#### TomInAustin

• 1211
• Round Duh
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #380 on: November 15, 2017, 05:49:53 PM »
You’d have thought, regardless of the topography, the earth would be reliably mapped by Now.  After all, people have been travelling all over it for hundreds of years !

By the way, are there any flat earth believers left here ?

They would have you believe a map is not important to the cause.  That's the weakest link in the FE arguments.
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

#### Delirious Lab

• 4
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #381 on: November 17, 2017, 07:05:47 PM »
Hi everyone, I had to register to chime in about an important point.

I understand some flat-earthers don’t accept claimed distances over water.  So I want to demonstrate the proof introduced in this thread with smaller distances which can be covered by land.

Take these airports at the four corners of the continental US: Boston (BOS), Seattle (SEA), Miami (MIA) and Los Angeles (LAX).  The same method as presented earlier will work even on such a small patch of land - no need to select cities as far apart as Johannesburg - Sydney, etc. - but of course the effect will be smaller.

http://www.webflyer.com/travel/mileage_calculator/ gives the following distances which can be more easily corroborated than (say) the “unknown” distance from New York to Paris since they do not cross any ocean:

SEA - MIA 2720 miles
SEA - BOS 2490 miles
BOS - MIA 1260 miles
SEA - LAX 954 miles
BOS - LAX 2600 miles
MIA - LAX 2340 miles

From http://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html then, we have:

BOS-SEA-LAX angle (85.773°) = BOS-SEA-MIA angle (27.538°) + MIA-SEA-LAX angle (56.916°)
The sum of the two angles on the right-hand side of this "equality" is 84.454°, over 1.3 degree less than the left-hand side.

From the Boston angle:
SEA-BOS-MIA (86.443°) = SEA-BOS-LAX (21.465°) + LAX-BOS-MIA (64.002°)
The sum on the right adds up to 85.467° and we're missing almost one degree.

With Los Angeles as the pivot the discrepancy is over two degrees (left as an exercise).

So my question is, do flat-earthers dispute even these within-landmass distances?  If not... what's the rebuttal?  Curved landmass surrounded by a flat ocean, maybe?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 07:26:24 PM by Delirious Lab »

#### snowbeaver2

• 1
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #382 on: November 20, 2017, 05:46:28 PM »
Personally - I say this debate is won...the Flat Earthers no longer have a leg to stand on, and they should have the guts to admit it.

3DGeek,

Thank you for this thread. I read this forum occasionally mostly for entertainment, but this thread seemed to be different than a lot of others because it promises a mathematical proof of a round earth, rather than one that relies on observations and evidence that can be ignored by FE’ers. The only evidence that needs to be accepted is that flight times are not regularly wrong by 2 or 3 times the expected values, and that aircraft cruising speed is not wildly off of the expected speeds. Using these two nearly indisputable assumptions, you have given a calculation of the distances between cities on earth. Finally, you used these distances to show that no flat map can produce the correct distances.

While I do appreciate your argument, I’m not sure that it is the airtight argument you claim. It rests on one more assumption, which is that speed = distance * time is a good representation for the speeds, distances, and times at hand. For a plane, the ‘time’ variable is flight time and the ‘speed’ variable is average aircraft speed, so the ‘distance’ variable is the path length of the flight. You have made the assumption that flights travel in straight lines along their path. You must make this assumption in order to construct your mathematical proof, as your proof rests on an analogy between the sides of a quadrilateral and the paths of flights.

Instead of finding the “honest to goodness” distances between cities, I believe you have found upper bounds on the distances between cities. These cities can be separated by at most the distances you claim, assuming that flights travel in straight lines, or minimum distance paths. However, flight paths can always be devised that are longer than this minimum. Flights could circle cities for hours in order to extend flight time.

You may ask, “Why would airlines do this? This would be horribly inefficient and waste passengers’ and crews’ time.” I agree. However, this no longer constitutes an elegant mathematical proof free of assumptions, which is the reason I believe this thread is interesting.

One easy explanation that FE’ers might use is that the “Aether Wind” is blowing aircraft more significantly in the northern hemisphere, so when planes fly between these cities, they follow a nearly circular path between them, extending your expected distances by a factor of pi/2, or about 157%. Southern hemisphere flights, on the other hand, are less affected by the wind when in the southern hemisphere, and so have flight paths that are much closer to straight lines. This gets us half way to your 300% correction. The other half can be explained by the “Aether Wind” also causing altitude fluctuations of the plane in the northern hemisphere. These altitude fluctuations could cause planes to fly upward and downward sinusoidally, which would in fact not require a large amplitude to get the remaining correction that you have stated. This is just one of many examples of how planes could fly other than in straight lines that would allow for the flight times we observe on daily flights.

While I’m not trying to encourage FE’ers, I’m still curious to see an airtight mathematical proof, and I am not convinced that this qualifies.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 05:49:11 PM by snowbeaver2 »

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #383 on: November 20, 2017, 06:05:59 PM »
Personally - I say this debate is won...the Flat Earthers no longer have a leg to stand on, and they should have the guts to admit it.

While I do appreciate your argument, I’m not sure that it is the airtight argument you claim. It rests on one more assumption, which is that speed = distance * time is a good representation for the speeds, distances, and times at hand. For a plane, the ‘time’ variable is flight time and the ‘speed’ variable is average aircraft speed, so the ‘distance’ variable is the path length of the flight. You have made the assumption that flights travel in straight lines along their path. You must make this assumption in order to construct your mathematical proof, as your proof rests on an analogy between the sides of a quadrilateral and the paths of flights.

The important thing to remember here is that these flight times are only there to back up distances we can measure by other means.  So, for example, I can use things like Google Maps to calculate those same distances - and the results (over these very long distance routes) agree to within a few percent.

There are certainly cases where they DISAGREE - but when you look into them, they are things like routes that would cross hostile countries or places where there is open warfare.  In those cases, the airline routes are clearly longer - and you can understand why.

Airlines are AGGRESSIVELY price conscious because a difference of just \$10 in an airfare between you and your competitors is life or death.  Since 40% of the price of an airline ticket is the cost of the fuel - if there was a shorter route or the plane could fly at a more efficient speed - they'd be doing it for 100% sure.   So a conspiracy to fly longer routes is ridiculous.

Quote
Instead of finding the “honest to goodness” distances between cities, I believe you have found upper bounds on the distances between cities. These cities can be separated by at most the distances you claim, assuming that flights travel in straight lines, or minimum distance paths. However, flight paths can always be devised that are longer than this minimum. Flights could circle cities for hours in order to extend flight time.

You may ask, “Why would airlines do this? This would be horribly inefficient and waste passengers’ and crews’ time.” I agree. However, this no longer constitutes an elegant mathematical proof free of assumptions, which is the reason I believe this thread is interesting.

Indeed - but if they were doing that - why would they ever be late in arriving?   If they had time to spare to orbit at the end of a flight - they'd never be late "due to unexpected headwinds", etc.

But the bottom line is that what we have here is a way to dismiss the crazy long routes that every FE map MUST produce as a consequence of flattening a spherical map.   The 3x longer route between Sydney Australia and Santiago Chile in the unipolar map and the even longer routes transpacific routes in the bipolar map are easily enough to dismiss any SPECIFIC map that the FE'ers can come up with.

The idea here is to find an argument that proves that NO POSSIBLE FE map can work.

Quote
One easy explanation that FE’ers might use is that the “Aether Wind” is blowing aircraft more significantly in the northern hemisphere, so when planes fly between these cities, they follow a nearly circular path between them, extending your expected distances by a factor of pi/2, or about 157%. Southern hemisphere flights, on the other hand, are less affected by the wind when in the southern hemisphere, and so have flight paths that are much closer to straight lines. This gets us half way to your 300% correction. The other half can be explained by the “Aether Wind” also causing altitude fluctuations of the plane in the northern hemisphere. These altitude fluctuations could cause planes to fly upward and downward sinusoidally, which would in fact not require a large amplitude to get the remaining correction that you have stated. This is just one of many examples of how planes could fly other than in straight lines that would allow for the flight times we observe on daily flights.

That idea - along with the "jet stream" argument fail because we can look at flight times on both the outgoing and homecoming flights on the exact same route and they only differ by a small percentage.   If these mysterious currents were capable of tripling an airplanes' speed in one direction, the return trip would never reach it's destination!

Quote
While I’m not trying to encourage FE’ers, I’m still curious to see an airtight mathematical proof, and I am not convinced that this qualifies.

Sadly, even airtight mathematical proofs ("How to photons get from the sun to the eye at sunset") don't convince the crazier FE'ers.   One of them is now reduced to claiming that mathematics don't apply to the real world in a desperate effort to weasel out of the "sunset trap" into which he's wandered!
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### RJDO

• 34
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #384 on: November 20, 2017, 06:11:12 PM »

Question. Since reading this, I believe according to Flat Earth Theory, we are to assume that we are unable to rely on distances between cites using travel times, due to any variable that can be introduce to the traveler. We are unable to rely on GPS for position of something on earth since is probably does not exist, or if it does, can not be trusted. And lastly, I have not been able to find a reliable map of what earth looks like, (One I can use for actual distances, location, etc...) What can be used as a constant to do any sort of reliable math problem to figure out locations?

To me it seems as though any form of an actual way to locate something on the earth cannot be done in regrading the Flat Earth Theory. How are we all not lost all the time when sailing on the water, or flying in the air. If we are unable to accurately assume anything based on a round earth, how are these flights, cruises, anything at all able to be accurately predicted with the Flat Earth Theory. Having been a sailor and vessel master myself, I can say that Great Circle sailing has been very reliable for navigation, which relies heavily on the earth being round.

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #385 on: November 20, 2017, 06:37:49 PM »

Question. Since reading this, I believe according to Flat Earth Theory, we are to assume that we are unable to rely on distances between cites using travel times, due to any variable that can be introduce to the traveler. We are unable to rely on GPS for position of something on earth since is probably does not exist, or if it does, can not be trusted. And lastly, I have not been able to find a reliable map of what earth looks like, (One I can use for actual distances, location, etc...) What can be used as a constant to do any sort of reliable math problem to figure out locations?

More than one FE'er has said "We don't know what the map of the world looks like - the maps we have on the Wiki are just examples."...so we don't even have a map.

Quote
To me it seems as though any form of an actual way to locate something on the earth cannot be done in regrading the Flat Earth Theory. How are we all not lost all the time when sailing on the water, or flying in the air. If we are unable to accurately assume anything based on a round earth, how are these flights, cruises, anything at all able to be accurately predicted with the Flat Earth Theory. Having been a sailor and vessel master myself, I can say that Great Circle sailing has been very reliable for navigation, which relies heavily on the earth being round.

Yes - we've even produced documentary PROOF that cable-laying ships only carry enough cable for a "great circle" route plus a TINY amount extra - and arrive at their destination with only a little cable to spare.   This means that a cable of known length, made and measured in a factory - exactly reaches over this distance.  Which agrees with Google Maps, which agrees with GPS, which agrees with the airlines.

The cable laying ships are giving us an amazingly exact "measurement with a ruler" approach...and even that is pooh-poohed because Tom can't believe that they never run out of cable or get more from somewhere or have a hell of a lot left over!

What we have here are a group of people who have the intelligence to know that they don't have a leg to stand on.   Seriously - there is no way to explain away the sheer MOUNTAINS of evidence we have that their Flat Earth theory is just junk.

But they are stubborn people and will go to ANY lengths (including denying that math works or claiming that aircraft manufacturers don't know how fast their airplanes can fly - or that passengers on trans-oceanic routes never comment on the fact that the entire flight happened overland).

The degree of desperation will cause these people to pile on more and more and more crazy and unprovable theories and incoherent and self-contradictory explanations.   Defeat one - and another even crazier one will pop up.

Just follow Tom Bishop's posts over the last three days to see how desperate this man is to hold on to an utterly defeated idea...but again, this is a guy who believes that high doses of vitamin C will cure Ebola and AIDS and that cancer can be avoided by eating green peppers.

Some people...

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### gizmo910

• 130
• Si vis pacem, para bellum
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #386 on: November 21, 2017, 02:51:10 AM »
One could use the real-time data provided by flightradar to monitor certain flights as they happen.
Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

“When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #387 on: November 21, 2017, 03:29:52 PM »
One could use the real-time data provided by flightradar to monitor certain flights as they happen.

Sure - and we've suggested that too.   I forget what the countervailing argument for that one was.

I've also suggested (for long distances) that using the "ping" times over the Internet would place a lower limit on the distances between locations. An Internet "ping" can't travel faster than light - so if it takes 70 milliseconds to get a result - the distance between the two locations cannot be more than (0.007/2) x speed-of-light.  But the resident flim-flam artists don't like that one either!

I think they used to believe that they could simply say "our map isn't finalized yet - so all bets are off on disproving it"...but that simply isn't enough.  If we have ANY measurement of distances - even quite approximate ones - we can prove conclusively that there is no POSSIBLE flat map that fits the data.

Bottom line - no matter WHAT measurement of distance (or angles) you can come up with, the FE'ers *CANNOT* tolerate it's acceptance because that would be the final death-knell of their stupid theory.

We've even tried ASKING FE'ers what kinds of distance measurements they would accept...and we get <crickets>.

But as I've said - we now have "The best mind in Flat Earthism" claiming that math doesn't work.  He actually posted a link that he claimed proved that "2+2 doesn't equal 4" - which turned out to be something that said nothing of the sort...but that tells you quite a bit about the level of intellect around here!
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #388 on: November 21, 2017, 03:42:31 PM »
One could use the real-time data provided by flightradar to monitor certain flights as they happen.

Sure - and we've suggested that too.   I forget what the countervailing argument for that one was.

I've also suggested (for long distances) that using the "ping" times over the Internet would place a lower limit on the distances between locations. An Internet "ping" can't travel faster than light - so if it takes 70 milliseconds to get a result - the distance between the two locations cannot be more than (0.007/2) x speed-of-light.  But the resident flim-flam artists don't like that one either!

I think they used to believe that they could simply say "our map isn't finalized yet - so all bets are off on disproving it"...but that simply isn't enough.  If we have ANY measurement of distances - even quite approximate ones - we can prove conclusively that there is no POSSIBLE flat map that fits the data.

Bottom line - no matter WHAT measurement of distance (or angles) you can come up with, the FE'ers *CANNOT* tolerate it's acceptance because that would be the final death-knell of their stupid theory.

We've even tried ASKING FE'ers what kinds of distance measurements they would accept...and we get <crickets>.

But as I've said - we now have "The best mind in Flat Earthism" claiming that math doesn't work.  He actually posted a link that he claimed proved that "2+2 doesn't equal 4" - which turned out to be something that said nothing of the sort...but that tells you quite a bit about the level of intellect around here!
To be fair on the ping thing, it IS sort of important to be 100% sure the spot you're pinging is where it's supposed to be/claiming it to be. Actually on that note, couldn't a site like pingtest.net be a useful/reliable source? You can select a server to ping, so you'll know the location of the server in regards to where you are, and it shouldn't be too hard to verify the locations of the server through another means, right? Idle thought.

I do wish any of them would pipe up with what can be used to measure distance though. Not that I expect any distance gathered to be accepted considering the present apparent claim that basic math doesn't work in the real world.

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #389 on: November 21, 2017, 03:53:34 PM »
One could use the real-time data provided by flightradar to monitor certain flights as they happen.

Sure - and we've suggested that too.   I forget what the countervailing argument for that one was.

I've also suggested (for long distances) that using the "ping" times over the Internet would place a lower limit on the distances between locations. An Internet "ping" can't travel faster than light - so if it takes 70 milliseconds to get a result - the distance between the two locations cannot be more than (0.007/2) x speed-of-light.  But the resident flim-flam artists don't like that one either!

I think they used to believe that they could simply say "our map isn't finalized yet - so all bets are off on disproving it"...but that simply isn't enough.  If we have ANY measurement of distances - even quite approximate ones - we can prove conclusively that there is no POSSIBLE flat map that fits the data.

Bottom line - no matter WHAT measurement of distance (or angles) you can come up with, the FE'ers *CANNOT* tolerate it's acceptance because that would be the final death-knell of their stupid theory.

We've even tried ASKING FE'ers what kinds of distance measurements they would accept...and we get <crickets>.

But as I've said - we now have "The best mind in Flat Earthism" claiming that math doesn't work.  He actually posted a link that he claimed proved that "2+2 doesn't equal 4" - which turned out to be something that said nothing of the sort...but that tells you quite a bit about the level of intellect around here!
To be fair on the ping thing, it IS sort of important to be 100% sure the spot you're pinging is where it's supposed to be/claiming it to be. Actually on that note, couldn't a site like pingtest.net be a useful/reliable source? You can select a server to ping, so you'll know the location of the server in regards to where you are, and it shouldn't be too hard to verify the locations of the server through another means, right? Idle thought.

I do wish any of them would pipe up with what can be used to measure distance though. Not that I expect any distance gathered to be accepted considering the present apparent claim that basic math doesn't work in the real world.

Yes - it certainly is important to know where the server is...and that's not an easy thing to prove.  It looks like Ookla have discontinued the pingtest.net site though.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### Wintershot

• 5
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #390 on: December 07, 2017, 12:47:18 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

It is not a theoretical model, it is a scientific theory.

#### Tom Haws

• 190
• Not Flat, Round, Ellipsoid, or Geoid. Just Earth.
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #391 on: December 08, 2017, 10:06:39 PM »
Guys, please take that somewhere else. Possibly even move these posts starting with Cameron's question. This is a very valuable thread with serious subject matter.
Civil Engineer (professional mapper)

Thanks to Tom Bishop for his courtesy.

No flat map can predict commercial airline flight times among New York, Paris, Cape Town, & Buenos Aires.

The FAQ Sun animation does not work with sundials. And it has the equinox sun set toward Seattle (well N of NW) at my house in Mesa, AZ.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9315
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #392 on: December 08, 2017, 11:52:24 PM »
Guys, please take that somewhere else. Possibly even move these posts starting with Cameron's question. This is a very valuable thread with serious subject matter.

Agreed. Split/moved.

#### Tontogary

• 431
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #393 on: April 15, 2018, 12:37:47 PM »
I must add that this thread was utterly fascinating for a number of reasons.

The sheer willpower and effort to derail the thread, and to try to discredit every statement made to support 3Dgeeks logical approach.
The sheer audacity of some of the statements made by Tom (and also i must add the amount of times he made me crack up with laughter!)
The very reasonable and easy to follow mathematics laid out.
And the real insight  i got into the FEers arguments, and tactics to discredit logical science and rational thinking.

Part of the argument that was of particular interest to me was some of the statements made about positions, and co ordinates.

Tom asserted that Lat Long is based on a global model, and he does not recognise any data, measurements or technology that is based on the global model.
He must truly be a defence lawyer as his arguments, turning words around, and attempts to shift focus are certainly indicative of what one might encounter in a lawyer.

Anyway, there was a lot of discussion regarding GPS accuracy etc, and it got me thinking off any way to show that the distances calculated by GPS are to be relied upon.

We use GPS, differential GPS and a host of other ways to define our position, but all are global in origin, however we do have a way of measuring accurately the distance between 2 points.

We use GPS  and DGPS primarily for our positions, our position is projected onto electronic charts these days, but we have a way of measuring distances which are line of sight, and accurate and proven. RADAR.

Radar waves travel at a known speed (near the speed of light) and travel in straight lines with known values for distortion. They travel back in straight lines, and it is the time taken to be received that determines the distance of the object returning the pulse. All very flat earth i am sure you will agree.

We can overlay our radar picture onto our chart, so that we can see the shape of the land, and see that objects that are plotted with GPS co ordinates are at the expected distance away, which CONFIRMS the GPS calculated distance.

As for the ridiculous statement that the direction and range of every coordinate on earth should be tabulated and “known” from every other is clearly ridiculous. If every second of every minute of every degree of longitude was plotted (approx accuracy 30metres) it would need 216,000 data points for every degree of longitude, or 77,760,000 to plot every second around the earth, for 1 second of latitude, and then there are the 180 degrees of latitude to do the same with so you have 77.76 million times 38.8 million, which would have over 3 billion data points, each with its stored bearing and distance! It uses a lot less memory and power to calculate the bearing and distance, and people (mariners) have been doing it successfully for hundreds of years.

Lorraine was mentioned, but is no longer in use, as is Decca, and Omega, all hyperbolic navigational navigation systems, using radio waves, and not based on round earth models. You were able to accurately plot a position and and then cross reference your position on a chart which confirmed with the lat long co ordinates.

As for distances, we use logs to measure distance, basically a Doppler shift type of radar, which Tom did not dispute the accuracy of. They use Doppler shift to measure the relative speeds of 2 objects, in our case the sea bed, where it is shallow enough (less than 200M deep( and as the sea bed does not move it calculates our velocity. Twin axis Doppler are very accurate and give velocity athwartships (sideways) as well as fore and aft. They are so accurate they can determine our speed to within 0.1 knot, or 1/10th miles an hour.
We also have a GPS log that calculates our speed. Now we dont use your run of the mill \$100 GPS from wallmart here, and guess what that speed coincides with our speed from our Doppler radar, so we know how fast we are moving.

We cross check and calibrate our logs against each other, so we KNOW fast we are travelling.

We also use celestial observations to cross reference our positions, and surely we must believe that astronomical position fixing is accurate? It has been so for hundreds of years. Even EnaG says it is accurate.

So all that taken we calculate, yes yes, using a global model, distances from point a to point b across oceans, but this is the clever part, our speed logs were checked and calibrated using the non moving sea bed, so it does not make a difference if the earth is flat or round for our speed logs to be accurate, they were calibrated for the shape of the earth we are on, flat or global, but this is the clever bit,

the distances we get by the time taken and speed steamed, agree with the distances calculated (using the global model of lat/long) so if they match does that not follow the distances we use are correct.

Finally i saw a classic few statements regarding the mapping of the world, that we dont know the shapes of land and sea etc in the Southern Hemisphere.

Land masses have been surveyed, driven, walked steamed by railroads, cycled and mapped extensively, so i am guessing there is not much discussion regarding them, but to fit them in the proper places, the oceans would need to be squashed, but we find that they are not squashed, they are the right size, the distances we calculate them to be.

There was also made the statement that the distances are only historical, and shipping companies just use distances they have gained before.  What a load of rubbish!
When my ship gets orders to proceed to a port we have never been before do you think my office phones other companies asking what the distance is as we have not done it before? They would die of shame and embarrassment.
What really happens is they ask me to calculate it, which i do, and then they ask me how much fuel, food i need, and how long it will take.
I can promise you, no matter how appealing i dont stop off on an island for a couple of weeks for a bit of shore leave to make it look like the journey is longer than it is in reality!

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

#### Macarios

##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #394 on: April 15, 2018, 06:42:27 PM »
Tom asserted that Lat Long is based on a global model, and he does not recognise any data, measurements or technology that is based on the global model.
He must truly be a defence lawyer as his arguments, turning words around, and attempts to shift focus are certainly indicative of what one might encounter in a lawyer.

Lat/Long is based on measurements of Sun angles, not on any model, Flat or Curved.

All places that have solar noon at the same moment will be at the same meridian, whether the Earth was disc, cylinder, bicone, sphere...
All places that will have same culmination (angular elevation of Sun for solar noon) at the same day will be at the same latitude, regardless of the Earth's shape again.

Let me repeat: Lat/Long is based on Sun measurement, not on Earth shape.
Open ENaG, Page 21, Fig. 10 and see angles on Rowbotham's map.
Compare with the angles on Gleason's map.
Actualy, compare the whole maps.

If "Tom asserted that Lat Long is based on a global model" than he insulted the intelligence of the readers.

I didn't go back to search, I just said "IF".

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8034
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #395 on: April 15, 2018, 07:26:09 PM »
The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### Stagiri

• 186
• You can call me Peter
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #396 on: April 15, 2018, 07:27:48 PM »
The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Proof?
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #397 on: April 15, 2018, 08:02:42 PM »
The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Or does it just prove it so?

#### inquisitive

• 1067
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #398 on: April 15, 2018, 09:19:33 PM »
The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.
What system wouod you use. If or when you give us your proposal for mapping the earth.

#### Tontogary

• 431
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #399 on: April 15, 2018, 11:23:11 PM »
The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Tom argued that the LAT Long system is accurate, just the way we calculate distances between them were not.

He was using this argument too refute the OP in the distances used for the first few posts, ie that the distances used were not proven, therefore all of the argument was unproven, even though the mathematics was not in question.

Tom also was happy to accept Radar as being accurate. Big point that.

I was able to explain how we use the same technology to calibrate and measure speed, and to ensure our logs are accurate, a method which does NOT assume the earth is round, or flat. It is relative to the earth (or sea bed) so therefore gives us a speed based on whatever the shape the world actually is

our logs measure distance from point A to point B, based on the speed obtained above, therefore the speed and consequently distance, is not based on the RE, or indeed a FE, but actually measured.

Then we know the distances across the oceans, as measured by a method NOT based on the RE. So these should be accepted by Tom?

Now we are getting somewhere, as if the distances are measured, and the geometry not questioned. 3DGeek, must have proved the theory?
Comparing calculated

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.