# SYD to SCL and flight range

• 137 Replies
• 8020 Views
?

#### JackBlack

• 13646
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #60 on: October 18, 2017, 01:17:58 PM »
He never said they were impossible,  learn to read.  The flights are impossible if the earth is flat, map or no map.
Quote
He never said they were impossible
Quote
The flights are impossible
Stop lying, it just shows your dishonesty.

Do you know what quote mining is? Because that is what you are doing.

There is a difference between the statements
"The flights are impossible." and
"The flights are impossible if the earth is flat."

One is stating they are impossible, without any qualifiers at all, meaning there is no way for these flights to be possible, regardless of the shape of Earth.
The other is indicating a condition which would make them impossible, with that condition being Earth being flat.
That means if Earth is flat, the flights are impossible. If Earth is not flat, then the flights may be possible, but more importantly, if the flights are possible (which they are), then Earth can't be flat.

So no one is saying they are impossible, unconditionally.
They are saying they are impossible on a flat Earth. (and explaining why)
They are using this, along with the fact that these flights exist and thus are clearly possible, shows a flat Earth is impossible.

#### th3rm0m3t3r0

• At least 3 words, please.
• 4696
• It's SCIENCE!
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #61 on: October 18, 2017, 03:54:20 PM »
He never said they were impossible,  learn to read.  The flights are impossible if the earth is flat, map or no map.
Quote
He never said they were impossible
Quote
The flights are impossible
Stop lying, it just shows your dishonesty.

Do you know what quote mining is? Because that is what you are doing.

There is a difference between the statements
"The flights are impossible." and
"The flights are impossible if the earth is flat."

One is stating they are impossible, without any qualifiers at all, meaning there is no way for these flights to be possible, regardless of the shape of Earth.
The other is indicating a condition which would make them impossible, with that condition being Earth being flat.
That means if Earth is flat, the flights are impossible. If Earth is not flat, then the flights may be possible, but more importantly, if the flights are possible (which they are), then Earth can't be flat.

So no one is saying they are impossible, unconditionally.
They are saying they are impossible on a flat Earth. (and explaining why)
They are using this, along with the fact that these flights exist and thus are clearly possible, shows a flat Earth is impossible.

You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth. Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...

I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #62 on: October 18, 2017, 04:01:45 PM »
I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.

Let's cut to the chase and go right back to your claim:
"The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible."
That seems to be the crux of this fruitless argument.

You simply state, "the Earth is flat", but the truth or not of that unsupported claim is the point of the whole thread.

You claim to know that the earth is flat, but seem to have no idea of even its basic layout.

As I see it you have two options:
Come up with at some idea of where the basic features of "your flat earth" lie or
abandon the whole discussion.

The only suggestions I can make is to show some of the continental layouts that flat earthers have actually proposed.
•  Quote from: The Flat Earth Society FAQHere is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth:1892 - Gleasons MapSydney to Santiago - 25,500 km This is the layout presented in the FAQ and described as:QuoteWhat does the earth look like?As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.The earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.Nothing suggests that it might not definitive, though the map is "certainly not definitive".But the only important points are: circular, North Pole at the centre, equator around the middle and Antarctica around the outside.And I believe that we have shown that, on that layout, the SYD to SCL is quite impossible because of range and time.

•  Bipolar MapSantiago to Sydney 18,300 km Some flat-earthers, including Tom Bishop, support this layout and Sandokhan supports a layout which is not greatly different.Apart from numerous other difficulties the shortest route for the SYD to SCL flight is still 18,300 km and too far for the planes used and flight times.Not only that the inititial direction out of Sydney on that route is South West and not North West it on the real flights.So, wipe that one!

•  Azimuthal Map Northern Hemiplane Azimuthal Map Southern Hemiplane

The only proposer of this layout seems to be JRoweSkeptic with his "DET".
But it has what I and many others consider insuperable difficulties.
Nevertheless flight distances are "not too far" from reported distances.

Of course, this is because it approximates the Globe reasonable well, except close to the equator where distances can be almost 60% too large.

But I believe that we can ignore this simply because of the impossibility of seamlessly crossing or even seeing across the equator.
So, wipe that one!

•  South Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection That seems to leave only a South Pole centred layout as on the left - that solves nothing.It just transfers all the Southern Hemisphere problems to the Northern Hemisphere where there is more land and many more people to bitch about the silly shapes and distances.So, wipe that one!

So over to you! Any more bright ideas?

Please either offer a flat earth layout where these (the Southern and Northern flights) are feasible or admit that this is one more black mark against your flat earth hypothesis.

<< Changed a North for South >>
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 02:59:09 AM by rabinoz »

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #63 on: October 18, 2017, 07:30:51 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth. Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...
No we are not working backwards, the earth has been known to be a Globe for over 2000 years.

The following is from an old post on the size of the earth, but it looks certain that from say 500 BC on the Greeks believed the earth a Globe:

Just honestly read this Wikipedia, History of geodesy. This is from Wikipedia, but the information is available from other sources.

Here are some extracts from that article:
Quote
Hellenic world
Since the spherical shape was the most widely supported during the Greek Era, efforts to determine its size followed. Plato determined the circumference of the Earth (which is slightly over 40,000 km) to be 400,000 stadia (between 62,800 and 74,000 km or 46,250 and 39,250 mi) while Archimedes estimated 300,000 stadia (48,300 km or 30,000 mi), using the Hellenic stadion which scholars generally take to be 185 meters or  1⁄10 of a geographical mile. Plato's figure was a guess and Archimedes' a more conservative approximation.
Quote
Hellenistic world
In Egypt, a Greek scholar and philosopher, Eratosthenes (276 BC – 195 BC), is said to have made more explicit measurements.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Eratosthenes' method for determining the size of the Earth
From these observations, measurements, and/or "known" facts, Eratosthenes concluded that since the angular deviation of the sun from the vertical direction at Alexandria was also the angle of the subtended arc (see illustration), the linear distance between Alexandria and Syene was 1/50 of the circumference of the Earth which thus must be 50×5000 = 250,000 stadia or probably 25,000 geographical miles. The circumference of the Earth is 24,902 mi (40,075.16 km). Over the poles it is more precisely 40,008 km or 24,860 mi. The actual unit of measure used by Eratosthenes was the stadion. No one knows for sure what his stadion equals in modern units, but some say that it was the Hellenic 185 m stadion.

Then in India in the first century AD:
Quote
Ancient India
The Indian mathematician Aryabhata (AD 476–550) was a pioneer of mathematical astronomy. He describes the earth as being spherical and that it rotates on its axis, among other things in his work Āryabhaṭīya. Aryabhatiya is divided into four sections. Gitika, Ganitha (mathematics), Kalakriya (reckoning of time) and Gola (celestial sphere). The discovery that the earth rotates on its own axis from west to east is described in Aryabhatiya ( Gitika 3,6; Kalakriya 5; Gola 9,10;). For example, he explained the apparent motion of heavenly bodies is only an illusion (Gola 9), with the following simile;
Just as a passenger in a boat moving downstream sees the stationary (trees on the river banks) as traversing upstream,
so does an observer on earth see the fixed stars as moving towards the west at exactly the same speed
(at which the earth moves from west to east.)
Aryabhatiya also estimates the circumference of Earth, with an error of 1%, which is remarkable. Aryabhata gives the radii of the orbits of the planets in terms of the Earth-Sun distance as essentially their periods of rotation around the Sun. He also gave the correct explanation of lunar and solar eclipses and that the Moon shines by reflecting sunlight.

And in the first century AD in the Islamic world:
Quote
Islamic world
Main article: Geography and cartography in medieval Islam: Mathematical geography and geodesy
The Muslim scholars, who held to the spherical Earth theory, used it to calculate the distance and direction from any given point on the earth to Mecca. This determined the Qibla, or Muslim direction of prayer. Muslim mathematicians developed spherical trigonometry which was used in these calculations.

Around AD 830 Caliph al-Ma'mun commissioned a group of astronomers led by Al-Khwarizmi to measure the distance from Tadmur (Palmyra) to Raqqa, in modern Syria. They found the cities to be separated by one degree of latitude and the distance between them to be 66 2⁄3 miles[clarification needed] and thus calculated the Earth's circumference to be 24,000 miles.[8] Another estimate given was 56 2⁄3 Arabic miles per degree, which corresponds to 111.8 km per degree and a circumference of 40,248 km, very close to the currently modern values of 111.3 km per degree and 40,068 km circumference, respectively.

Muslim astronomers and geographers were aware of magnetic declination by the 15th century, when the Egyptian astronomer 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Wafa'i (d. 1469/1471) measured it as 7 degrees from Cairo.

Al-Biruni
Of the medieval Persian Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (973–1048) it is said:
The detail of Al-Biruni is very relevant, but a bit long to include here, but
"He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value not obtained in the West until the 16th century."

And finally in the early church:
Quote from: Jonathan Sarfati
The flat earth myth
. . . . . .
flat-earth belief was extremely rare in the Church. The flat earth’s two main proponents were obscure figures named Lactantius (c. 240 – c. 320) and Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th century; the last name means “voyager to India”). However, they were hugely outweighed by tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, scientists, and rulers who unambiguously affirmed that the earth was round. Russell documents accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon (1220–1292), inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan (1301–1358) and Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382); the monk John of Sacrobosco (c. 1195–c. 1256) who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.
. . . . . . . . .
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.

In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.

[Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:

“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”

More in The flat earth myth.

No, you modern flat earthers are the John-come-lately's so it is up to you to prove you case.

And simply saying, "The earth looks flat" is neither proof nor even evidence.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 04:04:48 AM by rabinoz »

?

#### JackBlack

• 13646
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2017, 01:04:43 AM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
No.
You are the one working backwards.

When confronted with irrefutable evidence Earth can't be flat, as these flights are impossible on a flat Earth, with an explanation of why, rather than trying to show how they are possible on a flat Earth, you baseless assert Earth is flat to try and claim these flights must be possible, to dismiss the evidence against Earth being flat.

Regardless of if you start with the assumption that Earth is flat, these flights are impossible on a flat Earth. These flights people possible show your assumption to be pure bullshit.

Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...
Then maybe you should open your eyes. The distance is impossible for the fly in the time it takes. This makes these flights impossible on a FE.

We are all still waiting on a sound rebuttal, where you explain how they are possible on a flat Earth.
Remember, it isn't just this one flight, if you try and manipulate your BS Earth to make this one work, you just make other ones impossible.

#### th3rm0m3t3r0

• At least 3 words, please.
• 4696
• It's SCIENCE!
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #65 on: October 19, 2017, 05:44:22 AM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
No.
You are the one working backwards.

When confronted with irrefutable evidence Earth can't be flat, as these flights are impossible on a flat Earth, with an explanation of why, rather than trying to show how they are possible on a flat Earth, you baseless assert Earth is flat to try and claim these flights must be possible, to dismiss the evidence against Earth being flat.

Regardless of if you start with the assumption that Earth is flat, these flights are impossible on a flat Earth. These flights people possible show your assumption to be pure bullshit.

Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...
Then maybe you should open your eyes. The distance is impossible for the fly in the time it takes. This makes these flights impossible on a FE.

We are all still waiting on a sound rebuttal, where you explain how they are possible on a flat Earth.
Remember, it isn't just this one flight, if you try and manipulate your BS Earth to make this one work, you just make other ones impossible.

You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.

Do you know how reasoning works?

This is more of another map problem if anything.

I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

#### inquisitive

• 5107
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #66 on: October 19, 2017, 06:10:03 AM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
No.
You are the one working backwards.

When confronted with irrefutable evidence Earth can't be flat, as these flights are impossible on a flat Earth, with an explanation of why, rather than trying to show how they are possible on a flat Earth, you baseless assert Earth is flat to try and claim these flights must be possible, to dismiss the evidence against Earth being flat.

Regardless of if you start with the assumption that Earth is flat, these flights are impossible on a flat Earth. These flights people possible show your assumption to be pure bullshit.

Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...
Then maybe you should open your eyes. The distance is impossible for the fly in the time it takes. This makes these flights impossible on a FE.

We are all still waiting on a sound rebuttal, where you explain how they are possible on a flat Earth.
Remember, it isn't just this one flight, if you try and manipulate your BS Earth to make this one work, you just make other ones impossible.

You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.

Do you know how reasoning works?

This is more of another map problem if anything.
Clearly flight times only fit together on a round earth.  QED.

#### JerkFace

• 10818
• Looking for Occam
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #67 on: October 19, 2017, 06:12:49 AM »
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.

Do you know how reasoning works?

This is more of another map problem if anything.

Ok, let's see you prove the flights are possible on a flat earth.

Logic isn't your strong suit is it?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

• 2525
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #68 on: October 19, 2017, 06:21:23 AM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
No.
You are the one working backwards.

When confronted with irrefutable evidence Earth can't be flat, as these flights are impossible on a flat Earth, with an explanation of why, rather than trying to show how they are possible on a flat Earth, you baseless assert Earth is flat to try and claim these flights must be possible, to dismiss the evidence against Earth being flat.

Regardless of if you start with the assumption that Earth is flat, these flights are impossible on a flat Earth. These flights people possible show your assumption to be pure bullshit.

Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...
Then maybe you should open your eyes. The distance is impossible for the fly in the time it takes. This makes these flights impossible on a FE.

We are all still waiting on a sound rebuttal, where you explain how they are possible on a flat Earth.
Remember, it isn't just this one flight, if you try and manipulate your BS Earth to make this one work, you just make other ones impossible.

You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.

Do you know how reasoning works?

This is more of another map problem if anything.

and that is you error: why do you start with the assumption that the earth is flat?
what are your prove for that assumption?

if you do the math than you will see that because of the flight time and the flight speed you will get a flight distance.
this flight distance does not match the distance on a flat earth.
and because flight time is tested to be correct and also flight speed is tested to be correct we can say that the flight distance is correct.
what is only left is the assumed distance on a flat earth.
now compare: we have a correct distance and a assumed distance, they do not match, that means that your assumed distance is wrong.
and because your assumed distance is wrong your assumed flat earth is wrong.

even a 5year old will understand that.

do you understand that?

?

#### AFanOfTruth

• 85
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #69 on: October 19, 2017, 07:03:01 AM »
This is more of another map problem if anything.
So provide a map that solve this problem – an FE map that can explain every flight.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 40124
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #70 on: October 19, 2017, 07:49:21 AM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### inquisitive

• 5107
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #71 on: October 19, 2017, 09:52:00 AM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
We look forward to the answer.

#### Sentinel

• 575
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #72 on: October 19, 2017, 11:18:46 AM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

It def comes down to the shape of a flat earth as the common used aircraft for public transportation can't possibly travel that much faster and farther as they would supposed to in almost any long distance flight in the southern hemisphere.
Yet any of the flatties have utterly failed in providing such thing, I wonder why that would be?
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

?

#### JackBlack

• 13646
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #73 on: October 19, 2017, 01:07:24 PM »
Do you know how reasoning works?
Specifically a proof by contradiction and circular reasoning?
What you are doing is circular reasoning, which is invalid. You assume a premise to try to prove (or at least avoid a disproof) of that premise.
That is not how reasoning works at all.

With a proof by contradiction, you start with a premise, argue through without making more assumptions, until you reach a contradiction which you then use to conclude the assumption was false.

You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
No.
To do it properly (i.e. using reasoning and logic), but I'll even be nice and start with your BS assumption:
Assume Earth is flat.
These flights are impossible on a flat Earth.
Thus these flights are impossible.
But these flights happen, and thus are possible.
Thus we have reached a contradiction and thus the assumption (that Earth is flat) is FALSE!!!

You cannot just start with the assumption that Earth is flat to try and prove these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
You need to deal with why they are impossible.

This is more of another map problem if anything.
Yes, as the distances make these flights impossible on a flat Earth.
You have the general connectivity of places on the globe, based upon flights, including their directions and times.
This requires both the north pole and south pole to be small regions (or points). It also requires the equator to be much larger.
With these connections going all around the world, there is no way to fit this on a flat Earth.
You could use the standard NP centered AEP, but that fails with flights near the south pole.
You can use the SP centered AEP, but that fails with flights near the north pole.
You can use the bipolar map, but that fails with flights which go from one side to the other.

There is no way you can fit these flights onto a flat Earth while keeping them possible.

So it doesn't matter if you assume Earth is flat or not. These flights are impossible on a flat Earth.
Thus these flights being possible show Earth cannot be flat.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #74 on: October 19, 2017, 03:06:57 PM »
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Yes, it is valid logic to start with an assumption, but the possibility of that assumption being invalid must be considered.

It has been shown that "These flights clearly are NOT impossible." True.
But then you claim. "Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth." Not true.

All it means is that either
"these flights are possible on a flat Earth" or
your initial "assumption that the Earth is flat" was invalid.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0
Do you know how reasoning works?
Sure, but apparently you don't.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0
This is more of another map problem if anything.
Really, then you show us a flat earth "layout" where all intercontinental airline routes are possible.

I gave all the feasible flat earth layouts that I could find in SYD to SCL and flight range « Reply #62 on: October 19, 2017, 09:01:45 AM ».

I believe I also proved that you "modern flat earthists" are the "new boys on the block", so it's up to you to prove you case, not us in:
SYD to SCL and flight range « Reply #63 on: October 19, 2017, 12:30:51 PM ».

So it is over to you.
Come up with some convincing evidence or admit that many international airline flights would be impossible if the earth were flat.

#### Sam Hill

• 642
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #75 on: October 19, 2017, 03:24:57 PM »
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.

Do you know how reasoning works?

Yes, we do know how reasoning works.  We also recognize fallacies in reasoning.  Yours is called "begging the question"

I'll give you another example:
• I'll assume airplanes are teleporting from SCL to SYD
• Planes that leave SCL actually do arrive in SYD
• Thus, these planes are teleporting

#### th3rm0m3t3r0

• At least 3 words, please.
• 4696
• It's SCIENCE!
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #76 on: October 19, 2017, 03:44:40 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

It def comes down to the shape of a flat earth as the common used aircraft for public transportation can't possibly travel that much faster and farther as they would supposed to in almost any long distance flight in the southern hemisphere.
Yet any of the flatties have utterly failed in providing such thing, I wonder why that would be?

Based on what, exactly? The non-existent map?

You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.

Do you know how reasoning works?

Yes, we do know how reasoning works.  We also recognize fallacies in reasoning.  Yours is called "begging the question"

I'll give you another example:
• I'll assume airplanes are teleporting from SCL to SYD
• Planes that leave SCL actually do arrive in SYD
• Thus, these planes are teleporting

Well, that's an unreasonably silly assumption.

I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #77 on: October 19, 2017, 04:07:52 PM »
Yes, we do know how reasoning works.  We also recognize fallacies in reasoning.  Yours is called "begging the question"

I'll give you another example:
• I'll assume airplanes are teleporting from SCL to SYD
• Planes that leave SCL actually do arrive in SYD
• Thus, these planes are teleporting
Well, that's an unreasonably silly assumption.
True, but no more illogical than your assumption that the earth is flat, when the truth or fallacy of that is what we are out to prove.

You still refuse to comment on this post where I go through all the "feasible" continental layouts that I can find:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As I see it you have two options:
Come up with at some idea of where the basic features of "your flat earth" lie or
abandon the whole discussion.

The only suggestions I can make is to show some of the continental layouts that flat earthers have actually proposed.
•  Quote from: The Flat Earth Society FAQHere is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth:1892 - Gleasons MapSydney to Santiago - 25,500 km This is the layout presented in the FAQ and described as:QuoteWhat does the earth look like?As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.The earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.Nothing suggests that it might not definitive, though the map is "certainly not definitive".But the only important points are: circular, North Pole at the centre, equator around the middle and Antarctica around the outside.And I believe that we have shown that, on that layout, the SYD to SCL is quite impossible because of range and time.

•  Bipolar MapSantiago to Sydney 18,300 km Some flat-earthers, including Tom Bishop, support this layout and Sandokhan supports a layout which is not greatly different.Apart from numerous other difficulties the shortest route for the SYD to SCL flight is still 18,300 km and too far for the planes used and flight times.Not only that the inititial direction out of Sydney on that route is South West and not North West it on the real flights.So, wipe that one!

•  Azimuthal Map Northern Hemiplane Azimuthal Map Southern Hemiplane

The only proposer of this layout seems to be JRoweSkeptic with his "DET".
But it has what I and many others consider insuperable difficulties.
Nevertheless flight distances are "not too far" from reported distances.

Of course, this is because it approximates the Globe reasonable well, except close to the equator where distances can be almost 60% too large.

But I believe that we can ignore this simply because of the impossibility of seamlessly crossing or even seeing across the equator.
So, wipe that one!

•  South Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection That seems to leave only a South Pole centred layout as on the left - that solves nothing.It just transfers all the Southern Hemisphere problems to the Northern Hemisphere where there is more land and many more people to bitch about the silly shapes and distances.So, wipe that one!

So over to you! Any more bright ideas?

Please either offer a flat earth layout where these (the Southern and Northern flights) are feasible or admit that this is one more black mark against your flat earth hypothesis.
Not only that but Gotham posted this:
Yacht race numerical gymnastics are not indicative of Earth shape.  Presenting these representative kips and splits will not get you closer to the truth.

FET has maps(s) that get closer to truth.  It has been stated that if you travel straight on the flat Earth, you will end up right where you started due to the nature of arcing. This makes more sense than all the "we" are living (and having races) on a round ball...and really works if you were to try it.
So if you can't find a map, go and ask Gotham. Surely a "Planar Moderator" has all this information at the tip of his crook?

To put it bluntly, put up or shut up!
Show us a continental layout (no detailed map needed) that make all international air routes feasible or call it quits.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 40124
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #78 on: October 19, 2017, 04:57:50 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

#### th3rm0m3t3r0

• At least 3 words, please.
• 4696
• It's SCIENCE!
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #79 on: October 19, 2017, 05:00:38 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.

I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

#### JerkFace

• 10818
• Looking for Occam
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #80 on: October 19, 2017, 05:52:56 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.

Lower echelon troll confirmed.   Possibly mentally deficient.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #81 on: October 19, 2017, 06:00:42 PM »
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".

And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".

I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.

It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."

But here's some contrary evidence:
 From near sea-level, sure looks perfectly flat and level. From Concorde, 50,000 ft, maybe a bit of a curve there.
 Losing Your Ride at 121,000 Feet - starting to look convincing! From a Flat Earther's video. That sure looks curved to me, from about 200 miles, must be CGI
Not only does it look curved, but as Galileo is reputed to have said:
"Eppur si muove. And yet it does move.
Referring to the Earth, by legend, Galileo whispered this to himself as he rose from kneeling after making his abjuration of heliocentricity.
."
It sure doesn't look flat to me! And by the way, the earth does not measure flat either.

It's funny that flat earthers still have no meaningful explanations for:
• sunrises and sunsets,
• the sun and moon staying the same size from rising to setting,
• solar and lunar eclipses,
• long distance air routes all over the world.  Yes, this topic..
And there is still no flat earth map that shows correct distances all over the world.
That, of course, is because it is not possible to have a flat map that shows correct distances at the same scale all over the world.

You could just admit that you have no case and run away.

#### th3rm0m3t3r0

• At least 3 words, please.
• 4696
• It's SCIENCE!
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #82 on: October 19, 2017, 06:01:23 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.

Lower echelon troll confirmed.   Possibly mentally deficient.

Person who dodges proper responses and substitutes insults and personal attacks confirmed. Possibly doesn't understand how to have a proper argument.

I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

#### th3rm0m3t3r0

• At least 3 words, please.
• 4696
• It's SCIENCE!
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #83 on: October 19, 2017, 06:04:09 PM »
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".

And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".

I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.

It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."

You could just admit that you have no case and run away.

Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.

The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.

I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

• 2525
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #84 on: October 19, 2017, 06:45:54 PM »
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".

And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".

I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.

It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."

You could just admit that you have no case and run away.

Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.

The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.

Yes do it, take these flights and prove on one hand to other FEIB that they exist.
And on the other hand than prove with a map of a flat earth that it fits to the map.

I dare you to do that.

#### th3rm0m3t3r0

• At least 3 words, please.
• 4696
• It's SCIENCE!
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #85 on: October 19, 2017, 07:01:33 PM »
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".

And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".

I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.

It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."

You could just admit that you have no case and run away.

Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.

The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.

Yes do it, take these flights and prove on one hand to other FEIB that they exist.
And on the other hand than prove with a map of a flat earth that it fits to the map.

I dare you to do that.

Again, the Earth is flat and the flights happen, so all it proves is the flights happen how they do regardless of the shape of the Earth.

I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 40124
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #86 on: October 19, 2017, 07:02:20 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

#### th3rm0m3t3r0

• At least 3 words, please.
• 4696
• It's SCIENCE!
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #87 on: October 19, 2017, 07:05:59 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.

There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.

I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #88 on: October 19, 2017, 07:07:38 PM »
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".

And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".
I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.
It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."

You could just admit that you have no case and run away.

Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.

The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
What "flights" on what "working model"?

I have never seen a "working flat earth model". The only working model I have seen in the "Heliocentric Globe".
So stop just blowing hot air as you have been all along and show us your  "working flat earth model".
Don't hide your light under a bushel. In your case that would be hazardous to your health, as it would all go up in flames.

#### th3rm0m3t3r0

• At least 3 words, please.
• 4696
• It's SCIENCE!
##### Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #89 on: October 19, 2017, 07:18:31 PM »
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".

And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".
I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.
It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."

You could just admit that you have no case and run away.

Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.

The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
What "flights" on what "working model"?

I have never seen a "working flat earth model". The only working model I have seen in the "Heliocentric Globe".
So stop just blowing hot air as you have been all along and show us your  "working flat earth model".
Don't hide your light under a bushel. In your case that would be hazardous to your health, as it would all go up in flames.

Right. You're asking me to come up with something of the same quality as a model that millions of scientists have been working on for thousands of years. That's a pretty tall order.

I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.