[Westprog]

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.

I'm not surprised that this hasn't garnered responses. The claim is always that the various maps are all inaccurate, and that the real flat Earth map hasn't yet been produced. Flight times, however, are inherently incompatible with any flat Earth map.

I think I've mooted the idea of a school project involving wire and plasticine. Cut the wire to lengths proportional to the travel times between cities, and try to make a model accordingly. It's not possible to make a flat model. Connect the wires between North and South of the Equator, and you start to build a sphere. It's the only way the connections link up. It's not perfect, of course. Shorter flights spend proportionately more time on the runway and attaining altitude, and not all flights are at the same speed. Prevailing winds will have an influence. Still, as a way of getting a general concept of the shape of the world, it's not bad.

Flight times are an excellent way to kill the flat Earth nonsense from the start, because unlike many of the ways to verify the globe, flight times involve the everyday experience of ordinary people. Tell people about measuring angles to the Sun, and they switch off. Tell them about how long it takes to fly to Hawaii, and they know that's for real.

[pinecone]

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.

I'm not surprised that this hasn't garnered responses. The claim is always that the various maps are all inaccurate, and that the real flat Earth map hasn't yet been produced. Flight times, however, are inherently incompatible with any flat Earth map.

I think I've mooted the idea of a school project involving wire and plasticine. Cut the wire to lengths proportional to the travel times between cities, and try to make a model accordingly. It's not possible to make a flat model. Connect the wires between North and South of the Equator, and you start to build a sphere. It's the only way the connections link up. It's not perfect, of course. Shorter flights spend proportionately more time on the runway and attaining altitude, and not all flights are at the same speed. Prevailing winds will have an influence. Still, as a way of getting a general concept of the shape of the world, it's not bad.

Flight times are an excellent way to kill the flat Earth nonsense from the start, because unlike many of the ways to verify the globe, flight times involve the everyday experience of ordinary people. Tell people about measuring angles to the Sun, and they switch off. Tell them about how long it takes to fly to Hawaii, and they know that's for real.

It's clear that most of the people on this board are here to debunk FE.  I'm interested in their motivations.  Do they think they're going to change minds?  Is it the challenge?  Have they just picked a group they can easily ridicule?

Interested.

[Stagiri]

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.

I'm not surprised that this hasn't garnered responses. The claim is always that the various maps are all inaccurate, and that the real flat Earth map hasn't yet been produced. Flight times, however, are inherently incompatible with any flat Earth map.

I think I've mooted the idea of a school project involving wire and plasticine. Cut the wire to lengths proportional to the travel times between cities, and try to make a model accordingly. It's not possible to make a flat model. Connect the wires between North and South of the Equator, and you start to build a sphere. It's the only way the connections link up. It's not perfect, of course. Shorter flights spend proportionately more time on the runway and attaining altitude, and not all flights are at the same speed. Prevailing winds will have an influence. Still, as a way of getting a general concept of the shape of the world, it's not bad.

Flight times are an excellent way to kill the flat Earth nonsense from the start, because unlike many of the ways to verify the globe, flight times involve the everyday experience of ordinary people. Tell people about measuring angles to the Sun, and they switch off. Tell them about how long it takes to fly to Hawaii, and they know that's for real.

It's clear that most of the people on this board are here to debunk FE.  I'm interested in their motivations.  Do they think they're going to change minds?  Is it the challenge?  Have they just picked a group they can easily ridicule?

Interested.

I'm here, if for nothing else, to challenge and improve my own opinions and world views.

[TomInAustin]

Flight times are an excellent way to kill the flat Earth nonsense from the start, because unlike many of the ways to verify the globe, flight times involve the everyday experience of ordinary people.

I agree,  flight times in the southern hemisphere are the best proof there is since ALL space pics are fake.   That's why the only responses you will get are along the lines of GPS is not accurate, pilots have no idea how fast they are flying, distances between points are unknown etc.  That or stone silence.

[AATW]

It's clear that most of the people on this board are here to debunk FE.  I'm interested in their motivations.  Do they think they're going to change minds?  Is it the challenge?  Have they just picked a group they can easily ridicule?

Interested.

For me, I was just fascinated that this is even a thing now. I lurked for a bit and couldn't quite believe some of the nonsense arguments which were being put forward from FE so in the end I decided to sign up and join in. Some died in the wool FErs will never change their stance, they have too much stake in FE, the cognitive dissonance is too strong. But I like to think other people browsing the site will see the FE arguments for what they are.
I guess I just think truth is important.

[Westprog]

I'm here, if for nothing else, to challenge and improve my own opinions and world views.

That's a good enough reason. I'm mostly hear to see the arguments and ways of thinking by people who hold an objectively absurd belief. The same arguments are used by people who hold less obviously nonsensical beliefs - beliefs that may even be true, though the arguments supporting them are not sound.

[pinecone]

It's clear that most of the people on this board are here to debunk FE.  I'm interested in their motivations.  Do they think they're going to change minds?  Is it the challenge?  Have they just picked a group they can easily ridicule?

Some died in the wool FErs will never change their stance, they have too much stake in FE, the cognitive dissonance is too strong. But I like to think other people browsing the site will see the FE arguments for what they are.
I guess I just think truth is important.

Yes, but what goes on for an FE'er when presented with (what I think) is a sound argument?  Do they just dismiss it because they know better?  Do they roll their eyes and get annoyed that someone can be so seriously deluded?  I doubt they are cowering in fear that someone has finally caught them out.

What is the source of their belief?  It doesn't seem to be religious.  Do they all come to it the same way?

[Westprog]

Yes, but what goes on for an FE'er when presented with (what I think) is a sound argument?  Do they just dismiss it because they know better?  Do they roll their eyes and get annoyed that someone can be so seriously deluded?  I doubt they are cowering in fear that someone has finally caught them out.

What is the source of their belief?  It doesn't seem to be religious.  Do they all come to it the same way?

This is the useful and important part of being on this site. It's not to confirm to ourselves that the world is round - that's a given. It's to find out how people can hold irrational beliefs in the face of opposing evidence, because that has a big effect on the (round) world we live in. There's no "debate" going on here.

[360x60]

Yes you have yet to prove that known 3D locations of places show anything other than a round earth.  GPS gives us the location of the receiver regardless of the earth..  Is WGS 84 incorrect, if so why?

The coordinate system a GPS uses assumes that the coordinate points rest upon a sphere. The location of one coordinate point may be "accurate", but the distance between multiple coordinate points relies upon the Round Earth model, and is therefore in dispute in these conversations.

Hi Tom,

you exhibit amazing stamina in the the face of fairly black and white evidence, well done on that count!
The GPS and other satellite systems do not assume a position on a sphere. They simply calculate a number of arcs measured from the many space vehicles. Where they intersect is the position in space, altitude may also be calculated with say 4 or more signals. It just happens that they indicate the position of the receiving unit on a spherical planet.

I am a pilot and rely heavily on GPS nowadays, let me assure you that it is incredibly accurate. My life and my crews life depend on it!

[JohnAdams1145]

Yes you have yet to prove that known 3D locations of places show anything other than a round earth.  GPS gives us the location of the receiver regardless of the earth..  Is WGS 84 incorrect, if so why?

The coordinate system a GPS uses assumes that the coordinate points rest upon a sphere. The location of one coordinate point may be "accurate", but the distance between multiple coordinate points relies upon the Round Earth model, and is therefore in dispute in these conversations.

Hi Tom,

you exhibit amazing stamina in the the face of fairly black and white evidence, well done on that count!
The GPS and other satellite systems do not assume a position on a sphere. They simply calculate a number of arcs measured from the many space vehicles. Where they intersect is the position in space, altitude may also be calculated with say 4 or more signals. It just happens that they indicate the position of the receiving unit on a spherical planet.

I am a pilot and rely heavily on GPS nowadays, let me assure you that it is incredibly accurate. My life and my crews life depend on it!

To be clear, what Tom said is additionally completely wrong, and he should really take a physics/mathematics class. What is "the location of one coordinate point"? First of all, points do not depend on the coordinate system. They exist without a coordinate system selected. A point expressed in polar coordinates is still the same expressed in the appropriate Cartesian coordinates. This is an important point. I can give any triplet of numbers as the coordinates of a single point, and I would be correct, because there always exists a coordinate system that expresses that point with those 3 numbers. GPS accurately describes the location of all users relative to a reference; therefore, his contention that it does not accurately describe distances belongs in the local garbage dump. As for the coordinate system used, this is irrelevant. I could express locations on a piece of paper using spherical coordinates in the ambient space. It doesn't make me wrong.

[Tom Bishop]

The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect. Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.

[Tumeni]

The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect.

I don't think anyone suggested that. Who are you responding to?

Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.

I don't think anyone suggested that either.

I think the previous poster is suggesting that if you were standing on some place on Earth, and the Earth was magically whipped away into another dimension, leaving you in place, you can still determine where you are without reference to an Earth-based co-ordinates system.

You would still be at the same point in space, regardless of whether or not you had a globe under you to apply lat/long to.

You might have to refer to your position as "3 microseconds, X metres from GPS Sat A, 5 microseconds, Y metres from Sat B, and 7 microseconds, Z metres from Sat C, though.....

[inquisitive]

The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect. Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.

Do you have a coordinate system that would work for your local area as a starting point?

[Macarios]

The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect. Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.

Only in Globe model.

In most common Flat model (see Rowbotham's "Earth Not a Globe" Pg. 21, 35, 78, 80) meridians are straight lines radial from North pole, and parallels are concentric circles around North pole.

You DO have solar noon in the place you live, same as all places directly to the north or south (azimuths 0° and 180°).
You DO have same culmination twice each year for equinox, same as all places directly to the east or west (azimuths 90° and 270°) along your parallel.

And it is not changing with the shape of Earth.

[360x60]

I don't think anyone suggested that either.

I think the previous poster is suggesting that if you were standing on some place on Earth, and the Earth was magically whipped away into another dimension, leaving you in place, you can still determine where you are without reference to an Earth-based co-ordinates system.

You would still be at the same point in space, regardless of whether or not you had a globe under you to apply lat/long to.

You might have to refer to your position as "3 microseconds, X metres from GPS Sat A, 5 microseconds, Y metres from Sat B, and 7 microseconds, Z metres from Sat C, though.....

Hi again Tom, yes you are correct that lat/longs are positions on a globe in a globe model.
However, if you were to plot your position right now and my position right now and several other people and refer to their position using any units you like, let’s call them “W,X,Y&Z Bishops” a plot would show that the various locations are scattered around the bit of space we inhabit seem to form not a flat plane, but a globe.

That’s all, just another bit of evidence supporting the popular theory of an oblate spheroid world.

I’m not sure of your position with regards to the speed of light, the accuracy of which is crucial to the functioning of a GNSS system. If you do not agree with the physics around that subject, well, I can’t help with your education, it’s a bit technical.

[pinecone]

The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Does the Zetetic system allow for any received knowledge from other sources or must it be only information that comes to us for our own senses.  Are reasoned arguments allowed as well if they are based on what we can see around us?

[douglips]

The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect. Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.

I thought we went over this.

The latitude and longitude measurements of the angle the sun makes or the angle the north star makes are observable and can be recorded for any location that can see one of these bodies. If the distances between the meridians (lines of equal longitude) expands linearly with the distance from the north pole, you have the unipolar flat earth model. It is perfectly possible to have a flat earth with latitude and longitude.

What is not reasonable is to argue that you cannot measure latitude or longitude for some reason.

I also think it's unreasonable to say that airplanes fly at unknown speeds given my experience as a pilot, but that's a separate discussion.

[Round Eyes]

The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect. Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.

isnt this the whole point though?  these coordinates for cities (based on round earth model) are used every day by airlines.  Inherently, the model is correct by virtue that every single plane is able to fly to the exact location and arrive at a predictable time at that location.  if the round earth model and lat/long were not correct this wouldnt happen.  How else do you explain the fact that for any given international airport, there are planes arriving correctly from all over the world every day?  if the system wasnt 100% accurate (and therefore the globe model itself) wouldnt that be pretty obvious?   Also, have you never been on an airplane equipped with the screen that shoes your exact location, and been able to look out the window and verify what is one screen matches what you see below (i.e. major cities, rivers, lakes, etc).

[Westprog]

The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect. Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.

isnt this the whole point though?  these coordinates for cities (based on round earth model) are used every day by airlines.  Inherently, the model is correct by virtue that every single plane is able to fly to the exact location and arrive at a predictable time at that location.  if the round earth model and lat/long were not correct this wouldnt happen.  How else do you explain the fact that for any given international airport, there are planes arriving correctly from all over the world every day?  if the system wasnt 100% accurate (and therefore the globe model itself) wouldnt that be pretty obvious?   Also, have you never been on an airplane equipped with the screen that shoes your exact location, and been able to look out the window and verify what is one screen matches what you see below (i.e. major cities, rivers, lakes, etc).

I'd be interested to know whether FE people think that there's a separate set of never-seen charts which are what are actually used to direct aircraft to the right destination, or that the global model they use coincidentally sends them to the right place in spite of being wrong.

[MCToon]

The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect. Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.

isnt this the whole point though?  these coordinates for cities (based on round earth model) are used every day by airlines.  Inherently, the model is correct by virtue that every single plane is able to fly to the exact location and arrive at a predictable time at that location.  if the round earth model and lat/long were not correct this wouldnt happen.  How else do you explain the fact that for any given international airport, there are planes arriving correctly from all over the world every day?  if the system wasnt 100% accurate (and therefore the globe model itself) wouldnt that be pretty obvious?   Also, have you never been on an airplane equipped with the screen that shoes your exact location, and been able to look out the window and verify what is one screen matches what you see below (i.e. major cities, rivers, lakes, etc).

I'd be interested to know whether FE people think that there's a separate set of never-seen charts which are what are actually used to direct aircraft to the right destination, or that the global model they use coincidentally sends them to the right place in spite of being wrong.

The FE claim is that the globe map is incorrect, a real chart or map of the world would be flat and not a projection like all the globe->flat versions we see claim to be.  Distances on the true FE earth would be different than the claimed globe distances.  Short distances are affected only slightly, longer distances are affected significantly.  This requires there to be a true map used for navigation.  I see two possibilities:

1) Navigators are aware of this and use the true FE map when doing planning.  They plan different routes than a globe would dictate.

2) Navigators are unaware of this, they interface with their navigation systems which present them with a globe model and translate internally to the real FE map.

Note: Maybe there are other possibilities that don't call on unexperienced phenomenons?

Many in the FE crowd no longer claims any particular map is correct and have fallen back to claiming they just don't know what the map looks like and don't have the resources to create one.  These distance issues exist on any flat map regardless of how you lay it out.  The distances on a globe cannot be flattened out without distortions.  The distances we have been told and use daily are the globe distances.