[Tom Bishop]

Did you read your own article? The higher end GPS devices are extremely accurate according to that article. Which can almost be guaranteed to be what's in use in a plane. The one's specifically being called out as inaccurate are the consumer grade devices because of the more limited software, less frequent checking in, and just generally less attention to detail. Going by that article, accuracy cannot be what is under contention unless you are also postulating that aircraft are using consumer/recreational grade GPS units and software.

As previously mentioned, the only thing a GPS unit is doing is giving you your own coordinates. The accuracy of a consumer GPS system is about 15 feet, more or less, and the professional ones have even greater resolution. The distance between the coordinates should be already known in the software.

The argument that a "professional" GPS system is more accurate with distances doesn't really work. If I know my latitude and longitude, it should be known how far away it is from every other latitude and longitude coordinate under the Round Earth model. The need for "professional" devices with greater location accuracy than 15 feet is an invalid argument, merely used to distract from the fact that GPS does not work for measuring distances and the distances are inaccurate as a whole.

How is Lat/Long inaccurate?

They are based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.

[TomInAustin]

As Frank pointed out, there is no need for GPS, it just makes the system more accurate. Totally invalidates your argument. Please address his comments on ground speed necessary to travel the southern hemisphere distances. 

Why are you fighting this?  You should have embraced this thread as a way to map a flat Earth.    You keep saying there are no resources to map FE but you have been handed methodology to do just that.

As commented, if those other systems use Latitude and Longitude in any way, that makes them inaccurate too.

As commented by "you" you mean.  That is exactly how "The Earth is not a Globe" works, make some wild claim and reference it later as fact.  Sorry Tom, logic is prevailing in this thread.

Or, are you arguing that an airplane can get to a very distant location without knowing the coordinates of itself or its destination?

It's absolutely possible to fly long distances without knowing one's position.  Highly impractical but possible.  One could take off from Jacksonville Fl and fly westerly by following I-10 all the way to the Santa Monica CA.  Coast to Coast.   That is how navigation was done in the very early days of flight. 

[Tom Bishop]

Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg

That is not the accepted map of the earth.

[TomInAustin]

Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg

That is not the accepted map of the earth.

You mean there is no accepted map.  I can only assume the poster used that one to show how ridiculous the concept was.  The scale of the map and the need to fly over the western USA to get from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.

[frodo467]

Yes, whether you accept the map as accurate or not, the distances needed to fly from points in the southern hemisphere as compared to distances in the northern hemisphere is ludicrous.  Place the continents in any formation you choose and the distances are still so completely non-sensical as to be laughable.

[TomInAustin]

Yes, whether you accept the map as accurate or not, the distances needed to fly from points in the southern hemisphere as compared to distances in the northern hemisphere is ludicrous.  Place the continents in any formation you choose and the distances are still so completely non-sensical as to be laughable.

Exactly the point of this thread.  To see if cities could be placed in any configuration other than a globe and get the same distances.  Obviously not possible.

But as Tom Bishop says.  We are all wrong because of.... reasons.

[Curious Squirrel]

Did you read your own article? The higher end GPS devices are extremely accurate according to that article. Which can almost be guaranteed to be what's in use in a plane. The one's specifically being called out as inaccurate are the consumer grade devices because of the more limited software, less frequent checking in, and just generally less attention to detail. Going by that article, accuracy cannot be what is under contention unless you are also postulating that aircraft are using consumer/recreational grade GPS units and software.

As previously mentioned, the only thing a GPS unit is doing is giving you your own coordinates. The accuracy of a consumer GPS system is about 15 feet, more or less, and the professional ones have even greater resolution. The distance between the coordinates should be already known in the software.

The argument that a "professional" GPS system is more accurate with distances doesn't really work. If I know my latitude and longitude, it should be known how far away it is from every other latitude and longitude coordinate under the Round Earth model. The need for "professional" devices with greater location accuracy than 15 feet is an invalid argument, merely used to distract from the fact that GPS does not work for measuring distances and the distances are inaccurate as a whole.

Again, did you read the article? The inaccuracies of a consumer grade GPS has to do with the inaccuracies in where you are, compounding over long distances. It knows where you are within 15 feet, taking a measurement let's say every 5 seconds. Moving along a straight line, let's say the first check is -5X +0Y feet from where you actually are. The second check is +0X +2Y. The third is -7X -6Y. You've now added quite a bit of extra distance to what you've walked, simply due to the inaccuracies in your exact location. Sure, if it knows your destination it can tell you how far it is. But it can't know that, it's collecting the distance data as you walk. As such, the small inaccuracies (as shown) add up over longer distances. Higher grade devices know your position with far less inaccuracy, and as such are far more accurate for gauging distance. What about this doesn't make sense?

How is Lat/Long inaccurate?

They are based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.

Then address my earlier point on making a lat/long style system for one type of object and attempting to shift it to another. If lat/long is accurate for all measured locations (as 3DGeek is showing in another thread) how can it be accurate upon a flat plane too?

[frodo467]

Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg

That is not the accepted map of the earth.

You mean there is no accepted map.  I can only assume the poster used that one to show how ridiculous the concept was.  The scale of the map and the need to fly over the western USA to get from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.

Not to mention the need to fly the entire length of Africa as well as over the entire Asian continent to get form Johannesbug to Sydney.

[TomInAustin]

Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg

That is not the accepted map of the earth.

You mean there is no accepted map.  I can only assume the poster used that one to show how ridiculous the concept was.  The scale of the map and the need to fly over the western USA to get from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.

Not to mention the need to fly the entire length of Africa as well as over the entire Asian continent to get form Johannesbug to Sydney.

But they get a lovely view of Mount Everest on the way by!

[3DGeek]

Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg

That is not the accepted map of the earth.

But you say that you don't know the map of the Earth - right?  Pretty sure you said that more than once.

You're missing the BIG point here - which is that you now have conclusive proof that there is no possible flat map that can reproduce these known distances.  The laws of Euclidean geometry guarantee that you'll never make a flat map that works.

In all likelyhood you've tried and failed at least a few times over the past decades...and I'm completely unsurprised at that.   No matter how you move the continents around, no matter how you stretch and squash them - you can't EVER get it right.

Sorry Tom - but you really are getting hammered over these threads.   I can't imagine you're feeling very happy about that - especially since 100% of your supporters seem to have deserted you.

 We've proven you can't make a valid map.
 We've proven you can't use 'refraction'.
 I've just explained to you how perspective works and why you can't "modify" it.
 I've explained why the magnification of the sun by the atmosphere can't be true and how your pictures of lights receding into the distance is explained.

You really don't have a leg to stand on anymore.

[Frank]

If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.

Some do. And they consistently work together with the ones that don't. And all of them take us to the points we want to go, in the time that we calculate. That means that navigation systems that use the globe as a model work on the world that we live and walk on very accurately. Which in turn means, that the model of a globe is pretty much suitable in describing the world we live on, which in turn means, that there is some likelyhood that the world is round. They, however, do not work on a flat earth.

[Frank]

If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.

All over. So....what? FE doesn't even have something to do that with, seeing as it doesn't have a working map. For a given coordinate system to work (such as Lat/Long) doesn't it mean the figure has to be the shape the coordinate system assumes it is in order for it to work at all? I can't take a sphere, unfold and stretch it out into a flat plane, and still have all of the coordinates match up properly. Hell, I'll be left with areas that don't have coordinates at all. Please explain. You keep objecting to these things because they "Use a RE coordinate system" but please explain how a system can be accurate for a shape it isn't designed for.

Accuracy is a matter that is in contention. Please refer to my previous post about GPS distances not being valid. The GPS systems carried by athletes gave different distances when compared to the USATF certified track distances which were measured with a wheeled device.

Sorry. GPS is very accurate. It may happen, that there are some inaccuracies (within meters) for a given period of time, but they do not play any role when it comes to proving or disproving any of the arguments in this thread. We are talking about accuracy of within three meters >95% of the time and the likes. Differential GPS is even more accurate.

[Frank]

As Frank pointed out, there is no need for GPS, it just makes the system more accurate. Totally invalidates your argument. Please address his comments on ground speed necessary to travel the southern hemisphere distances. 

Why are you fighting this?  You should have embraced this thread as a way to map a flat Earth.    You keep saying there are no resources to map FE but you have been handed methodology to do just that.

As commented, if those other systems use Latitude and Longitude in any way, that makes them inaccurate too. Or, are you arguing that an airplane can get to a very distant location without knowing the coordinates of itself or its destination?

Latitude an longitude are very accurate in describing a point on the real Earth, whatever shape it may have. I do not quite understand where you get the idea that this wouldn't be the case. The system works very well. You can use latitude and longitude on a map with doing all calculations on a paper and get to where you want just by using a compass, and it works. Or what do I not understand?

[Frank]

Mr. Bishop, can you reply to this?

uh, and I just read further. It seems to me you, Mr. Bishop, are fixating on the need to prove that distances between points are indeed the distances that people who "believe in a globe" are claiming they are. Your claim that GPS data is based on a globe and therefore cannot be used to prove or disprove groundspeed, distances and other claims made in this thread, is unfortunately not quite correct. Whereas GPS data is indeed based on data derived from the model of a rotational ellipsoid and then corrected for the parts of (round) Earth that don't match the mathematical model with the World Geodatic System 1984 (WGS84), it is not the only way a modern airliner measures it's position and ground speed. As a matter of fact, GPS wouldn't be needed at all (and wasn't as a general rule until the nineties). An Airliner navigates by the use of an inertial reference system, which is self-reliant, if the correct position is inserted before the aircraft starts to move. (By way of design, that reference system would not even work on a flat Earth, especially one that is not rotating.) However, the reference system accumulates errors, and thus the position becomes more inaccurate the longer the aircraft is moving. Old(er) aircraft like the 737-300 generation, 747 classic, DC10 and the likes used solely ground based navigation systems (VOR, DME-DME updating) to correct the "drift" of their inertial reference system (which then was called inertial navigation system). Over oceanic airspace that was not possible, hence there was an increasing drift error the longer the aircraft flew over water (without updating). That was accounted for in the design of the airways, so no aircraft would get too close to another one. Modern airliners update their position also by GPS. So now we have ground based navigaton aids that reflect the actual distances on Earth and that can be used for very accurate ground speed estimation, and GPS, and we find, that there is no difference outside normal tolerances in between the two - neither in position nor in speed measurement. This means, we are using systems that would work on a flat Earth (ground based navigation) and systems that use the round Earth as a model (GPS) and both enable us to navigate very accurately on the real Earth. So, if I read you correctly, this invalidates your claim, that data based on a globe can not be used to prove actual distances on the real Earth (flat or round). Furthermore, any conceivable model of a flat Earth causes distances away from its center to become so large, that far bigger speeds than the actual ones would be necessary to cover them. And by "far bigger" I mean multiples of the speed of sound. However, airliners don't fly that fast. (The problems of supersonic, let alone hypersonic airtravel are rediculously high.) Not even the geatest inaccuracy of an airborne air speed indicator, independent of any navigation system, could explain that impossibility away, because of the sheer velocity that would be required. Air masses don't move that fast either - especially not in one direction and, for the way back, in the other. Which brings me to the problem of weather systems, which cannot be explained by a flat earth eiter, especially one that is not rotating.

Where this may be possible to explain with refering to (for you) more tangible explanations, it seems to be involving a lot of text to write. I would rather like to point out the following:

We, the people who believe the earth is a globe, have a mathematical model of "our" earth. I am working with this model every day, and it works in real life - both, in the air, and on the oceans, to a great precision. Furthermore, weather observation, the physics of gyros, gasses and many, many other easily observabale trades of nature and the world we live in, whatever shape it may have, match that model.

Without disrespect,  that the earth should be flat bears a lot of problems. First and foremost, that, as you claim, no model of a flat earth has been charted that can explain and unify all or even a small percentage of the observations that can easily made by man. As a matter of fact, it stops explaining most of the things beyond "the earth does not look like a ball from where I am standing". While you of course have every right to believe anything you like, I hope I am not being rude by saying, that your "model" of a flat earth is very underdeveloped at the moment. So much so, that you (and/or your fellow believers) have to withdraw into the "fog of uncertainty" very often, where suddenly mismatches between your statements and between your statements and so far undisputed claims (e.g. the speed of sound, accuracy of ground speed measurment and so on) are being "explained away" to make other things match - and, as a last resort, the sources of those so far undisputed claims are being brought into disrepute by implying (or openly writing), they are part of a conspiracy. Thus, to a fictive observer without any further knowledge of the earth, who is venturing past "The Earth Looks Flat From My Position", your flat Earth bears more questions than answers, and that is without claiming, that any other model is more correct - wouldn't you agree?

So, for practical purposes, your flat Earth model does not work, starting from the absence of the actual "model", which makes, it seems, - and please correct me if I am wrong - this whole "Flat Earth Debate" obsolete.

[Frank]

also, Mr. Bishop: I understand that you think that Latitude and Longitude are not precise because they use the round Earth as a model, however the Earth in your opinion is flat. Do I understand you correctly?

How can it be, that Latitude and Longitude work very well in navigation, then? So well, that it is possible to fly 8000 nautical miles and then do an instrument approach and an automatic landing on a 45m wide Runway solely by refering to Lat/Lon, as good as 100% of the time?

[Smokified]

They are based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.

You claim that the earth is not a globe because it was written in a book and because nobody you know that says otherwise has actually been in space to observe it for themselves.

Then you go on to claim that the earth is flat (with certainty), although you yourself have not witnessed it and there are 100s of thousands, if not millions, of publications explaining that the earth is in fact a globe and how that conclusion was derived.

The globe map of earth can be tested and proven to be correct 100% of the time without deviation.  This alone destroys any hope you have of actually proving the earth is flat.

[Tom Bishop]

although you yourself have not witnessed it

This is incorrect.

[Tom Bishop]

Mr. Bishop, can you reply to this?

uh, and I just read further. It seems to me you, Mr. Bishop, are fixating on the need to prove that distances between points are indeed the distances that people who "believe in a globe" are claiming they are. Your claim that GPS data is based on a globe and therefore cannot be used to prove or disprove groundspeed, distances and other claims made in this thread, is unfortunately not quite correct. Whereas GPS data is indeed based on data derived from the model of a rotational ellipsoid and then corrected for the parts of (round) Earth that don't match the mathematical model with the World Geodatic System 1984 (WGS84), it is not the only way a modern airliner measures it's position and ground speed. As a matter of fact, GPS wouldn't be needed at all (and wasn't as a general rule until the nineties). An Airliner navigates by the use of an inertial reference system, which is self-reliant, if the correct position is inserted before the aircraft starts to move. (By way of design, that reference system would not even work on a flat Earth, especially one that is not rotating.) However, the reference system accumulates errors, and thus the position becomes more inaccurate the longer the aircraft is moving. Old(er) aircraft like the 737-300 generation, 747 classic, DC10 and the likes used solely ground based navigation systems (VOR, DME-DME updating) to correct the "drift" of their inertial reference system (which then was called inertial navigation system). Over oceanic airspace that was not possible, hence there was an increasing drift error the longer the aircraft flew over water (without updating). That was accounted for in the design of the airways, so no aircraft would get too close to another one. Modern airliners update their position also by GPS. So now we have ground based navigaton aids that reflect the actual distances on Earth and that can be used for very accurate ground speed estimation, and GPS, and we find, that there is no difference outside normal tolerances in between the two - neither in position nor in speed measurement. This means, we are using systems that would work on a flat Earth (ground based navigation) and systems that use the round Earth as a model (GPS) and both enable us to navigate very accurately on the real Earth. So, if I read you correctly, this invalidates your claim, that data based on a globe can not be used to prove actual distances on the real Earth (flat or round). Furthermore, any conceivable model of a flat Earth causes distances away from its center to become so large, that far bigger speeds than the actual ones would be necessary to cover them. And by "far bigger" I mean multiples of the speed of sound. However, airliners don't fly that fast. (The problems of supersonic, let alone hypersonic airtravel are rediculously high.) Not even the geatest inaccuracy of an airborne air speed indicator, independent of any navigation system, could explain that impossibility away, because of the sheer velocity that would be required. Air masses don't move that fast either - especially not in one direction and, for the way back, in the other. Which brings me to the problem of weather systems, which cannot be explained by a flat earth eiter, especially one that is not rotating.

Where this may be possible to explain with refering to (for you) more tangible explanations, it seems to be involving a lot of text to write. I would rather like to point out the following:

We, the people who believe the earth is a globe, have a mathematical model of "our" earth. I am working with this model every day, and it works in real life - both, in the air, and on the oceans, to a great precision. Furthermore, weather observation, the physics of gyros, gasses and many, many other easily observabale trades of nature and the world we live in, whatever shape it may have, match that model.

Without disrespect,  that the earth should be flat bears a lot of problems. First and foremost, that, as you claim, no model of a flat earth has been charted that can explain and unify all or even a small percentage of the observations that can easily made by man. As a matter of fact, it stops explaining most of the things beyond "the earth does not look like a ball from where I am standing". While you of course have every right to believe anything you like, I hope I am not being rude by saying, that your "model" of a flat earth is very underdeveloped at the moment. So much so, that you (and/or your fellow believers) have to withdraw into the "fog of uncertainty" very often, where suddenly mismatches between your statements and between your statements and so far undisputed claims (e.g. the speed of sound, accuracy of ground speed measurment and so on) are being "explained away" to make other things match - and, as a last resort, the sources of those so far undisputed claims are being brought into disrepute by implying (or openly writing), they are part of a conspiracy. Thus, to a fictive observer without any further knowledge of the earth, who is venturing past "The Earth Looks Flat From My Position", your flat Earth bears more questions than answers, and that is without claiming, that any other model is more correct - wouldn't you agree?

So, for practical purposes, your flat Earth model does not work, starting from the absence of the actual "model", which makes, it seems, - and please correct me if I am wrong - this whole "Flat Earth Debate" obsolete.

I've already replied to that. If you would like to discuss further please go to the Flat Earth General forum, to the think tank thread, and cast your vote on which topic you would like to discuss. I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.

[TomInAustin]

Mr. Bishop, can you reply to this?

uh, and I just read further. It seems to me you, Mr. Bishop, are fixating on the need to prove that distances between points are indeed the distances that people who "believe in a globe" are claiming they are. Your claim that GPS data is based on a globe and therefore cannot be used to prove or disprove groundspeed, distances and other claims made in this thread, is unfortunately not quite correct. Whereas GPS data is indeed based on data derived from the model of a rotational ellipsoid and then corrected for the parts of (round) Earth that don't match the mathematical model with the World Geodatic System 1984 (WGS84), it is not the only way a modern airliner measures it's position and ground speed. As a matter of fact, GPS wouldn't be needed at all (and wasn't as a general rule until the nineties). An Airliner navigates by the use of an inertial reference system, which is self-reliant, if the correct position is inserted before the aircraft starts to move. (By way of design, that reference system would not even work on a flat Earth, especially one that is not rotating.) However, the reference system accumulates errors, and thus the position becomes more inaccurate the longer the aircraft is moving. Old(er) aircraft like the 737-300 generation, 747 classic, DC10 and the likes used solely ground based navigation systems (VOR, DME-DME updating) to correct the "drift" of their inertial reference system (which then was called inertial navigation system). Over oceanic airspace that was not possible, hence there was an increasing drift error the longer the aircraft flew over water (without updating). That was accounted for in the design of the airways, so no aircraft would get too close to another one. Modern airliners update their position also by GPS. So now we have ground based navigaton aids that reflect the actual distances on Earth and that can be used for very accurate ground speed estimation, and GPS, and we find, that there is no difference outside normal tolerances in between the two - neither in position nor in speed measurement. This means, we are using systems that would work on a flat Earth (ground based navigation) and systems that use the round Earth as a model (GPS) and both enable us to navigate very accurately on the real Earth. So, if I read you correctly, this invalidates your claim, that data based on a globe can not be used to prove actual distances on the real Earth (flat or round). Furthermore, any conceivable model of a flat Earth causes distances away from its center to become so large, that far bigger speeds than the actual ones would be necessary to cover them. And by "far bigger" I mean multiples of the speed of sound. However, airliners don't fly that fast. (The problems of supersonic, let alone hypersonic airtravel are rediculously high.) Not even the geatest inaccuracy of an airborne air speed indicator, independent of any navigation system, could explain that impossibility away, because of the sheer velocity that would be required. Air masses don't move that fast either - especially not in one direction and, for the way back, in the other. Which brings me to the problem of weather systems, which cannot be explained by a flat earth eiter, especially one that is not rotating.

Where this may be possible to explain with refering to (for you) more tangible explanations, it seems to be involving a lot of text to write. I would rather like to point out the following:

We, the people who believe the earth is a globe, have a mathematical model of "our" earth. I am working with this model every day, and it works in real life - both, in the air, and on the oceans, to a great precision. Furthermore, weather observation, the physics of gyros, gasses and many, many other easily observabale trades of nature and the world we live in, whatever shape it may have, match that model.

Without disrespect,  that the earth should be flat bears a lot of problems. First and foremost, that, as you claim, no model of a flat earth has been charted that can explain and unify all or even a small percentage of the observations that can easily made by man. As a matter of fact, it stops explaining most of the things beyond "the earth does not look like a ball from where I am standing". While you of course have every right to believe anything you like, I hope I am not being rude by saying, that your "model" of a flat earth is very underdeveloped at the moment. So much so, that you (and/or your fellow believers) have to withdraw into the "fog of uncertainty" very often, where suddenly mismatches between your statements and between your statements and so far undisputed claims (e.g. the speed of sound, accuracy of ground speed measurment and so on) are being "explained away" to make other things match - and, as a last resort, the sources of those so far undisputed claims are being brought into disrepute by implying (or openly writing), they are part of a conspiracy. Thus, to a fictive observer without any further knowledge of the earth, who is venturing past "The Earth Looks Flat From My Position", your flat Earth bears more questions than answers, and that is without claiming, that any other model is more correct - wouldn't you agree?

So, for practical purposes, your flat Earth model does not work, starting from the absence of the actual "model", which makes, it seems, - and please correct me if I am wrong - this whole "Flat Earth Debate" obsolete.

I've already replied to that. If you would like to discuss further please go to the Flat Earth General forum, to the think tank thread, and cast your vote on which topic you would like to discuss. I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.

That's a huge fail.  This forum was created to debate and by any definition of debating I have ever seen you lost. 

[Tom Bishop]

That post was already addressed. Here was my reply:

If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.

The only reply from the poster was a statement that Latitude and Longitude is correct. No evidence was provided for this statement. The only evidence in this thread are my sources showing that GPS provides incorrect distances. No sources have been provided show that any Round Earth navigational system provides correct distances. You and Frank continually refuse to provide evidence of such. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter.