#### iamcpc

• 702
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #60 on: January 10, 2019, 08:33:56 PM »
Exactly. You take off from LA, look at your watch, then land in Sydney, look at your watch again. 14 hours would have passed. According to the bi-polar flat Earth model, you have just traveled 50,000 kilometers at missle-like speeds, around Asia and Alaska, carried by a powerul bi-directional wind, and the plane refueled 4 times over the ocean without you noticing. Or, more plausibly, the Earth is actually a globe, and the distance is more like 12,000 km.
The earth could be flat and these flights could be possible but it requires a flat earth model that I believe I am the only one who can relate to. It does not have a great ice wall, does not have a dome, does not have a firmament etc.   It does a VERY good job reconciling with known and verified flight times, flight distances, road travel times, road travel distances, verified shipping times/distances, and modern cartography.
Could you post a picture of that model? As a mathematical exercise, it would be fun! There have been attempts to "square the circle", but I don't think any of them work - http://www.3dham.com/blog/flatearth2.html

www.mapquest.com has an interactive model of the earth represented and a flat infinite repeating plane.

Here are many more:
maps.yahoo.com
suncalc.net
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/

It should be pretty clear that they did not send a little robot with a measuring wheel to go and measure the distance when you made the online request, nor have they ever done that.

A robot? No. Google has sent hundreds (or thousands) of cars driving all over the world. Measuring distances and backing up those measurements with hundreds of thousands of photographs Here's the link which has proof:

If you don't believe they did test it. Go to the google maps street view and look at your house. They sure took a picture of my block and house and neighborhood and county and city and state.

Next you should probably consider if anyone has ever done that. If you decide that no one has done that then we must be talking about something theoretical that has to do with how the latitude and longitude numbers are determined.

Maybe you should consider that maybe someone has done it.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 08:48:11 PM by iamcpc »

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #61 on: January 10, 2019, 08:49:01 PM »

www.mapquest.com has an interactive model of the earth represented and a flat infinite repeating plane.

Here are many more:
maps.yahoo.com
suncalc.net
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/
These are just pictures. How do you solve the 4-point problem posed by AATW here https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11747.msg178193#msg178193

It's a simple geometrical challenge.

#### iamcpc

• 702
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #62 on: January 10, 2019, 08:59:41 PM »

www.mapquest.com has an interactive model of the earth represented and a flat infinite repeating plane.

Here are many more:
maps.yahoo.com
suncalc.net
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/
These are just pictures. How do you solve the 4-point problem posed by AATW here https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11747.msg178193#msg178193

It's a simple geometrical challenge.

first off when I checked the distances on other websites they were different than the OP.

Secondly they are not just pictures several of them are very detailed interactive maps of the earth. Mapquest.com is used by hundreds of thousands of people to navigate.

I didn't even attempt to solve that 4 point problem because allaroundtheworld already did here:

« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 09:01:18 PM by iamcpc »

#### fishcake

• 24
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #63 on: January 10, 2019, 09:17:32 PM »
Iamcpc, your idea is too psychadelic even for flat-earthers. A flat, endlessly repeating plane, my word! I think you're just pushing that model because it's interesting and because it's yours, not because it's more plausible than a round Earth.
Anyway, thers is a problem. The sun and moon add a third dimension to your model, so if there are an endless number of suns and moons above each repetition of the Earth, how come we can't see them with a telescope from different angles?
Man, the mental gymnastics Olympics are fun indeed!

#### iamcpc

• 702
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #64 on: January 10, 2019, 09:31:03 PM »
Iamcpc, your idea is too psychadelic even for flat-earthers. A flat, endlessly repeating plane, my word! I think you're just pushing that model because it's interesting and because it's yours, not because it's more plausible than a round Earth.
Anyway, thers is a problem. The sun and moon add a third dimension to your model, so if there are an endless number of suns and moons above each repetition of the Earth, how come we can't see them with a telescope from different angles?
Man, the mental gymnastics Olympics are fun indeed!

I'm not pushing that idea because it's more plausible than a round earth. I'm pushing that idea because it's based on my research, the most plausible flat earth model based on things like lunar cycles, solar cycles, known and verified flight times, flight distances, road travel times, road travel distances, verified shipping times/distances, and modern cartography.

It can't be that psychedelic because mapquest.com uses it. yahoo maps and apple maps both use it. Also suncalc.net uses it. Not only do they use it but hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people use it to navigate this earth.

You really think the earth as a flat disk with impossible fight times/distances, impossible travel times/distances, impossible shipping times/distances, impossible lunar cycles, impossible cartography, a dome, a firmament (whatever that may be) and a great ice wall around the perimeter is less psychedelic?

Oh and the sun is mapped very accurately on this model here:

http://suncalc.net
« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 09:36:27 PM by iamcpc »

#### fishcake

• 24
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #65 on: January 10, 2019, 09:49:07 PM »
Iamcpc, I love this! You are giving the flat-earthers a run for their money, let's just say that. I can't honestly say what's more psychadelic, a disk Earth with impossible flight times, or an endless, repeating piece of floating rock in space.
But you didn't understand the problem. If there is a sun and a moon floating some distance above that piece of rock, and they are also floating 40,000 kilometers to the east, and again, 80,000 kilometers to the east, over the next repetition, then if we aim a telescope at the Eastern horizon, shouldn't we see multiple suns, each smaller and lower, converging in a bright, white line pointing downwards?

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #66 on: January 10, 2019, 09:59:49 PM »
I didn't even attempt to solve that 4 point problem because allaroundtheworld already did here:
His point is that the problem cannot be solved except by supposing curvature.

#### iamcpc

• 702
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #67 on: January 10, 2019, 10:00:12 PM »
Iamcpc, I love this! You are giving the flat-earthers a run for their money, let's just say that. I can't honestly say what's more psychadelic, a disk Earth with impossible flight times, or an endless, repeating piece of floating rock in space.
But you didn't understand the problem. If there is a sun and a moon floating some distance above that piece of rock, and they are also floating 40,000 kilometers to the east, and again, 80,000 kilometers to the east, over the next repetition, then if we aim a telescope at the Eastern horizon, shouldn't we see multiple suns, each smaller and lower, converging in a bright, white line pointing downwards?

I'm not giving a flat earthers a run for their money. I'm giving a very specific subset of flat earth models a run for its money when it comes to very specific observations. I'm just pointing out that there is a flat earth model which is much more widely accepted and much easier to verify.

Honestly I don't know a lot about optics but i would guess that, In this model you can make the same claim that all the FE models do. You can't see that far through the air.
In the flat disk model you run into the same problem. How come you can't see the sun at night with a telescope on one of the flat disk models. Well the same thing applies here.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 10:03:25 PM by iamcpc »

#### fishcake

• 24
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #68 on: January 10, 2019, 10:25:50 PM »
Iamcpc, ah, but you can see stars on the horizon, and they are supposedly farther than the sun. And you can also see the sun itself rising from the horizon. If the Repeating Earth model is true, we should be able to see the next repeating sun, and the one after that, etc. There would be a bright vertical line on the horizon that would spawn a new sun each morning, moving West, and sinking into another vertical line on the opposite side! It's a fun thought experiment! Here is the thing though: you can explain why we don't see that line, very simply, with a round Earth model.

#### iamcpc

• 702
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #69 on: January 10, 2019, 10:34:07 PM »
Iamcpc, ah, but you can see stars on the horizon, and they are supposedly farther than the sun. And you can also see the sun itself rising from the horizon. If the Repeating Earth model is true, we should be able to see the next repeating sun, and the one after that, etc. There would be a bright vertical line on the horizon that would spawn a new sun each morning, moving West, and sinking into another vertical line on the opposite side! It's a fun thought experiment! Here is the thing though: you can explain why we don't see that line, very simply, with a round Earth model.

This is the same problem you run into with a flat disk model. You can say the same thing. How can you can see stars which are much further away from the sun but you can't go to the top of a building with a telescope and see the sun. You can claim this is a problem with both models and both can have the same answer/explanation. It's a tie.

Notice how in the disk model the light from the sun is not visible far away because the light from the sun has a limited viewing distance.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2685
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #70 on: January 10, 2019, 11:03:56 PM »
first off when I checked the distances on other websites they were different than the OP.
I imagine that if others try to repeat what I did they will get slightly different distances - people might put their “pins” in slightly different places to where I did.
I’d be surprised if they were significantly different distances though and the resulting picture would show the same problem.

When I “solved” the problem I did so by trying the same method with cities that were much closer together. Over shorter distances the discrepancy between a flat earth and a globe is less.

FE’s only explanation can be that the distances on Google Maps are wrong. But Google Maps is used by people every day to get around. As has been noted in this thread, Google have sent cars round much of the world. It has been proven reliable. The idea that their maps are inaccurate is ludicrous.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### fishcake

• 24
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #71 on: January 11, 2019, 05:17:09 AM »
This is the same problem you run into with a flat disk model. You can say the same thing. How can you can see stars which are much further away from the sun but you can't go to the top of a building with a telescope and see the sun. You can claim this is a problem with both models and both can have the same answer/explanation. It's a tie.
Notice how in the disk model the light from the sun is not visible far away because the light from the sun has a limited viewing distance.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
Except, you can see the light of a spotlight from a distance, even if it isn't directly aimed at you. You would clearly see the sun as a star on the horizon before it has risen. And in your model, you would see a line of multiple stars. The disk Earth version has the same problem, but it would be one star which suddenly turns big and bright above the horizon. There would be no gradual sunrise, such as we observe each morning.
PS, if the sun is a sphere, it should emit omnidirectional light unless only part of its surface emits light. According to your model, is it a sphere?

#### fishcake

• 24
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #72 on: January 11, 2019, 10:22:54 AM »
www.mapquest.com has an interactive model of the earth represented and a flat infinite repeating plane.
maps.yahoo.com
suncalc.net
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/
Iamcpc, by the way, these maps use the Mercator projection, which is inaccurate in itself. Aside from the obvious question: how come you don't see multiple suns, and how can there be a repeating piece of rock with endless copies of yourself - the map would make Greenland as big as Africa.

#### iamcpc

• 702
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #73 on: January 11, 2019, 04:10:22 PM »
www.mapquest.com has an interactive model of the earth represented and a flat infinite repeating plane.
maps.yahoo.com
suncalc.net
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/
Iamcpc, by the way, these maps use the Mercator projection, which is inaccurate in itself. Aside from the obvious question: how come you don't see multiple suns, and how can there be a repeating piece of rock with endless copies of yourself - the map would make Greenland as big as Africa.

There could be one earth and it could be like pac man where you west you eventually end up east of where you started and if you go eat you eventually wind up west of where you started.

This statement is inaccurate. If you zoom to Greenland on mapquest.com it shows, very clearly, that Greenland is about 1200-1400 miles north to south. If you then look at Africa you can see that Africa is much much larger than Greenland.

#### fishcake

• 24
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #74 on: January 11, 2019, 06:31:33 PM »
There could be one earth and it could be like pac man where you west you eventually end up east of where you started and if you go eat you eventually wind up west of where you started.
This statement is inaccurate. If you zoom to Greenland on mapquest.com it shows, very clearly, that Greenland is about 1200-1400 miles north to south. If you then look at Africa you can see that Africa is much much larger than Greenland.
While I am tempted to say that pac-man could be taking place on a sphere, which would eliminate the mystery of an endlessly looping object, let's just say that the MapQuest map does not lose the Mercator distortion when zoomed in, and doesn't use the pixel data as coordinates, but instead, uses coordinates from a projected and unfolded globe. Here is an explanation of the distortion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection . Moreover, the map cannot loop vertically, since there is a big Antarctic continent down South.

#### fishcake

• 24
##### Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« Reply #75 on: January 11, 2019, 07:15:31 PM »