Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.

This discussion is in all seriousness, and I would like there to be no flaming or trolling please.

As has been mentioned hundreds of times in this thread, every facet of cartography, surveying, engineering and long distance travel has to base finding on the assumption of a round Earth. Echo studies of earthquakes and nuclear tests have revealed the liner movement of waves through the magma layer as if it where a spherical object. Photographic, radar, laser, sonar, magnetic resonance, X-ray and electro-magnetic scans of the Earths surface seem to reveal an object that is 1/300 off being a perfect sphere.
 Indeed even the Ancients where aware of this, and the Ancient Greeks even measured the circumference to a degree of accuracy of 5%. 

Eratosthenes (276–194 BCE) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BCE. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to ten percent.[15][16]

 Then we have the problem of 'bendy light'. Though refraction is an obvious explanation for this phenomena, the atmosphere would have to have a constantly changing refractive index to create a smooth curve that would appear to be straight, and the nature of reflective substances would have to be far more complex than is currently theorized.
 The mechanism causing the upward motion of a disk shaped Earth also must be addressed, and the complete lack of observational evidence in the form of astronomical changes as the shift in position relative to the universe should mean we would see the stars go past our field of vision in a way precession cannot possibly explain.
 Around the world flight would also be affected, as there would be no direct route through the 'ice-wall'. This is contrary to the actual flight paths, where in flights go from Brisbane to Hawaii to New York, or from Brisbane to London to New York, one going west, the other east and without deviating from (relative to a sphere) straight paths, meeting in one place. Hundreds of sailors, aviators, and astronauts have taken journeys that circumnavigate the Earth without a single stop, and in all directions without coming to any barrier.

How can you fit this into Occam's Razer? How do you answer these problems where experimentation will prove you wrong?
You only have a few very flawed experiments, where Round Earth has thousands of daily proofs.

Please explain your reasoning.

This discussion is in all seriousness, and I would like there to be no flaming or trolling please.

As has been mentioned hundreds of times in this thread, every facet of cartography, surveying, engineering and long distance travel has to base finding on the assumption of a round Earth. Echo studies of earthquakes and nuclear tests have revealed the liner movement of waves through the magma layer as if it where a spherical object. Photographic, radar, laser, sonar, magnetic resonance, X-ray and electro-magnetic scans of the Earths surface seem to reveal an object that is 1/300 off being a perfect sphere.
 Indeed even the Ancients where aware of this, and the Ancient Greeks even measured the circumference to a degree of accuracy of 5%. 

Quote

Eratosthenes (276–194 BCE) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BCE. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to ten percent.[15][16]

 Then we have the problem of 'bendy light'. Though refraction is an obvious explanation for this phenomena, the atmosphere would have to have a constantly changing refractive index to create a smooth curve that would appear to be straight, and the nature of reflective substances would have to be far more complex than is currently theorized.
 The mechanism causing the upward motion of a disk shaped Earth also must be addressed, and the complete lack of observational evidence in the form of astronomical changes as the shift in position relative to the universe should mean we would see the stars go past our field of vision in a way precession cannot possibly explain.
 Around the world flight would also be affected, as there would be no direct route through the 'ice-wall'. This is contrary to the actual flight paths, where in flights go from Brisbane to Hawaii to New York, or from Brisbane to London to New York, one going west, the other east and without deviating from (relative to a sphere) straight paths, meeting in one place. Hundreds of sailors, aviators, and astronauts have taken journeys that circumnavigate the Earth without a single stop, and in all directions without coming to any barrier.

How can you fit this into Occam's Razer? How do you answer these problems where experimentation will prove you wrong?
You only have a few very flawed experiments, where Round Earth has thousands of daily proofs.

Please explain your reasoning.

Here's my problem with FET.

The premise of the whole argument is that they distrust the sources that "confirm" the earth is round. Government conspiracies yadda yadda yadda. They say they only believe what they can themselves confirm.

Yet on the other hand, they entertain such unbelievable and notably COMPLETELY unobserved unsubstantiated ideas (i.e. **unconfirmed**) and expect people to believe them just because they are able to think of them. As if I should believe in the tooth fairy just because someone else conceives it (which is a lot more believable than ice walls and sky mirrors).

So what I am saying is, the entire basis of FET is one big hypocrisy.

Quote from: The Yellow on May 19, 2010, 08:24:17 PM

This discussion is in all seriousness, and I would like there to be no flaming or trolling please.

As has been mentioned hundreds of times in this thread, every facet of cartography, surveying, engineering and long distance travel has to base finding on the assumption of a round Earth. Echo studies of earthquakes and nuclear tests have revealed the liner movement of waves through the magma layer as if it where a spherical object. Photographic, radar, laser, sonar, magnetic resonance, X-ray and electro-magnetic scans of the Earths surface seem to reveal an object that is 1/300 off being a perfect sphere.
 Indeed even the Ancients where aware of this, and the Ancient Greeks even measured the circumference to a degree of accuracy of 5%. 

Quote

Eratosthenes (276–194 BCE) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BCE. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to ten percent.[15][16]

 Then we have the problem of 'bendy light'. Though refraction is an obvious explanation for this phenomena, the atmosphere would have to have a constantly changing refractive index to create a smooth curve that would appear to be straight, and the nature of reflective substances would have to be far more complex than is currently theorized.
 The mechanism causing the upward motion of a disk shaped Earth also must be addressed, and the complete lack of observational evidence in the form of astronomical changes as the shift in position relative to the universe should mean we would see the stars go past our field of vision in a way precession cannot possibly explain.
 Around the world flight would also be affected, as there would be no direct route through the 'ice-wall'. This is contrary to the actual flight paths, where in flights go from Brisbane to Hawaii to New York, or from Brisbane to London to New York, one going west, the other east and without deviating from (relative to a sphere) straight paths, meeting in one place. Hundreds of sailors, aviators, and astronauts have taken journeys that circumnavigate the Earth without a single stop, and in all directions without coming to any barrier.

How can you fit this into Occam's Razer? How do you answer these problems where experimentation will prove you wrong?
You only have a few very flawed experiments, where Round Earth has thousands of daily proofs.

Please explain your reasoning.

Here's my problem with FET.

The premise of the whole argument is that they distrust the sources that "confirm" the earth is round. Government conspiracies yadda yadda yadda. They say they only believe what they can themselves confirm.

Yet on the other hand, they entertain such unbelievable and notably COMPLETELY unobserved unsubstantiated ideas (i.e. **unconfirmed**) and expect people to believe them just because they are able to think of them. As if I should believe in the tooth fairy just because someone else conceives it (which is a lot more believable than ice walls and sky mirrors).

So what I am saying is, the entire basis of FET is one big hypocrisy.

My problem with it is the loss of touch with reality.

From the claim of the dangers of moonlight,
To the theory that plants do not need light.
To the idea that optical illusions don't exist,
The delusions and madness of FES do persist.

Well it's one thing to make outrageous claims.. there are people who are out there and do this, and that is freedom of speech. They're idiots, but that's all. Harmless idiots. You feel sorry for them. They dont know any better.

I don't feel sorry, on the other hand, for hypocrites. They do know better, in fact, that is supposedly why FET'ers object with the standard RET in the first place, because they feel an unbelievable urge to confirm everything by themselves and by their own eyes. But to be so severe in asking for evidence on one hand, and then on the other coming up with outlandish claims without any hard evidence whatsoever and then simply asking people to believe them.. it's clear that they should know better.. they are not simple idiots. They should uphold themselves and FET to the same rigid standards that they hold RET to.

As I suspected no FE'ers have come to contest me.
This lack of debate is exactly the opposite of what true scientific minded people would do.

It seems the main fundamental psychological drivers for there beliefs are some sort of irrational fear of everything to the point where they can't even trust there own hands in front of there face; in case their index knuckle happens to resemble Satan, and based on what I've seen from their sort of faulty logic they could easily go on to conclude God is on 'it' too, unless of course their hands are flat.

 All jokes aside chaps, I think what we have here is a collective of moderately mentally ill people who are getting together to all agree over their own obscure ideas, much like this whole 2012 end of the world talk, and new world order talk. Somehow all of these strange obscure theories have one correlating factor, they seem to think there is some 'group' of individuals, a collective or some sort that dictates, whether it be Jews, Zionist's and/or Satanists. Firstly religion is a subjective premise to base any scientific argument on, and to be quite honest, it falls down on this point alone, when we're discussing things of scientific objectivity like, the planet shape.
           
           However by nature I'm not a scientist, I'm a sociologist/psychologist and this website has sparked a curiosity which I can safely put to rest. As I suspected the arguments are flawed, conspiracy based twaddle,the world is screwed, and to few people have to much money, but that's the problem, not some collective of individuals, blame selfish capitalism, both for your mental state, and the disparity of wealth that you're misunderstanding as this bizarre global conspiracy that has been fabricated into a rather poor, yet imaginative; flimsy model of a scientific/sociological argument..

However i'd like to Add i mean no disrespect, genuinely; i just wanted to say my peice. x)

Firstly religion is a subjective premise to base any scientific argument on, and to be quite honest, it falls down on this point alone, when we're discussing things of scientific objectivity like, the planet shape.

To which scientific arguments might you be referring?

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 26, 2010, 12:15:02 AM

Firstly religion is a subjective premise to base any scientific argument on, and to be quite honest, it falls down on this point alone, when we're discussing things of scientific objectivity like, the planet shape.

To which scientific arguments might you be referring?

Do you know what website your on or...? I think when discussing the shape of the planet we live on, we have to talk in scientific terms. Its a general comment.

'...They are different because the earth is flat.' I pose the same question to you, as the round world we live in has been explained above my post, my point was to tackle it from a different approach, but go ahead explain your version of science, which might i remind you has its roots in the Latin word 'scientia' meaning knowledge, so you provide me with some knowledge. Rather than that pseudo-science you claim to be proof, I'm sure Darwin would be rolling in his grave, maybe he'll spin a whole deep enough to prove that the earth is not this flat disk you narrow mindedly assume it to be based on your own confirmations. I'm sure you would have to deny any pictures of the planet from space to come to this conclusion, my point is, this it is not necessary about logic, you don't seem to cope very well with that, the Math that proves the earth is spherical already exists as well as the empirical evidence which mealy is the icing on the fully prepared cake. I think you fail to see you own personal emotional psychological drivers which taint your views, and then you hide behind anything you can in a attempt to validate them. Each to their own, just found it curious. Peace

Thank you MellowThunder, I appreciate your well though-out, researched and expert opinion.
 I personally am trying to actually spark a serious debate in these forums once more, to steer it back to the thought experiment it once was.
 After this tread I am content that my decision to abandon this forum is probably a good one.
 

Thank you MellowThunder, I appreciate your well though-out, researched and expert opinion.
 I personally am trying to actually spark a serious debate in these forums once more, to steer it back to the thought experiment it once was.
 After this tread I am content that my decision to abandon this forum is probably a good one.
 

I guess you can't debate with people who are already convinced of there own beliefs. The facts are plain and have been for a long time; facts go beyond belief, as its objective and true. However; i am curious of what sort of debates used to take place, i can see their are some highly intelligent individuals here, but its seems like trying to convince, debate, and reason with a religious person, they speak a different language if you will; their views are set in stone that only they can break or, alternatively chisel and refine.

Your decision to leave sounds like a good one.

I stay for the impossible hope that I'll see someone break down and cry about how his life is a lie.

Your decision to leave sounds like a good one.

I stay for the impossible hope that I'll see someone break down and cry about how his life is a lie.

In the meantime you get to witness supreme ignorance of the highest, flattest order!

This discussion is in all seriousness, and I would like there to be no flaming or trolling please.

As has been mentioned hundreds of times in this thread, every facet of cartography, surveying, engineering and long distance travel has to base finding on the assumption of a round Earth. Echo studies of earthquakes and nuclear tests have revealed the liner movement of waves through the magma layer as if it where a spherical object. Photographic, radar, laser, sonar, magnetic resonance, X-ray and electro-magnetic scans of the Earths surface seem to reveal an object that is 1/300 off being a perfect sphere.

<snip>

How can you fit this into Occam's Razer? How do you answer these problems where experimentation will prove you wrong?
You only have a few very flawed experiments, where Round Earth has thousands of daily proofs.

Please explain your reasoning.

It's even simpler than that. The gravitational pull of a mass the size proposed for the flat earth would pull it into a sphere. And yes, gravitational attraction between mass does exist. Experiments have been performed repeatedly using torsional balances demonstrating an attractive force perpendicular to the Universal accelerator (thus eliminating it as a factor).

But even if you posited some structural material strong enough to resist gravitational compression, you would still get a lateral gravitational vector toward the center of the earth the farther you moved toward the edge, because of the unequal distribution of mass beneath you.

This, of course, also eliminates the possibility of an infinite earth, since an infinite mass would produce an infinite gravity, causing the earth to collapse into a singularity.

Quote from: The Yellow on May 19, 2010, 08:24:17 PM

This discussion is in all seriousness, and I would like there to be no flaming or trolling please.

As has been mentioned hundreds of times in this thread, every facet of cartography, surveying, engineering and long distance travel has to base finding on the assumption of a round Earth. Echo studies of earthquakes and nuclear tests have revealed the liner movement of waves through the magma layer as if it where a spherical object. Photographic, radar, laser, sonar, magnetic resonance, X-ray and electro-magnetic scans of the Earths surface seem to reveal an object that is 1/300 off being a perfect sphere.

<snip>

How can you fit this into Occam's Razer? How do you answer these problems where experimentation will prove you wrong?
You only have a few very flawed experiments, where Round Earth has thousands of daily proofs.

Please explain your reasoning.

It's even simpler than that. The gravitational pull of a mass the size proposed for the flat earth would pull it into a sphere. And yes, gravitational attraction between mass does exist. Experiments have been performed repeatedly using torsional balances demonstrating an attractive force perpendicular to the Universal accelerator (thus eliminating it as a factor).

But even if you posited some structural material strong enough to resist gravitational compression, you would still get a lateral gravitational vector toward the center of the earth the farther you moved toward the edge, because of the unequal distribution of mass beneath you.

This, of course, also eliminates the possibility of an infinite earth, since an infinite mass would produce an infinite gravity, causing the earth to collapse into a singularity.

Unless it was made of an infinitely strong substance

I know! It's made of dark matter. Which is infinitely strong. There we go.

Quote from: Pongo on May 26, 2010, 01:53:29 AM

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 26, 2010, 12:15:02 AM

Firstly religion is a subjective premise to base any scientific argument on, and to be quite honest, it falls down on this point alone, when we're discussing things of scientific objectivity like, the planet shape.

To which scientific arguments might you be referring?

Do you know what website your on or...? I think when discussing the shape of the planet we live on, we have to talk in scientific terms. Its a general comment.

Soooooo, you aren't referring to any real religious-based arguments?  Just hypothetical religious-based arguments?

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 26, 2010, 01:59:47 AM

Quote from: Pongo on May 26, 2010, 01:53:29 AM

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 26, 2010, 12:15:02 AM

Firstly religion is a subjective premise to base any scientific argument on, and to be quite honest, it falls down on this point alone, when we're discussing things of scientific objectivity like, the planet shape.

To which scientific arguments might you be referring?

Do you know what website your on or...? I think when discussing the shape of the planet we live on, we have to talk in scientific terms. Its a general comment.

Soooooo, you aren't referring to any real religious-based arguments?  Just hypothetical religious-based arguments?

I'm making a comparison between having faith that something is true based on belief and knowing something is true, based on fact. I was reading up about the conspiracy part of the whole flat earth theory, there's a lot of talk of demonic and satanic symbolism as the premise for general distrust, i don't know if you believe this but its just one part of this raggedy argument called flat earth theory, everyone has a different view, but there's not, a cohesive, single theory that actually makes any sense, unless of course, your paranoid like hell.

It seems the lines between imagination, logic and emotion are blurry; with all of these flat earther theory's.

Quote

Eratosthenes (276–194 BCE) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BCE. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to ten percent.[15][16]

I can replicate this experiment on my kitchen table -- it does not make the table an orb. It can only be used to calculate the size of the earth if one assumes the rays of the sun are parallel.

Then we have the problem of 'bendy light'. Though refraction is an obvious explanation for this phenomena, the atmosphere would have to have a constantly changing refractive index to create a smooth curve that would appear to be straight, and the nature of reflective substances would have to be far more complex than is currently theorized.

I am not a proponent of bendy light, so I'll happily leave that to someone who is.

The mechanism causing the upward motion of a disk shaped Earth also must be addressed, and the complete lack of observational evidence in the form of astronomical changes as the shift in position relative to the universe should mean we would see the stars go past our field of vision in a way precession cannot possibly explain.

There is no known mechanism for this upward acceleration, just as there is no known mechanism for RET cosmology's acceleration of the expanding universe.
The stars entering or leaving one's field of vision again assumes these objects are (excuse the term) astronomically far away. The stars in FET are much closer to the earth and subject to the same acceleration acting on the earth. Hence the term, "Universal Accelerator".

Around the world flight would also be affected, as there would be no direct route through the 'ice-wall'. This is contrary to the actual flight paths, where in flights go from Brisbane to Hawaii to New York, or from Brisbane to London to New York, one going west, the other east and without deviating from (relative to a sphere) straight paths, meeting in one place. Hundreds of sailors, aviators, and astronauts have taken journeys that circumnavigate the Earth without a single stop, and in all directions without coming to any barrier.

You misunderstand the FE map. Ther route between Brisbane, London or New York does not approach the ice wall. 

...i don't know if you believe this but its just one part of this raggedy argument called flat earth theory, everyone has a different view, but there's not, a cohesive, single theory that actually makes any sense, unless of course, your paranoid like hell.

It seems the lines between imagination, logic and emotion are blurry; with all of these flat earther theory's.

There is no cohesive view from biologists on how birds developed flight.  Does this mean that they are all wrong and birds have therefore never evolved flight?

There is no cohesive view from biologists on how birds developed flight.  Does this mean that they are all wrong and birds have therefore never evolved flight?

That's an entirely specious argument.  For one thing, there is not as wide a range of mutually contradictory opinions of the evolutionay development birds' flight as you are trying to imply.  Most of the disagreements on that are over relatively minor details, none of which weaken the premise that flight evolved as a consequence of Darwinion, natural selection.  Besides that, there is no serious or reasonable doubt anywhere that birds do, in fact, fly.  The same cannot be honestly or reasonably said about the FET premise.  Even some of the "devil's advocate" FE'ers occasionally admit that.

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 27, 2010, 02:17:07 AM

...i don't know if you believe this but its just one part of this raggedy argument called flat earth theory, everyone has a different view, but there's not, a cohesive, single theory that actually makes any sense, unless of course, your paranoid like hell.

It seems the lines between imagination, logic and emotion are blurry; with all of these flat earther theory's.

There is no cohesive view from biologists on how birds developed flight.  Does this mean that they are all wrong and birds have therefore never evolved flight?

A. You've missed the point of the overall paragraph for the 3rd time, its not very smart to take a tiny bit of a collective argument and try and tackle that, ignore the rest, but that's a classic flat earther move. A guise for something you wish was logic.

B. You're argument about birds is just so flawed, birds developed flight because it granted them an advantage in the game of survival, not only would their nest grounds be higher up, and safer, they would also have far more space and therefore less competition in which
they could go on to function through day to day life. Unlike the over crowded realm of the floor dweller's. This means in evolutionary terms flying as a freak, coincidental genetic occurrence would grant that specie, a far greater chance of survival, the cohesiveness of the biological argument is of no concern, because the premise's are, the means in which they evaluate are, not like the vague conspiracy based premise's of your arguments. 

C. The flight patterns of birds is just another flat earther self confirmation based theory, the only thing that's really said is 'birds fly at high altitudes'. well done. Have a medal, what a brilliant empirical deduction, let me just print you a PHD now, I mean honestly. What the hell?

The flight patterns of birds is just another flat earther self confirmation based theory, the only thing that's really said is 'birds fly at high altitudes'. well done. Have a medal, what a brilliant empirical deduction, let me just print you a PHD now, I mean honestly. What the hell?

The fact the birds fly at high altitudes is proof of a flat earth (unless one wishes to make the argument that evolution is false).

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 29, 2010, 04:19:33 AM

The flight patterns of birds is just another flat earther self confirmation based theory, the only thing that's really said is 'birds fly at high altitudes'. well done. Have a medal, what a brilliant empirical deduction, let me just print you a PHD now, I mean honestly. What the hell?

The fact the birds fly at high altitudes is proof of a flat earth (unless one wishes to make the argument that evolution is false).

How?

I'd like some concrete evidence than what i have seen your post re guarding 'proof' of a flat earth because of the migratory patterns of birds. You fail to take into consideration basic variables such as ground obstacles and food resources. Whilst at the same time, proving absolutely nothing.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.0

I've edited making the question of 'How?' more clear, predicting your link.

I showed that Pongo's evolutionary "proof" had no validity several times on that thread.

Quote from: Pongo on May 29, 2010, 04:49:10 AM

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 29, 2010, 04:19:33 AM

The flight patterns of birds is just another flat earther self confirmation based theory, the only thing that's really said is 'birds fly at high altitudes'. well done. Have a medal, what a brilliant empirical deduction, let me just print you a PHD now, I mean honestly. What the hell?

The fact the birds fly at high altitudes is proof of a flat earth (unless one wishes to make the argument that evolution is false).

How?

I'd like some concrete evidence than what i have seen your post re guarding 'proof' of a flat earth because of the migratory patterns of birds. You fail to take into consideration basic variables such as ground obstacles and food resources. Whilst at the same time, proving absolutely nothing.

They are flying at high altitudes to push airliners to make them go faster so that the flight times south of the equator match up, even though they are covering greater distances than we think they are.

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 29, 2010, 04:54:07 AM

Quote from: Pongo on May 29, 2010, 04:49:10 AM

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 29, 2010, 04:19:33 AM

The flight patterns of birds is just another flat earther self confirmation based theory, the only thing that's really said is 'birds fly at high altitudes'. well done. Have a medal, what a brilliant empirical deduction, let me just print you a PHD now, I mean honestly. What the hell?

The fact the birds fly at high altitudes is proof of a flat earth (unless one wishes to make the argument that evolution is false).

How?

I'd like some concrete evidence than what i have seen your post re guarding 'proof' of a flat earth because of the migratory patterns of birds. You fail to take into consideration basic variables such as ground obstacles and food resources. Whilst at the same time, proving absolutely nothing.

They are flying at high altitudes to push airliners to make them go faster so that the flight times south of the equator match up, even though they are covering greater distances than we think they are.

So this is what liquid LOL looks like...

Quote from: Sliver on May 29, 2010, 06:20:09 PM

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 29, 2010, 04:54:07 AM

Quote from: Pongo on May 29, 2010, 04:49:10 AM

Quote from: MellowThunder on May 29, 2010, 04:19:33 AM

The flight patterns of birds is just another flat earther self confirmation based theory, the only thing that's really said is 'birds fly at high altitudes'. well done. Have a medal, what a brilliant empirical deduction, let me just print you a PHD now, I mean honestly. What the hell?

The fact the birds fly at high altitudes is proof of a flat earth (unless one wishes to make the argument that evolution is false).

How?

I'd like some concrete evidence than what i have seen your post re guarding 'proof' of a flat earth because of the migratory patterns of birds. You fail to take into consideration basic variables such as ground obstacles and food resources. Whilst at the same time, proving absolutely nothing.

They are flying at high altitudes to push airliners to make them go faster so that the flight times south of the equator match up, even though they are covering greater distances than we think they are.

So this is what liquid LOL looks like...

Yeah, I hound Pongo on his "Birds push commercial airliners" comment every chance I get.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.0

It seems you have ignored this picture in that very thread: