I already did that in STEP 1. Notice that I looked up the cruise speed of the specific aircraft that Qantas fly - then compared their stated flight time at that speed with the distances they claim and the match is extremely good. I also gave a link to a site that tracks how many times flights from various airlines are on-time - and for Qantas, it's very good - so again, we know that the stated flight times along with the speed at which their airplanes fly is a great match for the distances they say they are flying.
You will need to show that the aircraft is not using maps, instruments, or GPS computers which assume Round Earth coordinates. How is this distance being computed, exactly?
No Tom - please listen.
Speed of aircraft = X. Scheduled time to complete flight = Y (Proof that these planes are almost always meeting those times).
Distance = Y x X (Guaranteed to be fairly accurate because plane speed is known, so is flight time).
DOES THIS MATCH THE DISTANCES QANTAS QUOTE?
Yes! They do!
So HOWEVER Qantas arrive at those distances (it really doesn't matter) - they must be fairly close to the correct, true, honest to goodness values.
For them to be as far wrong as it takes for the Earth to be flat - they'd have to be a factor of 2 or 3 "off" from the truth - which leaves you saying that EITHER:
a) Qantas have Mach 2 passenger airplanes....or...
b) Qantas are always between 13 and 26 hours late on a 13 hour flight (which they *CLEARLY* are not - because the plane doesn't carry enough fuel for that).
SO...the Qantas distances can be trusted (within some reasonable margin of error) - and it doesn't matter how they arrived at them - because I calculated them from speeds and times - and I came up with about the same answers.
Furthermore - for one of their routes (The Sydney/Dallas route) I did those calculations and found (to my surprise) that the 747-400 couldn't make it. I searched deeper and discover that Qantas bought four "Extended-Range" versions of the 747-400 just for that route!
This is further confirmation that they simply don't have the fuel on board to fly distances more than maybe 20% beyond the distances they actually fly.
So I have verified the flight distances - by comparing them to times - and proving that this is how long they actually take to get there.
No, you have not. Firstly, we don't know whether the distances between two points stated on that Qantas website, or on any of the website which were posted here, is based on flight times or the Round Earth expectation. You have yet to demonstrate this.
Sorry Tom - I did do that - check what I just wrote - and go back and re-read my first post to this thread.
There is no dodging this one.
Secondly, you will need to demonstrate that a flight time from Point A to Point B is a reliable indicator of the average cruising speed. If the aircraft's cruising speed was originally measured based on the distance between two points, since all instruments assume Round Earth coordinates, that cruising speed may be in error.
I have also explained that nobody who makes airplanes measures the cruising speed using a stopwatch and a long flight. That's INSANE! They already know the cruise range (and speed - and maximum all-up weight, etc, etc) before the plane even leaves the drawing board. If they need a plane to cover some particular route - they DESIGN IT TO DO THAT - and because these are very smart people - the final, delivered airplane will come within about 1% of the design specifications.
We don't live in the dark ages anymore Tom.
This isn't WWII where some brave pilot would climb into the plane for the test flight - hoping it wouldn't fall out of the sky. These days, they have computers calculating "virtual wind tunnel" data - which they compare to models placed in wind-tunnels and to parts of the airplane that fit into smaller wind tunnels. They KNOW the speed and performance to an amazing precision before the very first piece of metal is cut.
Airlines buy airplanes for specific flight characteristics LONG before the manufacturer has even finished designing them. They'll agree parameters like speed, fuel consumption, payload, seating plans...they'll sign up to buy the planes - and only then is the design completed and the first prototype built.
So - get your head into the modern world. That's how things are done now.
So forget flying some known distance with a stopwatch on the plane....doesn't happen because it doesn't need to happen.
Bear in mind - we're not looking at subtle differences - your maps (ALL OF THEM) predict flight distances that are 200% to 300% of what the airlines claim - and which would require aircraft to fly at twice to three times their maximum airspeed in order to EVER make their schedules.
There is no Flat Earth Map. We don't know where any discrepancies might show on such a map. There are monopole and bi-polar models, with a near infinite number of continental map configurations.
Right - but if you've been following along here - you'll notice that the key part of my proof is that the four edges and two diagonals of the paths between cities represents an IMPOSSIBLE two-dimensional ("flat") figure. There is no possible flat map that can explain those six measurements.
Hence you can doodle away making flat maps from now until eternity and not ONE of them can possibly - by any means whatever - explain the time it takes to fly between those cities with those airplanes.
So you're done. The world ISN'T flat...it's been proven to you - right here, right now.
So either retire gracefully - or continue to be a laughing stock.
Have you noticed how not one single one of your fellow flat-earthers is coming to this thread to help you out with better explanations? I think there may be a reason for that.
Anyway - I have another similar bomb-shell lined up for you in my next big thread.
But do you truly believe that airplanes are designed - then test flown to determine how fast they'll fly? That's not been true for at least 40 years. The airplane is designed VERY SPECIFICALLY for a particular speed, range and endurance. All of this is carefully calculated long before the first piece of metal is cut. Airlines buy airplanes that meet a specific performance before the first test flight...and actually, test flights have become something of an anachronism anyway. We know exactly how a plane as expensive as an airliner will fly long before it ever flies.
Unless they are pointing a police speedometer laser at the airplane, how do they actually know how fast it flies without some kind of reference to the ground? Since all navigational instruments assume a Round Earth, a Round Earth distance between two points will return a Round Earth result.
The plane may be built "vary specifically" for a certain speed and range, but all of that is based on the Round Earth speeds and ranges of previous planes, and therefore that is a fallacious argument.
So Tom - would you care to take a shot at why these speeds are PERFECTLY accurate for North/South flight on your map - SOMEWHAT accurate for Northern hemisphere flights - and WILDLY inaccurate for Southern hemisphere flights?
Surely if we have horribly misunderstood air speeds - they'd be wrong everywhere?
Actually, we can measure speed through the air very easily. There is a gizmo called a "pitot" tube which directly measures the speed of the air as the plane passes through it. Modern aircraft only use them as a very last-ditch backup - but they still work. That device gives a direct reading of the speed of the plane. Of course it has to be corrected for wind speed over the ground - but that's never going to be a big enough factor (we know this because the outgoing and incoming routes for Qantas only differ by maybe 10 to 15 minutes over a 13 hour flight...so the pitot tube speed reading must be within a few percent of the speed measured by other means.
Please - I'm not an idiot - I'm not going to fall for this kind of flim-flam.
I know a HELL of a lot about airplanes - and I can demolish every one of your arguments in a heartbeat.
However, this argument isn't going to get you anywhere for two very good reasons:
1) Your maps consistently produce shorter routes than are realistic in the Northern hemisphere and longer routes than are realistic in the southern hemisphere. Since the cruise speed of an airplane is the same in the North as in the South - your conjecture that the cruise speeds are "off" by a factor of two or three doesn't hold water.
Again, there is NO flat earth map. It is UNKNOWN if the Southern Hemisphere is large, if it is large and the continents are more squished together, or if the bi-polar model or other type of model with a smaller Southern Hemisphere is correct.
And AGAIN you miss the point of this thread.
I'm well aware of how you've used the "We don't know what the map is like" argument in the past.
So this thread - rather cleverly, I thought - proves that ANY flat map you could ever come up with will have these problems. Because you can't construct a quadrilateral with those sides and those two diagonals...no matter how you try to do it.
The is one good way though - wrap your map around a sphere - and lo and behold you can make it all work perfectly.