Interested in seeing where this goes, because if the Earth IS indeed flat, making a 2D Map should be no issue, since we know the size and distances of land masses and oceans.
So, if someone could direct me to an accurate, non-skewed, scale accurate map, that'd be great.
Interested in seeing where this goes, because if the Earth IS indeed flat, making a 2D Map should be no issue, since we know the size and distances of land masses and oceans.
So, if someone could direct me to an accurate, non-skewed, scale accurate map, that'd be great.
As you well know, an undistorted flat map of the Earth would be as easy as pie if the Earth were flat. So where is the one true map of the flat earth? All we hear are excuses. "It's too expensive!" "It's too hard!!" "I wouldn't have a clue how to do it!!!" (well, we don't actually hear that last one actually verbalized, but that's the gist of the rest of the excuses.)
The fact remains, there's no one true map of the flat earth for the simple reason that the Earth isn't flat. No such thing is possible. It really doesn't get any easier to explain than that.
So many Flat Earth supporters talk as though the concept of a Flat Earth is going to get world-wide acceptance. I suppose the idea then is that all navigators of ships and aircraft will navigate on a Flat Earth Map! There is not the slightest chance of that happening until there actually is an accurate Flat Earth Map!Interested in seeing where this goes, because if the Earth IS indeed flat, making a 2D Map should be no issue, since we know the size and distances of land masses and oceans.
So, if someone could direct me to an accurate, non-skewed, scale accurate map, that'd be great.
As you well know, an undistorted flat map of the Earth would be as easy as pie if the Earth were flat. So where is the one true map of the flat earth? All we hear are excuses. "It's too expensive!" "It's too hard!!" "I wouldn't have a clue how to do it!!!" (well, we don't actually hear that last one actually verbalized, but that's the gist of the rest of the excuses.)
The fact remains, there's no one true map of the flat earth for the simple reason that the Earth isn't flat. No such thing is possible. It really doesn't get any easier to explain than that.
Welcome to the trenches OP.
All map projections (taking the round Earth and projecting it onto a flat surface) are distorted and I'm going to tell you why.Examples don't prove anything. They just show projections that don't keep distances, but that doesn't mean there are no such examples.
[...]
Anyways, my point is that you cannot perfectly put the Earth on a flat surface because it is round.
Welcome to the trenches OP.
It really is more like trench warfare than I thought from reading that. Holy crap. All they seem to do so far is deflect, dodge questions, or call you a clone.
Here's a simple question to answer: How is it, that over the past 100+ years, hundreds of thousands of people have been involved in this "hoax," yet not a single whistle-blower has stepped forward? Particularly since the "Faked" space flights and whatnot? Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of scientists, astronauts, workers, private contractors, their families, friends, EVERYONE INVOLVED, and not a single one has stepped forward to blow the lid off this?
Occam's Razor, man. The more hoops you have to jump through to make it even PLAUSIBLE, the less likely it is to be true.
Like with this map situation. They cannot provide a flat map that is not skewed using VERIFIABLE DATA of distances, landmass locations, etc.. Why?
I await an answer.
Regards,
~Xenos, more and more firmly in the Round Earth Camp Each Passing Thread
Welcome to the trenches OP.
It really is more like trench warfare than I thought from reading that. Holy crap. All they seem to do so far is deflect, dodge questions, or call you a clone.
Here's a simple question to answer: How is it, that over the past 100+ years, hundreds of thousands of people have been involved in this "hoax," yet not a single whistle-blower has stepped forward? Particularly since the "Faked" space flights and whatnot? Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of scientists, astronauts, workers, private contractors, their families, friends, EVERYONE INVOLVED, and not a single one has stepped forward to blow the lid off this?
Occam's Razor, man. The more hoops you have to jump through to make it even PLAUSIBLE, the less likely it is to be true.
Like with this map situation. They cannot provide a flat map that is not skewed using VERIFIABLE DATA of distances, landmass locations, etc.. Why?
I await an answer.
Regards,
~Xenos, more and more firmly in the Round Earth Camp Each Passing Thread
Yep! NASA must be employing THOUSANDS of people who do nothing but photoshop photographs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The fact that there are now MILLIONS of photographs from the last half-decade plus, mean that the conspiracy is absolutely pervasive, yet NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever set a foot forward. Not to mention that you can now purchase a low-earth orbit flight for Pleasure and see it for yourself (though, unsurprisingly, no wealthy Flat Earthers have done this...). It's IDIOCY.
Welcome to the trenches OP.
It really is more like trench warfare than I thought from reading that. Holy crap. All they seem to do so far is deflect, dodge questions, or call you a clone.
Here's a simple question to answer: How is it, that over the past 100+ years, hundreds of thousands of people have been involved in this "hoax," yet not a single whistle-blower has stepped forward? Particularly since the "Faked" space flights and whatnot? Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of scientists, astronauts, workers, private contractors, their families, friends, EVERYONE INVOLVED, and not a single one has stepped forward to blow the lid off this?
Occam's Razor, man. The more hoops you have to jump through to make it even PLAUSIBLE, the less likely it is to be true.
Like with this map situation. They cannot provide a flat map that is not skewed using VERIFIABLE DATA of distances, landmass locations, etc.. Why?
I await an answer.
Regards,
~Xenos, more and more firmly in the Round Earth Camp Each Passing Thread
Yep! NASA must be employing THOUSANDS of people who do nothing but photoshop photographs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The fact that there are now MILLIONS of photographs from the last half-decade plus, mean that the conspiracy is absolutely pervasive, yet NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever set a foot forward. Not to mention that you can now purchase a low-earth orbit flight for Pleasure and see it for yourself (though, unsurprisingly, no wealthy Flat Earthers have done this...). It's IDIOCY.
Don't forget the doctored photos by hobby astronomers (or faulty photos because the lens of the telescope is convex and that's why things have curve--except, ya know, I don't remember my girlfriend having THAT kind of curvature, if ya know what I mean), and all the covered up and/or falsified evidence of circumpolar navigation, circumnavigation of the Antarctic, and the hundreds of scientists and tourists that are in Antarctica every YEAR.
When that many people are in on the conspiracy, there's NO CHANCE it wouldn't be blown out of the water.
Yet, I'm keeping an open mind about it, I'm just asking for them to use the Laws of Physics to show me it's flat. Trig shows the world is ROUND. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, the Universal Law of Gravity... They tend to throw all that out.
And really, while I get the self-centr--I mean GEOCENTRIC view of the Universe (it makes you feel special, safe under the sapphire dome of "firmament" protected from all the horrors beyond), I really do think it's time to step out of the cave and use some Science, not throw it out and say "Gravity don't exist in our model," or "That's not how we see it working." That's great. The Universe says otherwise. Physics says otherwise.
Show me with physics. Show me a NON SKEWED FLAT MAP.
What did they say on X-Files? "I WANT to believe!" (Well, not so much want to believe, but want to see the Science--CONVINCE me)
Respect to all friends, Confusion to all enemies (that's a Col. Travis quote, his last correspondence from the Alamo),
~Xenos, a Strange Man in a Strange Land
The convex telescope lens bit is HILARIOUS, I hadn't heard that one before. We should start a "send a flat earther to Antarctica" kickstarter. It's a win/win.
Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth? How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?
Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth? How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?This is FE concern and responsibility. Not the opposite. After all, FES does some research?
Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth? How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?
I would think that given the fact we know the different sizes of every land mass on earth, the sizes and volume of the oceans, and their location in relation to each other, it wouldn't be all THAT hard to at least make a scale-accurate mock-up or proof that kept scale without skewing. I mean, unless the figures that we know to be true from world travel (and yes, I've been overseas) are inaccurate, which, let's face it, that's a bit of a stretch.
Then again, I could be looking at it from the wrong perspective, it would be wonderful if someone would elaborate why using the numbers we "know" already would make it inaccurate or throw off scale--if the Earth is in fact flat, mapping it on a 2D plane should be MUCH easier than mapping it on a 3D one.
Just my two cents,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land
Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth? How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?This is FE concern and responsibility. Not the opposite. After all, FES does some research?
Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth? How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?
I would think that given the fact we know the different sizes of every land mass on earth, the sizes and volume of the oceans, and their location in relation to each other, it wouldn't be all THAT hard to at least make a scale-accurate mock-up or proof that kept scale without skewing. I mean, unless the figures that we know to be true from world travel (and yes, I've been overseas) are inaccurate, which, let's face it, that's a bit of a stretch.
Then again, I could be looking at it from the wrong perspective, it would be wonderful if someone would elaborate why using the numbers we "know" already would make it inaccurate or throw off scale--if the Earth is in fact flat, mapping it on a 2D plane should be MUCH easier than mapping it on a 3D one.
Just my two cents,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land
We may as well just use round Earth maps, if we are not going to actually measure distances and such. We are not that dishonest. We will not claim to have a map until we actually map the Earth. In the mean time, there are a few proposed layouts of the flat Earth that you are welcome to peruse.
Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth? How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?
I would think that given the fact we know the different sizes of every land mass on earth, the sizes and volume of the oceans, and their location in relation to each other, it wouldn't be all THAT hard to at least make a scale-accurate mock-up or proof that kept scale without skewing. I mean, unless the figures that we know to be true from world travel (and yes, I've been overseas) are inaccurate, which, let's face it, that's a bit of a stretch.
Then again, I could be looking at it from the wrong perspective, it would be wonderful if someone would elaborate why using the numbers we "know" already would make it inaccurate or throw off scale--if the Earth is in fact flat, mapping it on a 2D plane should be MUCH easier than mapping it on a 3D one.
Just my two cents,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land
We may as well just use round Earth maps, if we are not going to actually measure distances and such. We are not that dishonest. We will not claim to have a map until we actually map the Earth. In the mean time, there are a few proposed layouts of the flat Earth that you are welcome to peruse.
Start with mapping what you know for certain then. The entire North and South American continents, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and the bodies of water that connect them. These are easily verified by anyone that's actually traveled before. Plenty of records out there of Non-Stop Trans Atlantic Flights, shipping routes, trade routes overland...
There's nothing "dishonest" about using that information.
So, why would using THAT be a problem?
Regards (and I really should be sleeping, damn medications),
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land
Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth? How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?
I would think that given the fact we know the different sizes of every land mass on earth, the sizes and volume of the oceans, and their location in relation to each other, it wouldn't be all THAT hard to at least make a scale-accurate mock-up or proof that kept scale without skewing. I mean, unless the figures that we know to be true from world travel (and yes, I've been overseas) are inaccurate, which, let's face it, that's a bit of a stretch.
Then again, I could be looking at it from the wrong perspective, it would be wonderful if someone would elaborate why using the numbers we "know" already would make it inaccurate or throw off scale--if the Earth is in fact flat, mapping it on a 2D plane should be MUCH easier than mapping it on a 3D one.
Just my two cents,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land
We may as well just use round Earth maps, if we are not going to actually measure distances and such. We are not that dishonest. We will not claim to have a map until we actually map the Earth. In the mean time, there are a few proposed layouts of the flat Earth that you are welcome to peruse.
Start with mapping what you know for certain then. The entire North and South American continents, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and the bodies of water that connect them. These are easily verified by anyone that's actually traveled before. Plenty of records out there of Non-Stop Trans Atlantic Flights, shipping routes, trade routes overland...
There's nothing "dishonest" about using that information.
So, why would using THAT be a problem?
Regards (and I really should be sleeping, damn medications),
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land
I know for certain how to get from my house to my job and the local grocery store. Would you like for me to draw a map of that for you? Would that get your panties out of your rear end?
That's a borderline personal attack, mate. I've not got my knickers in a twist at all--I'm honestly trying to understand here, HELP me.
Why would what I've suggested not work? I WANT to understand this, I'm offering suggestions as to how you could go about it, now please, if that WON'T work, if using the numbers that are pretty easy to obtain from any trucker, sailor, hitchhiker, mountain climbers, hikers (my cousin goes on the Appalachian Trail ever year, hikes the entire length), etc. is a problem, tell me why? These are hard numbers, set in stone, they don't change willy-nilly. My state doesn't go from being 53,819 square miles today and 46,742 square miles the next (and before you ask, yes, I've been virtually all over the state--not over every square mile, but my former job took me to every single county the state had, and I've been on many, MANY road trips looking for, as Alton Brown would say, Good Eats).
Again, please, HELP me understand. I asked a legitimate question, and was met with scorn and snark. This is not good debating. I honestly, truthfully, EARNESTLY have a desire to know why you cannot produce a map (not you personally, if you want to argue semantics, that's just a stalling tactic) from that.
Help me understand.
Totally in the Dark as to WHY the Snark and Scorn,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a VERY Strange Land
You can't make a precise map by looking at stars.
You have to actually go places and make measurements.
What is so confusing about this to you?
You can't make a precise map by looking at stars.
Maybe you can't. That doesn't mean it can't be done.QuoteYou have to actually go places and make measurements.
So do it.
Instead of "trying" to raise $millions to map the whole world and then claiming the project is impossible because of the costs involved, start with an achievable goal, like buying (or borrowing) an antique surveyor's transit[nb]Using a purely-mechanical device like this avoids the "balck-box" aspects of computerized equipment, plus, it's cheaper! You can probably find a nice working one for a $few hundred, then you could sell it afterwards for most or all of what you paid for it (lots more if you succeed!!), if you want, or put it on display in the museum celebrating your achievement![/nb], learning how to use it, and using it with some flat-earth-believing volunteers to carefully and accurately survey the perimeter of an area of maybe ten thousand square miles (a square 100 miles by 100 miles, say). That should be enough to distinguish between the spherical earth and your alternative flat one. The field work could probably be done over a summer if you do it in a place like one of the US plains states, where there's an extensive 1-mile grid of often lightly-traveled roads.
You guys whine away about how haaaarrrddd it is, but you won't even try. Why not? Is it because you wouldn't even begin to know how to do this? Is it because you know full well what the result would be? Is it because it's much easier (and more fun) to complain about being victimized than it is to get off your butts for something you claim to believe in. You do believe in the things you say, don't you?QuoteWhat is so confusing about this to you?
Nothing, bro.
What is confusing, though, is why, more than 150 years after Rowbotham and the beginning of the "modern" flat-earth movement, there's not a valid flat-earth map if the Earth really is flat. (Not really... I know the Earth isn't flat and that's why you have no valid flat-earth map, but you're the one stamping his feet and insisting it is, so the lack of a valid map is your problem.)
Remember, you still have no map. An accurate and precise map of the flat earth, or even a significantly large area, if one were possible, would put this argument to rest. So stop whining and get cracking if making your point is really what you're interested in doing! If sitting in front of a keyboard and whining about being lied to and persecuted is what you're interested in doing, then you're doing an OK job. I'd rate it about six out of ten; a lot of your stuff is merely tedious instead of being insightful and thought-provoking. Maybe that's the best you can do considering the material you have to work with.
Why do you people insist that we waste our money in order to satisfy your curiosity? It seems to me that if you were really so concerned about this map, you would be the ones footing the bill. Either quit demanding this or that from us, or start offering to pay for the expenditures.
Why do you people insist that we waste our money in order to satisfy your curiosity? It seems to me that if you were really so concerned about this map, you would be the ones footing the bill. Either quit demanding this or that from us, or start offering to pay for the expenditures.
No, no... you're still confused. I'm the one saying an accurate flat-earth map can't be made because the earth isn't flat. Accurate and extensive surveys have already been made, and they confirm that the Earth is spherical (well... close to it), which we already know from other observations and data. So there's no reason to spend additional money confirming that (again). You're the one claiming earth is flat, therefore all those surveys must be wrong, yet at the same time saying that making an accurate flat-earth map would "waste your money".
It seems like you recognize that trying to make an accurate flat-earth map is folly, which it is because it simply can't be done. Does this mean you're abandoning the charming, but quaint, idea that the Earth is flat? Or just that you prefer sitting on your butt making claims you can't back up?
That's a borderline personal attack, mate. I've not got my knickers in a twist at all--I'm honestly trying to understand here, HELP me.
That is only a personal attack if you do, in fact, wear panties. lol
Why would what I've suggested not work? I WANT to understand this, I'm offering suggestions as to how you could go about it, now please, if that WON'T work, if using the numbers that are pretty easy to obtain from any trucker, sailor, hitchhiker, mountain climbers, hikers (my cousin goes on the Appalachian Trail ever year, hikes the entire length), etc. is a problem, tell me why? These are hard numbers, set in stone, they don't change willy-nilly. My state doesn't go from being 53,819 square miles today and 46,742 square miles the next (and before you ask, yes, I've been virtually all over the state--not over every square mile, but my former job took me to every single county the state had, and I've been on many, MANY road trips looking for, as Alton Brown would say, Good Eats).
Again, please, HELP me understand. I asked a legitimate question, and was met with scorn and snark. This is not good debating. I honestly, truthfully, EARNESTLY have a desire to know why you cannot produce a map (not you personally, if you want to argue semantics, that's just a stalling tactic) from that.
Help me understand.
Totally in the Dark as to WHY the Snark and Scorn,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a VERY Strange Land
You can't make a precise map by looking at stars. You have to actually go places and make measurements. What is so confusing about this to you?
What I simply cannot understand is why the flat earth believers feel the need to repeat this huge amount of work in order to draw a "flat earth map". Do they think that locations have moved since they were mapped?
What I simply cannot understand is why the flat earth believers feel the need to repeat this huge amount of work in order to draw a "flat earth map". Do they think that locations have moved since they were mapped?
I know you have reading comprehension problems, and I hope you seek help for that, but if you read the thread slowly and examine each sentence carefully, you will discover that it is the roudies in this thread and many others who are insisting that we collect all of this data in order to produce an accurate flat Earth map. :-\
My whole point is that many (maybe not you personally) seem to be expecting the Flat Earth to be accepted by the population at large in the not too distant future.What I simply cannot understand is why the flat earth believers feel the need to repeat this huge amount of work in order to draw a "flat earth map". Do they think that locations have moved since they were mapped?
I know you have reading comprehension problems, and I hope you seek help for that, but if you read the thread slowly and examine each sentence carefully, you will discover that it is the roudies in this thread and many others who are insisting that we collect all of this data in order to produce an accurate flat Earth map. :-\
Actually jroa, you are completely wrong. You CAN make a VERY precise map of the Earth with the stars. You, like other FEers, don't know the first thing about astronomy and make foolish claims like this.That's a borderline personal attack, mate. I've not got my knickers in a twist at all--I'm honestly trying to understand here, HELP me.
That is only a personal attack if you do, in fact, wear panties. lolWhy would what I've suggested not work? I WANT to understand this, I'm offering suggestions as to how you could go about it, now please, if that WON'T work, if using the numbers that are pretty easy to obtain from any trucker, sailor, hitchhiker, mountain climbers, hikers (my cousin goes on the Appalachian Trail ever year, hikes the entire length), etc. is a problem, tell me why? These are hard numbers, set in stone, they don't change willy-nilly. My state doesn't go from being 53,819 square miles today and 46,742 square miles the next (and before you ask, yes, I've been virtually all over the state--not over every square mile, but my former job took me to every single county the state had, and I've been on many, MANY road trips looking for, as Alton Brown would say, Good Eats).You can't make a precise map by looking at stars. You have to actually go places and make measurements. What is so confusing about this to you?
Again, please, HELP me understand. I asked a legitimate question, and was met with scorn and snark. This is not good debating. I honestly, truthfully, EARNESTLY have a desire to know why you cannot produce a map (not you personally, if you want to argue semantics, that's just a stalling tactic) from that.
Help me understand.
Totally in the Dark as to WHY the Snark and Scorn,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a VERY Strange Land
Here are my questions about it, and I hope they will get some attention from the RE-ers:
1. What if the stars (and the GPS satellites) are actually wrongly mapped? That won't be something, well, weird.
Let me explain: Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong, and he used that map and the observations by other astronomers from the cities to determine the coordinates of cities. Needless to say, he got the wrong results, but it took thousands of years time to discover that error. How do you know that's not exactly what's going on here (and you see different stars in Australia than on the north hemisphere!)?
2. The shortest path from the South America to Australia, according to the globe, is obviously across Antarctica. So, even if the Earth is round, we are still not using the shortest path. Have you, RE-ers who use the distance calculations in arguments, verified that your calculations do not actually give the hypothesed paths across Antarctica?
3.What is more likely: that the Earth is round, or that people who have done the measurements believed that the Earth is round and made mistakes in the measurements simply because they were biased?
Here are my questions about it, and I hope they will get some attention from the RE-ers:You blithely say "Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong", no that is not true. It will not be as accurate as present star maps, and many stars will have moved noticeably since them.
1. What if the stars (and the GPS satellites) are actually wrongly mapped? That won't be something, well, weird. Let me explain: Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong, and he used that map and the observations by other astronomers from the cities to determine the coordinates of cities. Needless to say, he got the wrong results, but it took thousands of years time to discover that error. How do you know that's not exactly what's going on here (and you see different stars in Australia than on the north hemisphere!)?
Quote from: FlatEarthDenial 2. The shortest path from the South America to Australia, according to the globe, is obviously across Antarctica. So, even if the Earth is round, we are still not using the shortest path. Have you, RE-ers who use the distance calculations in arguments, verified that your calculations do not actually give the hypothesed paths across Antarctica?The only direct Australia to South America flight I know goes form Sydney to Santiago. The great circle route is shown to the right! That route does not go very close to Antarctica at all! The actual flight path taken on any particular journey will depend on the predicted winds. The jet stream (West to East) averages around 180 km/h, so can have a big effect on flight time and fuel requirements. So the route may choose to fly in the jet stream from Sydney to Santiago and avoid in on the return journey. Even so, commercial passenger would avoid Antarctica fro a number of reasons:
| (http://i.imgur.com/ZpyMFiB.jpg) |
3.What is more likely: that the Earth is round, or that people who have done the measurements believed that the Earth is round and made mistakes in the measurements simply because they were biased?The basic measurements as to equatorial and polar circumferences have been repeated so often since Eratosthenes' time that I don't see much chance of error. Some of the earliest accurate measurements were done by an Islamic Geographer, Astronomer and Surveyor around 1,000 AD! Look up Al-Biruni, one of the greatest scholars of the medieval Islamic period and regarded the father of "geodesic surveying".
Also check out the route from an actual New Zealand air traffic controller (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64740.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64740.0))Here are my questions about it, and I hope they will get some attention from the RE-ers:You blithely say "Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong", no that is not true. It will not be as accurate as present star maps, and many stars will have moved noticeably since them.
1. What if the stars (and the GPS satellites) are actually wrongly mapped? That won't be something, well, weird. Let me explain: Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong, and he used that map and the observations by other astronomers from the cities to determine the coordinates of cities. Needless to say, he got the wrong results, but it took thousands of years time to discover that error. How do you know that's not exactly what's going on here (and you see different stars in Australia than on the north hemisphere!)?
Ptolemy's problem was not that his star map, or his (and earlier astronomers') planetary motions was wrong.
His problem was that he was trying to fit the motions of the sun, moon and planets into circles around the earth!
Of course thousands of astronomers have studied the sky since then and have built up a much more accurate sky map. It still must be stressed though that the stars are not quite stationary. All appear to gradually change location due to the precession of the earth's axis and many (especially Barnard's Star with the "fastest") have quite measurable real motions.So, basically your whole premise here is false.
The actual flight path taken on any particular journey will depend on the predicted winds. The jet stream (West to East) averages around 180 km/h, so can have a big effect on flight time and fuel requirements. So the route may choose to fly in the jet stream from Sydney to Santiago and avoid in on the return journey.
Even so, commercial passenger would avoid Antarctica fro a number of reasons:
- In the event of an emergency landing they would be far from rescue services.
- They would be required to carry polar survival gear.
- Temperatures can be so low at high altitude that jet fuel can freeze!
(http://i.imgur.com/ZpyMFiB.jpg)So, again your whole premise here is false.Quote from: FlatEarthDenial3.What is more likely: that the Earth is round, or that people who have done the measurements believed that the Earth is round and made mistakes in the measurements simply because they were biased?The basic measurements as to equatorial and polar circumferences have been repeated so often since Eratosthenes' time that I don't see much chance of error. Some of the earliest accurate measurements were done by an Islamic Geographer, Astronomer and Surveyor around 1,000 AD! Look up Al-Biruni, one of the greatest scholars of the medieval Islamic period and regarded the father of "geodesic surveying".
A lot of measurements are based on surveying methods.