How is this possible???

In your FAQ, it states that the Earth is 24,900 miles across.  Now, making some rough adjustments, let's say, measuring across the North Pole, that the distance from Sydney, Australia to Buenos Aires is around 20,000 miles.  A ballpark figure from looking at a flat Earth model.  Now, at a speed of 530MPH, this trip would take a little more than 37 non-stop hours.  However, the flight is made, going in a curve, over the Pacific ocean, in a matter of about 14 hours.  Now, this route would be a longer than flying directly over the North Pole, yet takes less time than it would take to make the trip using the shorter route.

Here's a rough diagram.



Anyone want to try and explain this one?

Anyone want to try and explain this one?

There's a search button. Use it.

Quote from: Sliver on April 18, 2010, 10:06:18 AM

Anyone want to try and explain this one?

There's a search button. Use it.

No, dont use it because there are no answers on this site to that question.

There are several theories regarding the layout of the continents.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica

There's a search button. Use it.

Forgive me, I'm new here.  Perhaps you could help me find my answer.

There are several theories regarding the layout of the continents.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica

OK, I actually used one of those pictures in my post, and in the second one, the trip would take even longer, seeing as how the plane would fly east from Syndney.

There are several theories regarding the layout of the continents.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica

And all of them are garbage.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2010, 10:28:54 AM

There are several theories regarding the layout of the continents.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica

And all of them are garbage.

All of them are taking a round Earth and stretching/distorting it to make it all fit onto a flat image.

There is no accurate map of the Earth.  We have ones from the RE camp that seem to work ok for what we use them for, but that says nothing of their actual validity.

There is no accurate map of the Earth. We have ones from the RE camp that seem to work ok for what we use them for, but that says nothing of their actual validity.

They work.. but they are not accurate?

There is no accurate map of the Earth.  We have ones from the RE camp that seem to work ok for what we use them for, but that says nothing of their actual validity.

And yet no one get's lost when using them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a map simply an image of an area that allows someone to navigate to any location on that map?

It's already proven that the RE map is accurate, otherwise GPS navigation systems for cars wouldn't exist. Try living in Australia, rent/buy a car there, implement the GPS navigation system for the car, take a road trip around Australia. Your GPS navigation system will display the 'artificial' (yes artificial) map and show where you are and where you need to go. Then, once you're done with your trip, check how many miles/km's you've drove, and then check the size of Australia's land (length) from one city to the other, do your own sum ups. You will see that the map is accurate to Australia's continent.

Quote from: John Davis on April 18, 2010, 11:05:57 AM

There is no accurate map of the Earth.  We have ones from the RE camp that seem to work ok for what we use them for, but that says nothing of their actual validity.

And yet no one get's lost when using them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a map simply an image of an area that allows someone to navigate to any location on that map?

Gaussian surfaces don't represent what is actually happening yet they serve as a useful tool.  This is the same as RE maps.  They work but may not be accurately be portraying what is going on in reality.

I can write a simple map to give directions.  This map will likely not represent reality but only in the simplest manner yet it gets me from point a to point b.  Because the map works doesn't mean its accurate.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 18, 2010, 11:15:28 AM

Quote from: John Davis on April 18, 2010, 11:05:57 AM

There is no accurate map of the Earth.  We have ones from the RE camp that seem to work ok for what we use them for, but that says nothing of their actual validity.

And yet no one get's lost when using them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a map simply an image of an area that allows someone to navigate to any location on that map?

Gaussian surfaces don't represent what is actually happening yet they serve as a useful tool.  This is the same as RE maps.  They work but may not be accurately be portraying what is going on in reality.

I can write a simple map to give directions.  This map will likely not represent reality but only in the simplest manner yet it gets me from point a to point b.  Because the map works doesn't mean its accurate.

I didn't say it wasn't accurate but I was debating the "invalid" bit.

So the best thing someone can come up with, is that the map, which is from your site, is inaccurate?  Even if it's wrong, you still say that we travel in a curve around a disk.  This is a much longer distance than straight across, and yet some how, we manage to make this trip in less than half the time?  How is that?  That's my question.

There is no accurate map of the Earth.  We have ones from the RE camp that seem to work ok for what we use them for, but that says nothing of their actual validity.

If a working map does not equal an accurate map, what does?

Anyone who thinks that the earth is flat is an idiot and ignorant of science. The theory of a geocentric sphere Earth that rotates the sun is the only theory that explains what we see in the skies logically. Please, I beg you all to read some basic astronomy and physics.

Anyone who thinks that the earth is flat is an idiot and ignorant of science. The theory of a geocentric sphere Earth that rotates the sun is the only theory that explains what we see in the skies logically. Please, I beg you all to read some basic astronomy and physics.

The problem isn't that they don't know about it, the problem is that All Flat Earthers claim that there are other things that could cause the same effect.  The problem is that they've only vaguely defined these things and can't actually prove it's that way.
Bendy Light, Celestial Gears, infinite perspective, ect...
Great as an idea but the whole universe could be one giant computer program and each of us only see's what the computer wants us to see.

Anyone who thinks that the earth is flat is an idiot and ignorant of science. The theory of a geocentric sphere Earth that rotates the sun is the only theory that explains what we see in the skies logically. Please, I beg you all to read some basic astronomy and physics.

So you are saying that you believe the sun rotates around the round earth.  I don't think its us that need basic astronomy or physics.

If maps were correct but inaccurate, bearings and distances would be wrong.

Leave this thread John Davis. Your inability to understand how maps actually work is cringe worthy. RE maps work because they're based off real life. You wouldn't be able to use them if they didn't work. It's the simplest concept and proof out there for RE and yet you seem to be so adamant that it's incorrect. Please, show us all how they're incorrect and I'll do my best to explain to you either why you're wrong, or why the inaccuracy occurs due to the earth being round.

Go.

There are several theories regarding the layout of the continents.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica

What are those islands under antartica in the second map.

If maps were correct but inaccurate, bearings and distances would be wrong.

Leave this thread John Davis. Your inability to understand how maps actually work is cringe worthy. RE maps work because they're based off real life. You wouldn't be able to use them if they didn't work. It's the simplest concept and proof out there for RE and yet you seem to be so adamant that it's incorrect. Please, show us all how they're incorrect and I'll do my best to explain to you either why you're wrong, or why the inaccuracy occurs due to the earth being round.

Go.

Have I ever told you that you are like a god?

Quote from: Collisionman on April 18, 2010, 12:55:37 PM

Anyone who thinks that the earth is flat is an idiot and ignorant of science. The theory of a geocentric sphere Earth that rotates around the sun is the only theory that explains what we see in the skies logically. Please, I beg you all to read some basic astronomy and physics.

So you are saying that you believe the sun rotates around the round earth.  I don't think its us that need basic astronomy or physics.

I fixed his post, he missed a word.

If maps were correct but inaccurate, bearings and distances would be wrong.

Leave this thread John Davis. Your inability to understand how maps actually work is cringe worthy. RE maps work because they're based off real life. You wouldn't be able to use them if they didn't work. It's the simplest concept and proof out there for RE and yet you seem to be so adamant that it's incorrect. Please, show us all how they're incorrect and I'll do my best to explain to you either why you're wrong, or why the inaccuracy occurs due to the earth being round.

Go.

Clearly you are the one that doesn't understand how maps work or how to read.

Where did I say RE maps didn't work?

Quote from: John Davis on April 18, 2010, 01:10:03 PM

Quote from: Collisionman on April 18, 2010, 12:55:37 PM

Anyone who thinks that the earth is flat is an idiot and ignorant of science. The theory of a geocentric sphere Earth that rotates around the sun is the only theory that explains what we see in the skies logically. Please, I beg you all to read some basic astronomy and physics.

So you are saying that you believe the sun rotates around the round earth.  I don't think its us that need basic astronomy or physics.

I fixed his post, he missed a word.

Had he meant that he wouldn't have said geocentric.

So the best thing someone can come up with, is that the map, which is from your site, is inaccurate?  Even if it's wrong, you still say that we travel in a curve around a disk.  This is a much longer distance than straight across, and yet some how, we manage to make this trip in less than half the time?  How is that?  That's my question.

Question still stands, and no FE'r is really touching it.
You say that circumnavigation is actually use traveling in a circle on a disk.  If that's correct, and the diameter of this disk is 24,900 miles, like your site claims.  Than to get from Sydney, Australia to Buenos Aires, Argentina on this route would far exceed the roughly 20,000 mile "short route" across the North Pole.  Yet, the trips takes only 14 hours at a speed of 530 MPH.


Did some more of that bothersome math.  Using the map you have on your site, the Google Earth program, and the 28,900 mile measurement you say is the Earth's diameter, I've estimated the straight line, over the North Pole, distance between Sydney and Buenos Aires to be roughly 17,118 miles.  At 530 MPH, that would take 32 hours.  A little faster than my earlier estimate, but pretty close, and still more than double the time of the actual flight.

Still waiting for someone to try and explain this, but something tells me it's going to just go ignored.

Quote from: Sliver on April 18, 2010, 11:58:36 AM

So the best thing someone can come up with, is that the map, which is from your site, is inaccurate?  Even if it's wrong, you still say that we travel in a curve around a disk.  This is a much longer distance than straight across, and yet some how, we manage to make this trip in less than half the time?  How is that?  That's my question.

Question still stands, and no FE'r is really touching it.
You say that circumnavigation is actually use traveling in a circle on a disk.  If that's correct, and the diameter of this disk is 24,900 miles, like your site claims.  Than to get from Sydney, Australia to Buenos Aires, Argentina on this route would far exceed the roughly 20,000 mile "short route" across the North Pole.  Yet, the trips takes only 14 hours at a speed of 530 MPH.


Did some more of that bothersome math.  Using the map you have on your site, the Google Earth program, and the 28,900 mile measurement you say is the Earth's diameter, I've estimated the straight line, over the North Pole, distance between Sydney and Buenos Aires to be roughly 17,118 miles.  At 530 MPH, that would take 32 hours.  A little faster than my earlier estimate, but pretty close, and still more than double the time of the actual flight.

Still waiting for someone to try and explain this, but something tells me it's going to just go ignored.

I think there's some ridiculous flat earth explanation that the unrealisticly short flight times are caused by the jet stream, but apart from that I think there's nothing.

Clearly you are the one that doesn't understand how maps work or how to read.

Where did I say RE maps didn't work?

All right. You believe the RE maps work.

The RE maps are based on a round earth, and if they work, that much mean the fuckin' earth is fuckin' round.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2010, 10:28:54 AM

There are several theories regarding the layout of the continents.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica

What are those islands under antartica in the second map.

New Zealand and Fiji.

Love the extreme distance between Fiji and New Caledonia in that map.
Apparently, they are the size of Australia apart, but in reality, they are only 1/3rd that distance.

Quote from: John Davis on April 18, 2010, 02:31:56 PM

Clearly you are the one that doesn't understand how maps work or how to read.

Where did I say RE maps didn't work?

All right. You believe the RE maps work.

The RE maps are based on a round earth, and if they work, that much mean the fuckin' earth is fuckin' round.

First, lets admit that inaccurate maps work.  Its the nature of a map.  A 100% accurate map would produce a scale replica, a reality by proxy.  So we are looking at maps that are "accurate" enough for travel.  Now, I can travel on a road map but its hardly accurate either, given RE, compared to say a map with a better projection.  Now this map may work better than the road map, but it is still inaccurate.  Most travel maps (for ships or planes etc) are specialized for a region and do not "stitch" together with other maps to somehow make a world map for what I hope are obvious reasons.

Quote from: Catchpa on April 19, 2010, 07:12:59 AM

Quote from: John Davis on April 18, 2010, 02:31:56 PM

Clearly you are the one that doesn't understand how maps work or how to read.

Where did I say RE maps didn't work?

All right. You believe the RE maps work.

The RE maps are based on a round earth, and if they work, that much mean the fuckin' earth is fuckin' round.

First, lets admit that inaccurate maps work.  Its the nature of a map.  A 100% accurate map would produce a scale replica, a reality by proxy.  So we are looking at maps that are "accurate" enough for travel.  Now, I can travel on a road map but its hardly accurate either, given RE, compared to say a map with a better projection.  Now this map may work better than the road map, but it is still inaccurate.  Most travel maps (for ships or planes etc) are specialized for a region and do not "stitch" together with other maps to somehow make a world map for what I hope are obvious reasons.

Just by reading this thread I know that you can't stitch together all regional maps to make a world map of equal accuracy.  That's because the Earth is round and a flat map (or a 2D projection of a slightly curved area on a sphere) doesn't curve very well.

However, if the Earth was flat, you could stitch together lots of segments of the maps without any problem or distortion.  2D landscape on a 2D map works perfectly don't you think?