“Surprisingly, flight time is calculated from when the aircraft releases the parking brake (on push back) to when it sets the brake on arrival to the gate,” commercial pilot Chris Cooke told Travel + Leisure. “All that waiting in line during taxi and takeoff counts toward flight time.”
Not surprisingly, saving money is another reason flights take longer today. “Airlines are able to save millions per year by flying slower," reveals a video from Business Insider.
A study which says they are skewing flight times:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/traveltruths/Areairlinesexaggeratingflighttimessotheyreneverlate/
Are you being told the truth about flight times?
Passenger jets have never been more advanced. With Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, introduced in 2011, leading the charge, and new models like the 737 MAX and the Airbus A320neo following in its wake, the aircraft on which we travel are safer, smoother, quieter and more fuel efficient than ever.
They also appear perfectly capable of flying faster than their predecessors. Just last month the lowcost carrier Norwegian issued a celebratory press release after one of its 787 Dreamliners whizzed from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York to London Gatwick in five hours and 13 minutes, setting a new transatlantic record for a subsonic plane. That’s three minutes quicker than the previous best time set by British Airways in January 2015.
So why, recordbreaking feats notwithstanding, are airlines claiming it takes longer and longer to fly from A to B?
That’s according to research by OAG, the aviation analyst, carried out for Telegraph Travel. It found that over the last couple of decades, despite new technology, scheduled flight times  ie. how long an airline estimates it will take to complete a journey  have actually increased by as much as 50 per cent.
Looking at Europe’s busiest international route, for example  Heathrow to Dublin  it found that in 1996 the vast majority of airlines published a scheduled flight time of between 60 and 74 minutes. Fast forward 22 years and almost all claim the journey takes between 75 and 89 minutes, while a handful bank on 90 minutes or more.

This study says that airliners are skewing flight times.
Undoubtedly that is the reason.
Actually I don't think that can be the reason. Some of the discrepancies are very large. Remember that any FE researcher can test these simply by going on the flights, or asking a fellow researcher.

You are going to have to account for all possibilities.
I can do the math for pretty much any FE model, if you want to make suggestions.
The problem is that all the maps other than the monopole, you get curved lines of longitude. This would show up pretty quickly in the model.

I don't know if it is possible to solve all of these problems.
 There is no FE map
 We can't rely on the distances to be accurate because Lat/Lon relies on spherical coordinates
 We can't rely on the flight times to be accurate
On top of all of the above it is also known that on international flights planes regularly use jet streams to quicker get to a destination.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vsodESrwdm4C&lpg=PA183&dq=%22jet%20streams%22%20%22miles%20per%20hour%22&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=true
(https://i.imgur.com/d0NUCyD.png)
According to this:
https://books.google.com/books?id=vsodESrwdm4C&lpg=PA183&dq=%22jet%20streams%22%20%22southern%20hemisphere%22%20%22miles%20per%20hour%22&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q=50%20miles%20per%20hour&f=false
"Jet streams are everpresent, relatively narrow, streams of highspeed winds undulating around the Northern and Southern Hemispheres"
There are East and West moving winds in the Southern Hemisphere.
http://thejunkwave.com/whatisagyre/
Look at the South Pacific Gyre:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/South_Pacific_Gyre.png)

It is apparently not uncommon for a plane to fly faster than the speed of sound:
https://www.wired.com/story/norwegianairtransatlanticspeedrecord/
OK, about that "subsonic" bit. You might know that the speed of sound at an altitude of 30,000 to 40,000 feet is roughly 670 mph. But Norwegian’s planes didn't break the sound barrier. Those near800mph figures represent ground speed—how fast the aircraft is moving over land. Their air speed, which factors out the 200mph wind boost, was closer to the 787's standard Mach 0.85. (The older Boeing 747 can cruise at Mach 0.86, but is less efficient than its younger stablemate.) When talking supersonic, and breaking sound barriers, it's all about the speed of the air passing over the wings, which in this case was more like 570 mph.

It's not the same.
(i) I collected the data myself (ii) there are many more data points (more than 350 in all) (iii) I used the proper formula to compute the RE predicted distance between the locations. The other experimenter used a piece of string and a globe, from memory.
If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.
I have flown from Toronto to Vancouver (3,364km) dozens of times. Depending on wind conditions it takes from less than 4 3/4 hrs to 5 hrs and change. That fits with that RE data. You don't have to have taken all these flights yourself either. Airlines list their average flight times. You can just google them.

We can't rely on the distances to be accurate because Lat/Lon relies on spherical coordinates
You are still misunderstanding the point of the experiment. The calculation of distance using spherical coordinates relies totally on RE assumptions, correct. It uses the Haversine formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversine_formula) which is or was used frequently in navigation. So we want to test this RE method, by seeing whether it calibrates well to an entirely different method of estimating distance, namely flight times.
There is no FE map
Doesn’t matter. The question is how well the two methods correlate with each other. Is there an FE method of calculating distance between two airports that correlates equally well? Possibly, but I doubt it. The azimuthal projection method works poorly, as shown above.
We can't rely on the flight times to be accurate.
[..]
On top of all of the above it is also known that on international flights planes regularly use jet streams to quicker get to a destination.
Not relevant. Suppose the use of jet streams caused a significant distortion for certain routes. Then this would show up in the correlation chart. There would be significant outliers. But there aren’t, as you can see. You need to explain why the two methods are so highly correlated, not why they might be uncorrelated.
And as Bill points out above, it is open to any FE researcher to check this independently, using the same simple methodology.

It is apparently not uncommon for a plane to fly faster than the speed of sound:
Possibly but you need to provide a convincing explanation of why the same planes fly at significantly higher speeds on southern hemisphere routes, than on northern hemisphere routes.

I have flown from Toronto to Vancouver (3,364km) dozens of times. Depending on wind conditions it takes from less than 4 3/4 hrs to 5 hrs and change. That fits with that RE data. You don't have to have taken all these flights yourself either. Airlines list their average flight times. You can just google them.
TorontoVancouver was one of my pairs. I assumed a time of 5 hours, which agrees with your data.
Of course for any two similar distances, the flight times will vary a lot, as you can see from the graph. For example, an 8,000 km journey could take from 9 hours to 11 hours. This is why the xy chart is not an exact straight line. But the pattern is very clear. Correlation is 99.58%, which is high by any standard.

 There is no FE map
And that is okay? You are a proponent of an earth configuration that has no map?
 We can't rely on the distances to be accurate because Lat/Lon relies on spherical coordinates
Is there any way you can explain that statement?
 We can't rely on the flight times to be accurate
On top of all of the above it is also known that on international flights planes regularly use jet streams to quicker get to a destination.
Yes, right. So? Flight times vary but the ground speed, which is the thing that varies, is known. So given that flight time is calculated in the usual way: t=distance/speed, therefore the distance can be calculated as distance=t*speed. Those distances agree with RE distances, not FE distances  regardless of which 'map' you wish to press into service.

Latitude : can be derived from the angle from the horizon to Polaris or Sigma Octantis. They are not spherical earth measurements.
Longitude: can be derived from the sun and time, by checking the time when the sun is directly north/south, it is not a spherical earth measurement.
On a globe earth, we have easily defined and calculated distances, and as seen in the graph, flight times match distanced calculated on a globe earth.
We have all the information at our fingertips, yet the FE community has not been able to produce any working map. The monopole map doesn't work and the bipolar map is hopeless, I really fail to see why FEers would use that instead.

There is no map.
Personally I don't understand your claims that there is no map or that no accurate map exists
I have personally used this map to travel North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. How on earth can you claim there is no map or there is no accurate map?
https://www.google.com/maps
1. If no accurate map of the earth exists how am I (and MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of other people) able to accurately travel long distances on a consistent basis using a map?
2. If i'm able to (along with MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of other people) use a map to accurately travel long distances all over the world would that not make that map accurate?
3. If we don't have an accurate map of the earth (and don't know the distances between far cities) how are ships and planes able to navigate long distances?

There is no map.
Personally I don't understand your claims that there is no map or that no accurate map exists
I have personally used this map to travel North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. How on earth can you claim there is no map or there is no accurate map?
https://www.google.com/maps
1. If no accurate map of the earth exists how am I (and MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of other people) able to accurately travel long distances on a consistent basis using a map?
2. If i'm able to (along with MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of other people) use a map to accurately travel long distances all over the world would that not make that map accurate?
3. If we don't have an accurate map of the earth (and don't know the distances between far cities) how are ships and planes able to navigate long distances?
He means there is no "Flat Earth" map. Google is a map of the globe.

There is no map.
Personally I don't understand your claims that there is no map or that no accurate map exists
I have personally used this map to travel North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. How on earth can you claim there is no map or there is no accurate map?
https://www.google.com/maps
1. If no accurate map of the earth exists how am I (and MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of other people) able to accurately travel long distances on a consistent basis using a map?
2. If i'm able to (along with MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of other people) use a map to accurately travel long distances all over the world would that not make that map accurate?
3. If we don't have an accurate map of the earth (and don't know the distances between far cities) how are ships and planes able to navigate long distances?
He means there is no "Flat Earth" map. Google is a map of the globe.
You have to understand that iamcpc is probably unique in Flat Earth circles in simultaneously holding (i) that distances in Google maps is a totally accurate representation of real distance across the Earth's surface and (ii) that the Earth's surface is flat.

You have to understand that iamcpc is probably unique in Flat Earth circles in simultaneously holding (i) that distances in Google maps is a totally accurate representation of real distance across the Earth's surface and (ii) that the Earth's surface is flat.
From what I've seen, that isn't really a very unique perspective.
I think many FEs recognize that google maps and indeed google earth works very well to represent the locations and distances between places on Earth  at least any places near enough to drive between in our everyday experience.
From what I've seen, most FEs expect that we should be able to make a flat map with distances that perfectly match the distances reported by airlines and google earth. It is a rather abstract bit of geometry to understand that this cannot be possible, and I think many FEs are simply not willing to make this leap.
A few FEs have embraced this issue, and those must declare that the distances on google earth are incorrect.
In general, there can be no FE map:
a) If you are in the first group, making such a map disproves your theory, and you are no longer an FE. (TigerDan)
b) If you are in the 2nd group, then making a FE map puts the responsibility upon you to defend it, and that is going to require that you disprove the distances on the globe.
This is going to sound like a criticism, but I don't think it really is... The most common FE philosophy seems to be that as long as we do not present a map, we can continue to say there could be a map. I'm starting to think this is a conscious decision. The possibility that a map could exist so long as we do not present one. I think the common FE thinking is to just let people believe what they want and mostly not to challenge it. Creation of a map is to invite challenge, so to avoid such challenge, one can simply postulate wild ideas that cannot be challenged.

He means there is no "Flat Earth" map. Google is a map of the globe.
There are two versions of this map.
The 2D version is clearly flat. It's 2D. The entire map can be printed on a piece of paper. It is NOT a sphere or a globe.
The only way it becomes a "globe" map is if you turn on the satellite setting. You can CLEARLY see the difference between a FLAT paper map and a GLOBE map. If you print this map on a piece of paper you will only be printing a 2D portion of PART of the map.
Here is North America on a map of a GLOBE:
(https://i.imgur.com/4OITkud.jpg)
Here is North America on a FLAT paper map (please note that this map makes NO claims about the shape of the earth):
(https://i.imgur.com/M4YKlF0.jpg)

I've tried to explain this before. I rather suspect you just don't care, and that is your right.
Because I'm totally OCD about this type of thing, I am compelled to explain it again. Follow along with these steps with me if you like:
1) Open google maps and zoom out to see North America. Make sure you can see the all of Florida and all of Alaska.
2) Take a screenshot, and dump that into some image software (gimp)
3) Go into google earth mode and center the view on the middle of the lower 48.
4) Take a screenshot and dump that into the image software as a new layer
5) Back in google earth, center the view on Alaska.
6) Take a screenshot and dump that as a layer into the image.
7) In the image software, scale the lower 48 picture from the globe to best match the flat map picture. Memorize that scale (it was 33% for me)
8) Now scale Alaska to that scale. See what you get.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/e2xa96ix9nrbcaf/GoogleEarth.jpg?dl=1)
As you can see, Alaska on the flat version is WAY bigger than it is on the globe version. One of these is wrong!

Here is North America on a FLAT paper map (please note that this map makes NO claims about the shape of the earth):
Actually if it is constant scale, then it does make claims about the shape of the earth, namely that the earth is flat. A flat map with constant scale can only map a flat surface, nothing else.
However the scale is not constant, as the man above has clearly pointed out.

I've tried to explain this before. I rather suspect you just don't care, and that is your right
As you can see, Alaska on the flat version is WAY bigger than it is on the globe version. One of these is wrong!
maps have this thing called a legend.
Per FLAT 2D map legend Alaska is about 800 miles north to south.
About the distance between San Antonio and Kansas City.
Per the GLOBE map the same is true. It does not matter if your map shows a GIANT square mile or a tiny square mile. As long as the legend shows the distance it's still a square mile.

It is apparently not uncommon for a plane to fly faster than the speed of sound:
Possibly but you need to provide a convincing explanation of why the same planes fly at significantly higher speeds on southern hemisphere routes, than on northern hemisphere routes.
Tom had just said that no flat earth map exists. Hemisphere is a round earth term. Tom's flat earth model has no idea the routes those planes are or are not taking.

maps have this thing called a legend.
Per FLAT 2D map legend Alaska is about 800 miles north to south.
About the distance between San Antonio and Kansas City.
The legend will state the scale of the map, correct. And for small areas (i.e. the size of a state) the scale will be almost constant.
This does not work for larger areas. See below. One line measures the distance between San Antonio and Kansas City, 1046.72 km. The other measures the length of the border between Alaska and Canada, 1,126.51km. The distances measured are roughly the same, you agree?
But the length on the map is different. Measured on my screen, San Antonio to Kansas City is about 4cm, AlaskaCanada border about 7cm. So the scale for the border is nearly twice that of San Antonio to Kansas City.
You will probably object that we could redraw the map so the scale was constant. However there is a geometrical theorem that says that this is impossible. Happy to go into that. First, do you agree that the map is not constant scale throughout?
[edit] Indeed we have discussed this before. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9955.msg157186#msg157186
What Gauss discovered was that even the inhabitants of a world which was perpetually covered in cloud could discover whether they were living on a flat surface or not, simply by measuring distances.
I.e. if you believe that Google maps is accurate, then logically you must believe that it is a map of a curved surface. This is fundamental.
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/7/75/Alaska_texas_kansas.jpg)

Hemisphere is a round earth term.
OK, remove the term 'hemisphere' from what I wrote. Do we agree that Australia is in the South of the world, and Norway (e.g.) in the North?

It's not the same.
(i) I collected the data myself (ii) there are many more data points (more than 350 in all) (iii) I used the proper formula to compute the RE predicted distance between the locations. The other experimenter used a piece of string and a globe, from memory.
If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.
WGS84 proves this.

https://erenow.com/common/shorthistory/6.html
"For half a century people had been trying to work out the size of the Earth, mostly by making very exacting measurements. One of the first such attempts was by an English mathematician named Richard Norwood. As a young man Norwood had travelled to Bermuda ... In the early seventeenth century Bermuda was well known among ships’ captains for being hard to locate. The problem was that the ocean was big, Bermuda small and the navigational tools for dealing with this disparity hopelessly inadequate. There wasn’t even yet an agreed length for a nautical mile. Over the breadth of an ocean the smallest miscalculations would become magnified so that ships often missed Bermudasized targets by dismayingly large margins. Norwood, whose first love was trigonometry and thus angles, decided to bring a little mathematical rigour to navigation, and to that end he determined to calculate the length of a degree.
Starting with his back against the Tower of London, Norwood spent two devoted years marching 208 miles north to York, repeatedly stretching and measuring a length of chain as he went, all the while making the most meticulous adjustments for the rise and fall of the land and the meanderings of the road. The final step was to measure the angle of the sun at York at the same time of day and on the same day of the year as he had made his first measurement in London. From this, he reasoned he could determine the length of one degree of the Earth’s meridian and thus calculate the distance around the whole. It was an almost ludicrously ambitious undertaking—a mistake of the slightest fraction of a degree would throw the whole thing out by miles—but in fact, as Norwood proudly declaimed, he was accurate to “within a scantling”—or, more precisely, to within about six hundred yards. In metric terms, his figure worked out at 110.72 kilometres per degree of arc.
In 1637, Norwood’s masterwork of navigation, The Seaman’s Practice, was published and found an immediate following. It went through seventeen editions and was still in print twentyfive years after his death.
... The momentum for determining the Earth’s circumference passed to France. There, the astronomer Jean Picard devised an impressively complicated method of triangulation involving quadrants, pendulum clocks, zenith sectors and telescopes (for observing the motions of the moons of Jupiter). After two years of trundling and triangulating his way across France, in 1669 he announced a more accurate measure of 110.46 kilometres for one degree of arc. ...
... chose the Andes because they needed to measure near the equator, to determine if there really was a difference in sphericity there, and because they reasoned that mountains would give them good sightlines. In fact, the mountains of Peru were so constantly lost in cloud that the team often had to wait weeks for an hour’s clear surveying. ... But Bouguer and La Condamine were nothing if not tenacious, and they stuck to the task for nine and a half long, grim, sunblistered years. Shortly before concluding the project, word reached them that a second French team, taking measurements in northern Scandinavia (and facing notable discomforts of their own, from squelching bogs to dangerous ice floes), had found that a degree was in fact longer near the poles, as Newton had promised. The Earth was 43 kilometres stouter when measured equatorially than when measured from top to bottom around the poles."
So, how does one measure one degree of meridian on a flat Earth?

This is going to sound like a criticism, but I don't think it really is... The most common FE philosophy seems to be that as long as we do not present a map, we can continue to say there could be a map. I'm starting to think this is a conscious decision. The possibility that a map could exist so long as we do not present one. I think the common FE thinking is to just let people believe what they want and mostly not to challenge it. Creation of a map is to invite challenge, so to avoid such challenge, one can simply postulate wild ideas that cannot be challenged.
Agreed. I see that sort of reasoning a lot on here. It's like claiming to have discovered a square number which is also a prime number but then refusing to state the number. You can then spend all day saying "Well it can't be 5  that's a prime number but it's not a square number", "It can't be 9, that's a square number but it divides by 3 so it's not a prime number". And I can say "I'm not thinking of 5 or 9". Rinse and repeat. So long as no map of a flat earth is produced they can keep pretending that one could exist. It's telling that Tom's argument was:
If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.
When it's the result which demonstrates the model is correct. Or, more accurately, it gives confidence in that model.

It's telling that Tom's argument was:
If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.
When it's the result which demonstrates the model is correct. Or, more accurately, it gives confidence in that model.
It's geometrically a spherical coordinate system. Any distance recorded is done under the assumption of a sphere. Many of the youtube arguments are trying to show that a spherical coordinate system can make a sphere. It's circular reasoning.

It's telling that Tom's argument was:
If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.
When it's the result which demonstrates the model is correct. Or, more accurately, it gives confidence in that model.
It's geometrically a spherical coordinate system. Any distance recorded is done under the assumption of a sphere. Many of the youtube arguments are trying to show that a spherical coordinate system can make a sphere. It's circular reasoning.
I think we are totally agreed that the distances derived from the coordinates using the Haversine formula, assume spherical earth.
The coordinates are not in themselves spherical though. They are just measurements based on direct observation of the sun's position. It's the formula that assumes a sphere, not the coordinates.
Given that, they should show minimal correlation with flight times on our flat earth, for the times do not depend directly on the shape of the earth, but rather the actual distance travelled. Do you agree?

Or perhaps the problem is the flight times themselves depend on the assumption that the earth is spherical? But what if Tom and I both set the timepieces of our choice as we board the plane together, and take the time at landing. Will we get a different result? Surely not. RE and FE watches should give identical results.

It's telling that Tom's argument was:
If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.
When it's the result which demonstrates the model is correct. Or, more accurately, it gives confidence in that model.
It's geometrically a spherical coordinate system. Any distance recorded is done under the assumption of a sphere. Many of the youtube arguments are trying to show that a spherical coordinate system can make a sphere. It's circular reasoning.
All measurements show a sphere, time for you to prove otherwise or keep silent.

It's geometrically a spherical coordinate system. Any distance recorded is done under the assumption of a sphere. Many of the youtube arguments are trying to show that a spherical coordinate system can make a sphere. It's circular reasoning.
Norwood, in the 1600s, recorded the length of one degree of arc/meridian at 110.72 kilometre. He did this by precisely measuring between London and York, and sighting to the Sun from each location.
Picard used a different method, involving quadrants, pendulum clocks, zenith sectors, and telescopes. In 1669 he announced a measure of 110.46 kilometres.
In the 1700s, the French geodesic missions set out to Peru and Scandinavia, taking two separate measures, confirming the above figures.
Point of inquiry; When three different methods confirm the same figure, how many more methods do you need to confirm the figure as correct?
Point of inquiry; how would you measure one degree of arc or meridian on a flat earth, anyways?

It's telling that Tom's argument was:
If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.
When it's the result which demonstrates the model is correct. Or, more accurately, it gives confidence in that model.
It's geometrically a spherical coordinate system. Any distance recorded is done under the assumption of a sphere.
Correct. The distances are calculated assuming the earth is a sphere.
The times are not calculated using any assumption, they're just times.
Time = Distance / Speed, so
Distance = Time x Speed
So if the speed is constant then Distance and Time should be correlated.
You would expect airlines to have a roughly consistent cruising speed. Note the world "roughly". Not exactly but it should be close enough. And for longer flights the time for ascending and descent shouldn't have a big impact on the overall time.
So the question is whether there is correlation between the calculated distances and the times?
The graph shows there is. Not exactly  you would expect some variation because of slight differences in cruising speed, time taken taking off and landing and so on. It would be highly suspicious if there was an exact correlation.
But it's close enough to see there is some correlation.
And that gives confidence that the distances calculated are accurate.
And that gives confidence that the model used to calculate those distances, a model of the earth as a sphere, is correct.
The very thing that you're attacking  that the distances are calculated using a spherical model  is the exact point being made.

The very thing that you're attacking  that the distances are calculated using a spherical model  is the exact point being made.
That's the main point, and is the misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up.
Point of inquiry; how would you measure one degree of arc or meridian on a flat earth, anyways?
Same as on round earth. The 'one degree' is measured by astronomical instruments, sextants and so forth. The ground measurement is a combination of large tape measures (chains) and trigonometry.
You would expect airlines to have a roughly consistent cruising speed. Note the world "roughly". Not exactly but it should be close enough. And for longer flights the time for ascending and descent shouldn't have a big impact on the overall time.
I covered this in an earlier post, see chart below. You notice the average RE speed (red line) is lower for short times, but climbs up. This is surely the result of time taken to get to full speed, and back again.
The FE average speeds are somewhat different. They are always much faster for southern latitudes. I would have attributed it to pronounced jet streams in those regions, but I am puzzled why it doesn’t show up on the return journey. You would think they averaged out
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/6/66/Flight_speed.jpg)

Point of inquiry; how would you measure one degree of arc or meridian on a flat earth, anyways?
Same as on round earth. The 'one degree' is measured by astronomical instruments, sextants and so forth. The ground measurement is a combination of large tape measures (chains) and trigonometry.
One degree measured around what point, though?
One degree of arc or meridian around the Earth is taken around the centre of the sphere, and the measurement of one degree is extrapolated from the measures of angles taken at the surface using various instruments. You don't measure one degree at the surface, you take the angles at various points between the measures, then calculate the length of one degree out of the 360 of the circumference.
If you measure some angles from the surface of a flat earth, how do you extrapolate those to give you one degree of arc or meridian? You have no arc. You have no meridian. You have no fixed point around which to make that arc.

I don't know if it is possible to solve all of these problems.
 There is no FE map
 We can't rely on the distances to be accurate because Lat/Lon relies on spherical coordinates
 We can't rely on the flight times to be accurate
On top of all of the above it is also known that on international flights planes regularly use jet streams to quicker get to a destination.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vsodESrwdm4C&lpg=PA183&dq=%22jet%20streams%22%20%22miles%20per%20hour%22&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=true
(https://i.imgur.com/d0NUCyD.png)
According to this:
https://books.google.com/books?id=vsodESrwdm4C&lpg=PA183&dq=%22jet%20streams%22%20%22southern%20hemisphere%22%20%22miles%20per%20hour%22&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q=50%20miles%20per%20hour&f=false
"Jet streams are everpresent, relatively narrow, streams of highspeed winds undulating around the Northern and Southern Hemispheres"
It's certainly the case that wind speed can affect travel times. However, note above (my italics) jet streams operate in both hemispheres. It seems implausible that pilots would make use of jet streams to reduce travel time in the Southern hemisphere and not use them in the North.
And it's an objection which can be cancelled out by using times to and from destinations. If the jet stream speeds up, say, London to New York, it should slow down New York to London.

You have to understand that iamcpc is probably unique in Flat Earth circles in simultaneously holding (i) that distances in Google maps is a totally accurate representation of real distance across the Earth's surface and (ii) that the Earth's surface is flat.
From what I've seen, that isn't really a very unique perspective.
I think many FEs recognize that google maps and indeed google earth works very well to represent the locations and distances between places on Earth  at least any places near enough to drive between in our everyday experience.
From what I've seen, most FEs expect that we should be able to make a flat map with distances that perfectly match the distances reported by airlines and google earth. It is a rather abstract bit of geometry to understand that this cannot be possible, and I think many FEs are simply not willing to make this leap.
To mathematically prove the point is tricky, but it's not hard to visualise. If you have a set of distances between cities, it's possible to create a model, using blobs of modelling clay and straws cut to the right length. One can very quickly assemble a rough model. It becomes clear as soon as one puts the model together that one is not free to choose whatever shape one wishes. The distances between cities force one into only one shape. They will not permit a flat map. It cannot work.
It's of course entirely possible for _anyone_ to verify that flight distances as measured on the globe reflect, to a reasonable degree, flight times. This is not some secret mystery that we have to believe because of the Illuminati telling us. We know it because we now have access to air travel for ourselves. We know that the times advertised by the airlines reflect the actual times taken.
What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence  so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations. There are a number of ways to go. There's variation in the speeds of different aircraft, there are wind patterns, there are delays due to weather  so how can any of this make any sense? It's just too unreliable. The airlines are all in on it  if the truth about the flat Earth were revealed then they'd be ruined. And so on.

What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence  so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations.
Where it gets silly is when claims are made that planes don't know how fast they're going and that other ways of measuring distances across oceans like ships laying cables across the Atlantic aren't valid either because they don't know how much cable they've used.
???

Point of inquiry; how would you measure one degree of arc or meridian on a flat earth, anyways?
Same as on round earth. The 'one degree' is measured by astronomical instruments, sextants and so forth. The ground measurement is a combination of large tape measures (chains) and trigonometry.
One degree measured around what point, though?
One degree of arc or meridian around the Earth is taken around the centre of the sphere, and the measurement of one degree is extrapolated from the measures of angles taken at the surface using various instruments. You don't measure one degree at the surface, you take the angles at various points between the measures, then calculate the length of one degree out of the 360 of the circumference.
If you measure some angles from the surface of a flat earth, how do you extrapolate those to give you one degree of arc or meridian? You have no arc. You have no meridian. You have no fixed point around which to make that arc.
(https://i.imgur.com/jCxp8U0.jpg)
Norwood's method was to measure between two points on the surface (P1 and P2), which gave him the measured length of an arc. This was between London and York, approx. 175 miles, as the crow flies, or 281 kilometres. This is the definition of an arc 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_(geometry)
At the start and finish, on the same day of the year, he sighted the angle to the Sun (green lines out to right). This gave him two different sighting angles which, using trigonometry, allowed him to calculate the angle he had subtended by going from P1 to P2 (the angle represented by two red dots). The measures at the surface do not measure one degree of meridian directly, nor any other number of degrees of meridian.
This 'two red dot' angle in degrees, or fractions of a degree, can be used in proportion to one degree, and applied to the length of the measured arc, to determine the length of one degree of arc.
If the measured arc is 175 miles, and the angle is derived as exactly 2 degrees, the length of one degree of arc is 175/2, or 87.5 miles.
If one degree = X miles/km, then the circumference of the Earth is X times 360.
Later confirmation of Norwood's figure, by others using different methods, in different locations, at different times of year, shows the method to be sound.
Flat Earth has no relevant angle at the two red dots.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PjCnkysmO20C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=norwood+1635+difference+of+latitudes+2+degrees+28+minutes&source=bl&ots=CSkLZtk3W7&sig=LdnUNTkXSHTSqUPV3U3t9VyUUoc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkPiEkbjcAhXMB8AKHXikBG8Q6AEIVzAL#v=onepage&q=norwood%201635%20difference%20of%20latitudes%202%20degrees%2028%20minutes&f=false (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PjCnkysmO20C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=norwood+1635+difference+of+latitudes+2+degrees+28+minutes&source=bl&ots=CSkLZtk3W7&sig=LdnUNTkXSHTSqUPV3U3t9VyUUoc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkPiEkbjcAhXMB8AKHXikBG8Q6AEIVzAL#v=onepage&q=norwood%201635%20difference%20of%20latitudes%202%20degrees%2028%20minutes&f=false)

What "FE" map are you using? The monopole model is for illustration purposes only and, in fact, was replaced by our predecessor society with a featureless two pole version in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole.
The problem is the same on all non infinite repeating flat plane maps
There is no map.
Yes there is. The 2d version of the google earth maps represents a flat infinite repeating plane.

It's not the same.
(i) I collected the data myself (ii) there are many more data points (more than 350 in all) (iii) I used the proper formula to compute the RE predicted distance between the locations. The other experimenter used a piece of string and a globe, from memory.
If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.
You have it backwards. This is proof the system and model are correct. Nebulous arguments about aircraft speed and distances do not hold up without proof.

An interesting quote:
http://www.travelandleisure.com/traveltips/airlinesairports/whyflightstakelonger
“Surprisingly, flight time is calculated from when the aircraft releases the parking brake (on push back) to when it sets the brake on arrival to the gate,” commercial pilot Chris Cooke told Travel + Leisure. “All that waiting in line during taxi and takeoff counts toward flight time.”
Not surprisingly, saving money is another reason flights take longer today. “Airlines are able to save millions per year by flying slower," reveals a video from Business Insider.
A study which says they are skewing flight times:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/traveltruths/Areairlinesexaggeratingflighttimessotheyreneverlate/
Are you being told the truth about flight times?
Passenger jets have never been more advanced. With Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, introduced in 2011, leading the charge, and new models like the 737 MAX and the Airbus A320neo following in its wake, the aircraft on which we travel are safer, smoother, quieter and more fuel efficient than ever.
They also appear perfectly capable of flying faster than their predecessors. Just last month the lowcost carrier Norwegian issued a celebratory press release after one of its 787 Dreamliners whizzed from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York to London Gatwick in five hours and 13 minutes, setting a new transatlantic record for a subsonic plane. That’s three minutes quicker than the previous best time set by British Airways in January 2015.
So why, recordbreaking feats notwithstanding, are airlines claiming it takes longer and longer to fly from A to B?
That’s according to research by OAG, the aviation analyst, carried out for Telegraph Travel. It found that over the last couple of decades, despite new technology, scheduled flight times  ie. how long an airline estimates it will take to complete a journey  have actually increased by as much as 50 per cent.
Looking at Europe’s busiest international route, for example  Heathrow to Dublin  it found that in 1996 the vast majority of airlines published a scheduled flight time of between 60 and 74 minutes. Fast forward 22 years and almost all claim the journey takes between 75 and 89 minutes, while a handful bank on 90 minutes or more.
There are two reasons posted flight times are longer than the aircraft are capable of. One, top speed is not the most efficient. There is a sweet spot cruising speed with the best fuel economy.
The other reason is airlines are graded on On Time Arrivals. Thus they post longer than needed times. Many times I have been on flights that left late but arrived early. They pad the times. That is why most flight time arguments use it as an estimate of distance, not exact. But its close enough to rough in a map. I have done it, for free, why don't you?

To mathematically prove the point is tricky, but it's not hard to visualise. If you have a set of distances between cities, it's possible to create a model, using blobs of modelling clay and straws cut to the right length. One can very quickly assemble a rough model. It becomes clear as soon as one puts the model together that one is not free to choose whatever shape one wishes. The distances between cities force one into only one shape. They will not permit a flat map. It cannot work.
It's of course entirely possible for _anyone_ to verify that flight distances as measured on the globe reflect, to a reasonable degree, flight times. This is not some secret mystery that we have to believe because of the Illuminati telling us. We know it because we now have access to air travel for ourselves. We know that the times advertised by the airlines reflect the actual times taken.
What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence  so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations. There are a number of ways to go. There's variation in the speeds of different aircraft, there are wind patterns, there are delays due to weather  so how can any of this make any sense? It's just too unreliable. The airlines are all in on it  if the truth about the flat Earth were revealed then they'd be ruined. And so on.
Exactly right. There are 2 points that can't be argued with any sanity. One is cruise speeds that are calibrated with radar. Tom admitted radar is accurate. There is an acceptable range of cruise speeds. The other is the clock. Time is easily measured. The data does not lie and the chart in the op shows what is expected and is actual proof of a globe. Any argument about the clock or aircraft speed is pure bunk designed to shift the focus away from facts. Facts that are very inconvenient to the FE mindset.

What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence  so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations.
Where it gets silly is when claims are made that planes don't know how fast they're going and that other ways of measuring distances across oceans like ships laying cables across the Atlantic aren't valid either because they don't know how much cable they've used.
???
Some of the arguments are so obviously spurious that one suspects that they aren't meant to be taken seriously. It's a case where "Well, I know that the Earth is flat, so their argument must have some hole in it  so whatever."
The flight times disprove the flat Earth in an accessible way, which people who won't stand on top of a cliff with binoculars can appreciate. So it's necessary to use a special new set of obfuscations.

Exactly right. There are 2 points that can't be argued with any sanity. One is cruise speeds that are calibrated with radar. Tom admitted radar is accurate. There is an acceptable range of cruise speeds. The other is the clock. Time is easily measured. The data does not lie and the chart in the op shows what is expected and is actual proof of a globe. Any argument about the clock or aircraft speed is pure bunk designed to shift the focus away from facts. Facts that are very inconvenient to the FE mindset.
There's an option that's used when the argument is irrefutable  and it's quite common in the era of fake news. It's to say "Well, we don't know anything really. Who can tell whether flight times are accurate. I mean, we've all been on flights that turned up late, right? And aircraft speeds vary so much, and routes aren't always direct. Just admit it, we can't draw any conclusions until we have more data."
It's worth noting that it's not always the flat Earthers using the invalid arguments. I've seen, both here and in other places, flawed arguments used against the flat Earth and in favour of the globe. It's not that common, but it does happen. It's important to point out the flaws. No point in relying on the FE people to do it. If they had the ability to spot flawed reasoning...

The legend will state the scale of the map, correct. And for small areas (i.e. the size of a state) the scale will be almost constant.
This does not work for larger areas. See below. One line measures the distance between San Antonio and Kansas City, 1046.72 km. The other measures the length of the border between Alaska and Canada, 1,126.51km. The distances measured are roughly the same, you agree?
If you want to know the distance between 2 points on the 2D map you have to zoom in some. The way you are doing it is incorrect.

If you want to know the distance between 2 points on the 2D map you have to zoom in some. The way you are doing it is incorrect.
I tried to look this method up and could find nothing. Would you be able to provide a link or possibly demonstrate?

The legend will state the scale of the map, correct. And for small areas (i.e. the size of a state) the scale will be almost constant.
This does not work for larger areas. See below. One line measures the distance between San Antonio and Kansas City, 1046.72 km. The other measures the length of the border between Alaska and Canada, 1,126.51km. The distances measured are roughly the same, you agree?
If you want to know the distance between 2 points on the 2D map you have to zoom in some. The way you are doing it is incorrect.
No it's perfectly correct. I used two separate methods. One is via the formula plus lat long. The other is the distance function on Google maps. San Antonio and Kansas City, = 1046.72 km, border = 1,126.51km. You can also 'zoom in' and it's exactly the same.
Of course the 'pixel distance' is different if you zoom in. But that is a perfect proof that you can't represent these distances correctly on a large area map.
This was well known when they developed the UK ordnance survey map. They had to pretend UK was a cylinder, and do it that way.

Exactly right. There are 2 points that can't be argued with any sanity. One is cruise speeds that are calibrated with radar. Tom admitted radar is accurate. There is an acceptable range of cruise speeds. The other is the clock. Time is easily measured. The data does not lie and the chart in the op shows what is expected and is actual proof of a globe. Any argument about the clock or aircraft speed is pure bunk designed to shift the focus away from facts. Facts that are very inconvenient to the FE mindset.
There's an option that's used when the argument is irrefutable  and it's quite common in the era of fake news. It's to say "Well, we don't know anything really. Who can tell whether flight times are accurate. I mean, we've all been on flights that turned up late, right? And aircraft speeds vary so much, and routes aren't always direct. Just admit it, we can't draw any conclusions until we have more data."
It's worth noting that it's not always the flat Earthers using the invalid arguments. I've seen, both here and in other places, flawed arguments used against the flat Earth and in favour of the globe. It's not that common, but it does happen. It's important to point out the flaws. No point in relying on the FE people to do it. If they had the ability to spot flawed reasoning...
Oh, I agree, one of the better posters here on the RE side was 3d. He had some amazing threads but his idea of using ping times to various servers to measure distances was very flawed. That does not invalidate his other arguments but some here tried to make it that way. I have been called out by RE'ers on a few flawed logic issues. This place is an amazing thought experiment and forces you to rethink many things you take for granted. It's also very amusing to see Tom come up with new ways to invalidate facts.

If you want to know the distance between 2 points on the 2D map you have to zoom in some. The way you are doing it is incorrect.
I tried to look this method up and could find nothing. Would you be able to provide a link or possibly demonstrate?
When zooming in on Alaska so that all of Alaska is visible on Google Maps the scale is about 50 miles per centimeter.
If you drag that view down to say Texas the legend changes to about 100 miles per centimeter.
Do I really need to take screenshots of this?

No, that's fine. Thx.

If you want to know the distance between 2 points on the 2D map you have to zoom in some. The way you are doing it is incorrect.
I tried to look this method up and could find nothing. Would you be able to provide a link or possibly demonstrate?
When zooming in on Alaska so that all of Alaska is visible on Google Maps the scale is about 50 miles per centimeter.
If you drag that view down to say Texas the legend changes to about 100 miles per centimeter.
Do I really need to take screenshots of this?
No. My claim was (i) that when you zoom out so that Texas and Alaska are visible on the flat surface, the scale of Alaska is different to that of Texas and (ii) this is not an accident. It is geometrically impossible to correlate the Google distances in km with the flat screen distances measured in pixels or cm or whatever. This is a fact of geometry discovered by Gauss.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorema_Egregium.
A consequence of the Theorema Egregium is that the Earth cannot be displayed on a map without distortion. The Mercator projection, shown here, preserves angles but fails to preserve area.

...
It's worth noting that it's not always the flat Earthers using the invalid arguments. I've seen, both here and in other places, flawed arguments used against the flat Earth and in favour of the globe. It's not that common, but it does happen. It's important to point out the flaws. No point in relying on the FE people to do it. If they had the ability to spot flawed reasoning...
Oh, I agree, one of the better posters here on the RE side was 3d. He had some amazing threads but his idea of using ping times to various servers to measure distances was very flawed. That does not invalidate his other arguments but some here tried to make it that way. I have been called out by RE'ers on a few flawed logic issues. This place is an amazing thought experiment and forces you to rethink many things you take for granted. It's also very amusing to see Tom come up with new ways to invalidate facts.
Yes, it's obviously not a debate forum in any real sense  but that doesn't mean it's necessarily valueless. It's possible to find logical errors here that don't exist elsewhere in the wild. They should get a grant.

Yes, it's obviously not a debate forum in any real sense  but that doesn't mean it's necessarily valueless. It's possible to find logical errors here that don't exist elsewhere in the wild. They should get a grant.
I see you are back and that all of your posts are still just complaining about FE. You are on 8 warnings and 3 temporary bans already. It is obvious this place is not for you, as you cannot seem to follow the very simple rules we have in place. Probably best we part ways now. Have a nice life!

No. My claim was (i) that when you zoom out so that Texas and Alaska are visible on the flat surface, the scale of Alaska is different to that of Texas and (ii) this is not an accident. It is geometrically impossible to correlate the Google distances in km with the flat screen distances measured in pixels or cm or whatever. This is a fact of geometry discovered by Gauss.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorema_Egregium.
A consequence of the Theorema Egregium is that the Earth cannot be displayed on a map without distortion. The Mercator projection, shown here, preserves angles but fails to preserve area.
Different portions of the map have different legends. Unfortunately google maps only displays one legend at a time so if you zoom all the way out you are only seeing one legend when, in reality, there are multiple as I have previously explained.

No. My claim was (i) that when you zoom out so that Texas and Alaska are visible on the flat surface, the scale of Alaska is different to that of Texas and (ii) this is not an accident. It is geometrically impossible to correlate the Google distances in km with the flat screen distances measured in pixels or cm or whatever. This is a fact of geometry discovered by Gauss.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorema_Egregium.
A consequence of the Theorema Egregium is that the Earth cannot be displayed on a map without distortion. The Mercator projection, shown here, preserves angles but fails to preserve area.
Different portions of the map have different legends. Unfortunately google maps only displays one legend at a time so if you zoom all the way out you are only seeing one legend when, in reality, there are multiple as I have previously explained.
So you DO understand that google maps is showing you a flat projection of a curved surface? And you agree that if google maps are accurate, that means the Earth must be curved?