[Tom Bishop]

To repeat, we have the WGS-84 model. Why do you not comment on it?

WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.

Again. You are claiming that a system is accurate. You need to PROVE IT. You are not even being asked to prove it yourself. You need to provide the data/experiments/trials that proves it. A low bar.

[inquisitive]

To repeat, we have the WGS-84 model. Why do you not comment on it?

WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.

Again. You are claiming that a system is accurate. You need to PROVE IT. You are not even being asked to prove it yourself. You need to provide the data/experiments/trials that proves it. A low bar.

Why do I?  You have the link.  If you were really interested in the subject you would investigate yourself.

[Tom Bishop]

To repeat, we have the WGS-84 model. Why do you not comment on it?

WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.

Again. You are claiming that a system is accurate. You need to PROVE IT. You are not even being asked to prove it yourself. You need to provide the data/experiments/trials that proves it. A low bar.

Why do I?  You have the link.

There are no experiments in that link.

You need to prove it because you are coming here with a claim that a particular system is accurate. If that is your claim, then you need to do something to demonstrate its accuracy.

This is an honest forum and we need to see the evidence in order to accept a claim. If you cannot provide the evidence, then we cannot honestly say that the system is accurate.

[inquisitive]

To repeat, we have the WGS-84 model. Why do you not comment on it?

WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.

Again. You are claiming that a system is accurate. You need to PROVE IT. You are not even being asked to prove it yourself. You need to provide the data/experiments/trials that proves it. A low bar.

Why do I?  You have the link.

There are no experiments in that link.

You need to prove it because you are coming here with a claim that a particular system is accurate. If that is your claim, then you need to do something to demonstrate its accuracy. If you cannot do that, then you cannot claim that it is accurate. We work with evidence here, not assumption.

Realization introduced by DoD on 2013-10-16 based on GPS observations.

You have not even described how you would determine the shape of the earth, no experiments, no evidence.

[Tontogary]

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!

I am guessing you ignored or glossed over the above Tom?

Tom’s argument (which i dont agree with) is that as they dont know the distance(?) then they cant know the speed.

My rebuttal to that shows that we use Doppler to calibrate our logs, and logs to verify our calculated distance. He has ignored that point.
Ok we do it at sea, whilst the OP uses published flight distances. The flight distances are calculated in the same way as we calculate marine distances.
I have provided empirical evidence that we measure our distances and they are accurate.

[Macarios]

Pull the line from North pole through subsolar point to Ice Wall.
All places on that line will have solar noon at that same moment.
All places east of the line will have Sun more to the west and lower in the sky.
All places west of the line will have Sun more to the east and lower in the sky.

As Sun circulates above Equator (or anywhere between Tropics) the line will go with it, 15 degrees per hour.
All places on the line at its new positions will have the same situation.
Regardless of the shape of the continents.

Where is globe in that?

EDIT: That was the way in which we know this:
If two or more places have solar noon at the same moment, it means they are on the same line drawn from North pole, through subsolar point, to Ice Wall.
Such line we call "meridian".

All of this would perfectly work in globe theory. Unfortunately you bring no real world observations or reports to the table to say that all of this happens like clockwork, only theory.

Yes, in both models.
Why would it be mutually exclusive?
"We can't have meridians in Flat model because 'they' have meridians in Globe model"?
Very "good" reason... LOL
It would be just like saying "we can't have sky in Flat model because 'they' have sky in Globe model" (or Asia, or South).
Some things exist in both.

You are acting like there is no solar noon in Flat model.
Or there is no subsolar point in Flat model?
Or there are no meridians in Flat model?
Or the Sun path is not circular in Flat model?
Or the center of Sun's path is not North pole in Flat model?

So, let me ask you for the third time: is there solar noon in Flat model?
It should be easy to answer.
Try.

[Tumeni]

There are no experiments in that link.

There are no experiments in ENaG, only drawings and writings.

So, if someone provides a link to a drawing of an experiment, do you accept that, in the same way you accept ENaG?

[Curious Squirrel]

Pull the line from North pole through subsolar point to Ice Wall.
All places on that line will have solar noon at that same moment.
All places east of the line will have Sun more to the west and lower in the sky.
All places west of the line will have Sun more to the east and lower in the sky.

As Sun circulates above Equator (or anywhere between Tropics) the line will go with it, 15 degrees per hour.
All places on the line at its new positions will have the same situation.
Regardless of the shape of the continents.

Where is globe in that?

EDIT: That was the way in which we know this:
If two or more places have solar noon at the same moment, it means they are on the same line drawn from North pole, through subsolar point, to Ice Wall.
Such line we call "meridian".

All of this would perfectly work in globe theory. Unfortunately you bring no real world observations or reports to the table to say that all of this happens like clockwork, only theory.

Yes, in both models.
Why would it be mutually exclusive?
"We can't have meridians in Flat model because 'they' have meridians in Globe model"?
Very "good" reason... LOL
It would be just like saying "we can't have sky in Flat model because 'they' have sky in Globe model" (or Asia, or South).
Some things exist in both.

You are acting like there is no solar noon in Flat model.
Or there is no subsolar point in Flat model?
Or there are no meridians in Flat model?
Or the Sun path is not circular in Flat model?
Or the center of Sun's path is not North pole in Flat model?

So, let me ask you for the third time: is there solar noon in Flat model?
It should be easy to answer.
Try.

Actually, Tom's claim is that you have not shown such a thing as 'solar noon' exists across all lines of meridian on the Earth. Unless you can show him documentation to that effect, he will refuse to believe you. Or, more precisely, refuse to accept that your claim is factual, and thus keep asking you to present evidence for it. It's the same tired routine he uses over the entire site, disregarding the fact his own claims have little more to stand on, if they even do.

[inquisitive]

Pull the line from North pole through subsolar point to Ice Wall.
All places on that line will have solar noon at that same moment.
All places east of the line will have Sun more to the west and lower in the sky.
All places west of the line will have Sun more to the east and lower in the sky.

As Sun circulates above Equator (or anywhere between Tropics) the line will go with it, 15 degrees per hour.
All places on the line at its new positions will have the same situation.
Regardless of the shape of the continents.

Where is globe in that?

EDIT: That was the way in which we know this:
If two or more places have solar noon at the same moment, it means they are on the same line drawn from North pole, through subsolar point, to Ice Wall.
Such line we call "meridian".

All of this would perfectly work in globe theory. Unfortunately you bring no real world observations or reports to the table to say that all of this happens like clockwork, only theory.

Yes, in both models.
Why would it be mutually exclusive?
"We can't have meridians in Flat model because 'they' have meridians in Globe model"?
Very "good" reason... LOL
It would be just like saying "we can't have sky in Flat model because 'they' have sky in Globe model" (or Asia, or South).
Some things exist in both.

You are acting like there is no solar noon in Flat model.
Or there is no subsolar point in Flat model?
Or there are no meridians in Flat model?
Or the Sun path is not circular in Flat model?
Or the center of Sun's path is not North pole in Flat model?

So, let me ask you for the third time: is there solar noon in Flat model?
It should be easy to answer.
Try.

Actually, Tom's claim is that you have not shown such a thing as 'solar noon' exists across all lines of meridian on the Earth. Unless you can show him documentation to that effect, he will refuse to believe you. Or, more precisely, refuse to accept that your claim is factual, and thus keep asking you to present evidence for it. It's the same tired routine he uses over the entire site, disregarding the fact his own claims have little more to stand on, if they even do.

If Tom goes to buy a ruler in a shop does he ask for the calibration information etc.?

[Tom Bishop]

To repeat, we have the WGS-84 model. Why do you not comment on it?

WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.

Again. You are claiming that a system is accurate. You need to PROVE IT. You are not even being asked to prove it yourself. You need to provide the data/experiments/trials that proves it. A low bar.

Why do I?  You have the link.

There are no experiments in that link.

You need to prove it because you are coming here with a claim that a particular system is accurate. If that is your claim, then you need to do something to demonstrate its accuracy. If you cannot do that, then you cannot claim that it is accurate. We work with evidence here, not assumption.

Realization introduced by DoD on 2013-10-16 based on GPS observations.

You have not even described how you would determine the shape of the earth, no experiments, no evidence.

Post the experiments or data that proves its accuracy. You need to show that it is accurate.

I am guessing you ignored or glossed over the above Tom?

Tom’s argument (which i dont agree with) is that as they dont know the distance(?) then they cant know the speed.

My rebuttal to that shows that we use Doppler to calibrate our logs, and logs to verify our calculated distance. He has ignored that point.
Ok we do it at sea, whilst the OP uses published flight distances. The flight distances are calculated in the same way as we calculate marine distances.
I have provided empirical evidence that we measure our distances and they are accurate.

Find and show the doppler data that verifies that GPS is accurate. "It's been done" doesn't get you very far. You need to show, not tell.

[Tom Bishop]

Pull the line from North pole through subsolar point to Ice Wall.
All places on that line will have solar noon at that same moment.
All places east of the line will have Sun more to the west and lower in the sky.
All places west of the line will have Sun more to the east and lower in the sky.

As Sun circulates above Equator (or anywhere between Tropics) the line will go with it, 15 degrees per hour.
All places on the line at its new positions will have the same situation.
Regardless of the shape of the continents.

Where is globe in that?

EDIT: That was the way in which we know this:
If two or more places have solar noon at the same moment, it means they are on the same line drawn from North pole, through subsolar point, to Ice Wall.
Such line we call "meridian".

All of this would perfectly work in globe theory. Unfortunately you bring no real world observations or reports to the table to say that all of this happens like clockwork, only theory.

Yes, in both models.
Why would it be mutually exclusive?
"We can't have meridians in Flat model because 'they' have meridians in Globe model"?
Very "good" reason... LOL
It would be just like saying "we can't have sky in Flat model because 'they' have sky in Globe model" (or Asia, or South).
Some things exist in both.

You are acting like there is no solar noon in Flat model.
Or there is no subsolar point in Flat model?
Or there are no meridians in Flat model?
Or the Sun path is not circular in Flat model?
Or the center of Sun's path is not North pole in Flat model?

So, let me ask you for the third time: is there solar noon in Flat model?
It should be easy to answer.
Try.

We make no claim on where and when it occurs. Maybe the sun's path is circular. Maybe it's oval. Maybe the sun makes a figure 8 over the year with a bi-polar type model. Much of that seems to be unstudied. The Flat Earth is a blank canvas that will require a lot of research.

No one is really claiming certainties on the subject. But you (RE'ers in general) seem to be claiming certainties on a lot of subjects. Since you are so certain, you need to demonstrate your claims. If you cannot demonstrate your claims, then we cannot join you in your certainty.

[AATW]

We make no claim on where and when it occurs. Maybe the sun's path is circular. Maybe it's oval. Maybe the sun makes a figure 8 over the year with a bi-polar type model. Much of that seems to be unstudied. The Flat Earth is a blank canvas that will require a lot of research.

Has it not occurred to you that there's a reason there's so little interest and investment in flat earth research?
It would like funding research in to alchemy, it's been long since shown to to impossible and thus a waste of money.

[Macarios]

Pull the line from North pole through subsolar point to Ice Wall.
All places on that line will have solar noon at that same moment.
All places east of the line will have Sun more to the west and lower in the sky.
All places west of the line will have Sun more to the east and lower in the sky.

As Sun circulates above Equator (or anywhere between Tropics) the line will go with it, 15 degrees per hour.
All places on the line at its new positions will have the same situation.
Regardless of the shape of the continents.

Where is globe in that?

EDIT: That was the way in which we know this:
If two or more places have solar noon at the same moment, it means they are on the same line drawn from North pole, through subsolar point, to Ice Wall.
Such line we call "meridian".

All of this would perfectly work in globe theory. Unfortunately you bring no real world observations or reports to the table to say that all of this happens like clockwork, only theory.

Yes, in both models.
Why would it be mutually exclusive?
"We can't have meridians in Flat model because 'they' have meridians in Globe model"?
Very "good" reason... LOL
It would be just like saying "we can't have sky in Flat model because 'they' have sky in Globe model" (or Asia, or South).
Some things exist in both.

You are acting like there is no solar noon in Flat model.
Or there is no subsolar point in Flat model?
Or there are no meridians in Flat model?
Or the Sun path is not circular in Flat model?
Or the center of Sun's path is not North pole in Flat model?

So, let me ask you for the third time: is there solar noon in Flat model?
It should be easy to answer.
Try.

We make no claim on where and when it occurs. Maybe the sun's path is circular. Maybe it's oval. Maybe the sun makes a figure 8 over the year with a bi-polar type model. Much of that seems to be unstudied. The Flat Earth is a blank canvas that will require a lot of research.

No one is really claiming certainties on the subject. But you (RE'ers in general) seem to be claiming certainties on a lot of subjects. Since you are so certain, you need to demonstrate your claims. If you cannot demonstrate your claims, then we cannot join you in your certainty.

Ok, sorry for asking too hard question.

Let me make it easier:
In the place where you live, there is path of the Sun across the sky in the shape of arc.
I hope you know that, but if you don't, ask neighbors.

Is there the highest apparent point on that path, where sun looks to be higher than before or after?

[StinkyOne]

Find and show the doppler data that verifies that GPS is accurate. "It's been done" doesn't get you very far. You need to show, not tell.

Tom - I've used GPS to track my position when I've been far outside of cell phone range. I can tell you it is very accurate. Accurate enough for me to risk getting lost in back country, which could prove fatal. I have another trip scheduled in late July. If I remember, I would be happy to record it's accuracy. (not that you would believe it) Your continual denial of it's accuracy when it is used in critical system daily just hurts your argument. I'd be willing to bet you've used it on more than one occasion.

[inquisitive]

Find and show the doppler data that verifies that GPS is accurate. "It's been done" doesn't get you very far. You need to show, not tell.

Tom - I've used GPS to track my position when I've been far outside of cell phone range. I can tell you it is very accurate. Accurate enough for me to risk getting lost in back country, which could prove fatal. I have another trip scheduled in late July. If I remember, I would be happy to record it's accuracy. (not that you would believe it) Your continual denial of it's accuracy when it is used in critical system daily just hurts your argument. I'd be willing to bet you've used it on more than one occasion.

Tom - consult a receiver manufacturer data, let them know if you have an issue and their reply to your contact with them.

[Obviously]

I don't get why everyone's supposed to be running around finding proofs and data to please Tom, especially since he himself pretty much never backs up any of his statements (aside from an occasional moronic youtube videoclip or a reference to Rowrowrowyourbowthom, who also never provided any proof). All he tries to do is find some weird detail in your argument that seems like a discrepancy (usually something he simply doesn't understand) and then derail the thread to focus on that, instead of the real issue (FE "theory" not having any proof or explanations for anything). Yeah yeah, I know, the FES is so gracious in providing us the forum to discuss these "important" matters, and we should all be very thankful and try our best to be sensitive to every flerfer's needs and feelings, blah blah blah. But you got it backwards: you should be honored that people show up here to help you and others who are lost see where you went wrong.

Tom/flerfers: when it comes to GPS, it's real simple -- it just works! There is no need to verify this because billions of people use it daily and it's very consistent. You can track the satellites too using something like this http://www.n2yo.com/ and actually point your telescope in the right direction and see them if you wish. Why is it that the live feed from ISS is always consistent with its location using a tracker and can be verified further by actually looking at it? It is on you to show evidence that something is off. If you don't believe satellites exist, or you think they're not what/where they actually are, or any other nonsense like that, it's your job to try to prove it.

On the other hand, care to show us just how GPS navigation would even work over a flat earth? What would keep the satellites flying over us for so long?

[Tontogary]

I don't get why everyone's supposed to be running around finding proofs and data to please Tom, especially since he himself pretty much never backs up any of his statements (aside from an occasional moronic youtube videoclip or a reference to Rowrowrowyourbowthom, who also never provided any proof). All he tries to do is find some weird detail in your argument that seems like a discrepancy (usually something he simply doesn't understand) and then derail the thread to focus on that, instead of the real issue (FE "theory" not having any proof or explanations for anything). Yeah yeah, I know, the FES is so gracious in providing us the forum to discuss these "important" matters, and we should all be very thankful and try our best to be sensitive to every flerfer's needs and feelings, blah blah blah. But you got it backwards: you should be honored that people show up here to help you and others who are lost see where you went wrong.

Tom/flerfers: when it comes to GPS, it's real simple -- it just works! There is no need to verify this because billions of people use it daily and it's very consistent. You can track the satellites too using something like this http://www.n2yo.com/ and actually point your telescope in the right direction and see them if you wish. Why is it that the live feed from ISS is always consistent with its location using a tracker and can be verified further by actually looking at it? It is on you to show evidence that something is off. If you don't believe satellites exist, or you think they're not what/where they actually are, or any other nonsense like that, it's your job to try to prove it.

On the other hand, care to show us just how GPS navigation would even work over a flat earth? What would keep the satellites flying over us for so long?

Tom is ignoring my posts on how I am providing empirical evidence and how i am able to provide readings on the verification of distances measured against calculated, which are independent from the RE model. I guess it is because he cannot dispute it. If that is the case he has no argument with the OP. He has no argument with the geometry and method, therefore the FE has been disproved, and he cannot find a reason to dispute/argue/ call into doubt the fundamental arguments.

Post like those go unanswered and the thread gets neglected until he can twist an argument again to try to provide doubt. Sorry we ain’t buying your particular brand of bull Crap!

[Tontogary]

Let’s provide some readings, and data from the real world.

Todays noon calculations for the ship show that from the time we departed our last port on just over a week ago we have calculated that we travelled 3122 nautical miles. This is based on calculating distances from noon to noon and adding them up.

Todays log shows a measured distance of 3161 miles, or a difference of 39 miles. That figure is equal to 1.23% of the total, or well within tolerances expected, and as the log was calibrated with the sea bed, if the earth was a plane, or globe then the distance measured is either global or plane, depending on the results of further experiments.

Now I have also looked back upon previous voyages for this ship, and find a simiar difference of between 1 and 1.5%.

This I believe has provided evidence that the calculated distance between 2 widely spaced places on the earth is correct to within at most 1.5%

Now apply this rationale to the OP thread, and as can be seen using his calculations and geometry that it proves without a shadow of doubt that the earth is a globe, and CANNOT be flat.

Thank you!




 

[pinecone]

Yes, in both models.
Why would it be mutually exclusive?
"We can't have meridians in Flat model because 'they' have meridians in Globe model"?
Very "good" reason... LOL
It would be just like saying "we can't have sky in Flat model because 'they' have sky in Globe model" (or Asia, or South).
Some things exist in both.

You are acting like there is no solar noon in Flat model.
Or there is no subsolar point in Flat model?
Or there are no meridians in Flat model?
Or the Sun path is not circular in Flat model?
Or the center of Sun's path is not North pole in Flat model?

So, let me ask you for the third time: is there solar noon in Flat model?
It should be easy to answer.
Try.

We make no claim on where and when it occurs. Maybe the sun's path is circular. Maybe it's oval. Maybe the sun makes a figure 8 over the year with a bi-polar type model. Much of that seems to be unstudied. The Flat Earth is a blank canvas that will require a lot of research.

No one is really claiming certainties on the subject. But you (RE'ers in general) seem to be claiming certainties on a lot of subjects. Since you are so certain, you need to demonstrate your claims. If you cannot demonstrate your claims, then we cannot join you in your certainty.

This is an interesting point.  Is is admirable to be skeptical if you are not satisfied with the data.  But then I am interested in how, in the absence of data, you came to the sure conclusion that the earth is flat.  If everything is unstudied, why so certain on it's topology?

Thanks.

[pinecone]

You are providing words, not demonstration. Showing is more powerful than saying. You are making a positive claim that something is accurate. You are expected to provide something more than an assertion.

Documentation available and used everyday.  What would you like to see and what can you provide?

https://confluence.qps.nl/qinsy/en/world-geodetic-system-1984-wgs84-29855173.html

You need to provide evidence to demonstrate YOUR claim. If YOU are claiming that a technology or system is 100% accurate, then YOU need to demonstrate YOUR claim.

Here is evidence: I am going to use flight TIMES not speeds or distances.  If airplanes didn't show up at their gates when expected it would imply that all the passengers would have to be in on the scheme.  We would hear about it.

I'm going to trace two flight itineraries around the earth, one northern, one southern.  Travelocity gives us:

Tokyo, Japan to San Francisco, US: 9 hours
San Francisco, US to New York, US: 5.5 hours
New York, US to London, England: 7 hours
London, England to Tokyo, Japan: 11.5 hours

Total of 33 hours to circumnavigate the earth in the northern latitudes.

Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia: 12 hours
Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile: 12.5 hours
Santiago, Chile to Sao Paulo, Brazil: 4 hours
Sao Paulo, Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa: 8.5 hours

Total of 37 hours to circumnavigate the earth in the southern latitudes.

These two 4-cornered itineraries take roughly the same amount of time.  Any flat projection of the earth needs to account for it.  The problem is that you get a wrap-around problem on one of the legs that should make the trip far longer.  If you bunch the countries together at the northern poll then the southern itinerary suffers.  Bunching to the south messes up the north conversely.  There is logically no way to arrange and stretch the continents on a flat surface that will account for these two itineraries at the same time.

However, if the earth wraps around like a tube, then the numbers can be justified.  All of this makes the assumption that planes don't deliberately sometimes fly slower just to trick us.

This is evidence. Let me know what you think.

Thanks.