Flight Sydney to Santiago

You're completely missing the point. I never claimed to have a flat Earth map. Clearly you can't move past that notion, and I'll stop trying here.

I never said that you did.

You keep making generalisations that are meaningless without something to back them up.
As I said before and will undoubtedly have to say again:
You will not face the simple fact that if the earth were flat, a flat map is simply a scale drawing of the earth.
Then any measurement between two points on the map with a ruler can be simply scaled up by the scale factor.
That is exactly what can be done on a map of a limited region of the Globe but there will in general be some scale distortion..

If you disagree with this, please explain why.

Mind you I still think that it is quite ridiculous claiming that "the earth's flat", but not having the slightest idea what it looks like.
You seem to have no idea of even where the poles or equator might be.

But your main argument always seems to be "I know nothing!". Why do you even bother posting?

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 05, 2017, 05:14:05 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 05, 2017, 02:51:56 AM

If you claim otherwise, without proof, you are lying.

All of us know that how you are a slaverer.

Even with your "brotherhood" name, you still lie!

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome

Calculating real size of Australia: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73069.0
Watch and learn you ignorant don't aware of the place you are living on!

I know the place I live in, you don't.

What total rubbish! You cannot find accurate distances from the time of flights.
That depends on so many factors including high-speed head and tail-winds - jet streams, ever heard of them?

Yes, you can get a good approximation for the distances from flight times, as you do with:

Quote

Average flight time from
Calculating The true distance from Perth to Sydney= 805 kms/h x 3:55 = 3.158 kms.
Distance on the map (wrong distance from Perth to Sydney) = 3.290 kms.

So you disagree by 4% - BIG DEAL!

Now, Mr Brotherhood of the Dome, show me a flat earth map that has the distance from Perth to Sydney of 3158 kms.
Then use that method to calculate the true distance from Johannesburg to Sydney and from Sydney to Santiago.
I dare you to!

The flat earth map that we have shows Australia about 8,700 km wide?

Australia on Gleason's Map, E-W 8,700 km and N-S 3,200 km

Australia on Google Earth, E-W 3,700 km and N-S 3,200 km

So where is your true Flat Earth Map with all the correct distances - you failed in your attempt to make one!
Do you know something? Measured distances prove that the earth cannot be flat.

Bye bye Mr Failed Map Maker.

Why do you so boring? Don't you bore any by saying lies?

You're completely missing the point. I never claimed to have a flat Earth map. Clearly you can't move past that notion, and I'll stop trying here.

How do you not have a map of the Earth?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 05, 2017, 02:33:15 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 05, 2017, 05:14:05 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 05, 2017, 02:51:56 AM

If you claim otherwise, without proof, you are lying.

All of us know that how you are a slaverer.

Even with your "brotherhood" name, you still lie!

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome

Calculating real size of Australia: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73069.0
Watch and learn you ignorant don't aware of the place you are living on!

I know the place I live in, you don't.

What total rubbish! You cannot find accurate distances from the time of flights.
That depends on so many factors including high-speed head and tail-winds - jet streams, ever heard of them?

Yes, you can get a good approximation for the distances from flight times, as you do with:

Quote

Average flight time from
Calculating The true distance from Perth to Sydney= 805 kms/h x 3:55 = 3.158 kms.
Distance on the map (wrong distance from Perth to Sydney) = 3.290 kms.

So you disagree by 4% - BIG DEAL!

Now, Mr Brotherhood of the Dome, show me a flat earth map that has the distance from Perth to Sydney of 3158 kms.
Then use that method to calculate the true distance from Johannesburg to Sydney and from Sydney to Santiago.
I dare you to!

The flat earth map that we have shows Australia about 8,700 km wide?

Australia on Gleason's Map, E-W 8,700 km and N-S 3,200 km

Australia on Google Earth, E-W 3,700 km and N-S 3,200 km

So where is your true Flat Earth Map with all the correct distances - you failed in your attempt to make one!
Do you know something? Measured distances prove that the earth cannot be flat.

Bye bye Mr Failed Map Maker.

Why do you so boring? Don't you bore any by saying lies?

I see that true facts bore you as they bore most flat earthers.



So where is your true Flat Earth Map with all the correct distances - you failed in your attempt to make one!
Do you know something? Measured distances prove that the earth cannot be flat.

Bye bye Mr Failed Map Maker.

On the map of the ball, the Sydney-Santiago route forms a straight line of about 7,000 miles, which passes at a distance of about 800 miles from the Antarctic ice.



In the movies posted on the internet by some people who say they have flown on this route, the antarctic ice seems to be very close, it seems the plane is flying over it, like in these videos:



A similar thing is on the route Santiago-Johannesburg. On the map of the ball, the route Santiago-Johannesburg, forms a straight line of about 6,800 miles, which passes at a distance of about 950 miles from the Antarctic ice.



In the movies posted on the internet, the antarctic ice seems to be very close, it seems the plane is flying over it, like in these videos:



In the video below, is shown on Google Earth route Santiago-Johannesburg, but in this video the route does not appear to be stright. What would be the reason for that this route to not be stright, following the shortest path ?

At 1:37


Why in the movies on the internet, it seems that the planes fly very close to the ice, even above it, and the route on the map of the ball earth shows that the ice is not so close ? If that route is not stright, then why is it not stright, following the shortest path ?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 05, 2017, 08:59:41 PM

You're completely missing the point. I never claimed to have a flat Earth map. Clearly you can't move past that notion, and I'll stop trying here.

I never said that you did.

You keep making generalisations that are meaningless without something to back them up.
As I said before and will undoubtedly have to say again:
You will not face the simple fact that if the earth were flat, a flat map is simply a scale drawing of the earth.
Then any measurement between two points on the map with a ruler can be simply scaled up by the scale factor.
That is exactly what can be done on a map of a limited region of the Globe but there will in general be some scale distortion..

If you disagree with this, please explain why.

Mind you I still think that it is quite ridiculous claiming that "the earth's flat", but not having the slightest idea what it looks like.
You seem to have no idea of even where the poles or equator might be.

But your main argument always seems to be "I know nothing!". Why do you even bother posting?

Again, can we try to talk like people who both don't know what the shape of the Earth is? This is getting frustrating.

What you're saying would be fine, if you were working with maps of a flat Earth. However, the various lines and proportions on those maps happen to suggest that they are not maps of a flat Earth. When people hand you projections of a globe, just tell them they are projections of a globe and move on. I'm just trying to save you some work.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 12:06:12 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 05, 2017, 08:59:41 PM

You're completely missing the point. I never claimed to have a flat Earth map. Clearly you can't move past that notion, and I'll stop trying here.

I never said that you did.

You keep making generalisations that are meaningless without something to back them up.
As I said before and will undoubtedly have to say again:
You will not face the simple fact that if the earth were flat, a flat map is simply a scale drawing of the earth.
Then any measurement between two points on the map with a ruler can be simply scaled up by the scale factor.
That is exactly what can be done on a map of a limited region of the Globe but there will in general be some scale distortion..

If you disagree with this, please explain why.

Mind you I still think that it is quite ridiculous claiming that "the earth's flat", but not having the slightest idea what it looks like.
You seem to have no idea of even where the poles or equator might be.

But your main argument always seems to be "I know nothing!". Why do you even bother posting?

Again, can we try to talk like people who both don't know what the shape of the Earth is? This is getting frustrating.

What you're saying would be fine, if you were working with maps of a flat Earth. However, the various lines and proportions on those maps happen to suggest that they are not maps of a flat Earth. When people hand you projections of a globe, just tell them they are projections of a globe and move on. I'm just trying to save you some work.

Could you explain why 2D projections of a globe and the globe itself are all functional, self consistent, and accurate to observations but there are no 2D maps of a flat Earth that are any of those things, despite the fact that making an accurate 2D map of a flat surface is orders of magnitude easier than making an accurate 2D map of a spherical surface?

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 06, 2017, 02:34:53 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 05, 2017, 02:33:15 PM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 05, 2017, 05:14:05 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 05, 2017, 02:51:56 AM

If you claim otherwise, without proof, you are lying.

All of us know that how you are a slaverer.

Even with your "brotherhood" name, you still lie!

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome

Calculating real size of Australia: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73069.0
Watch and learn you ignorant don't aware of the place you are living on!

I know the place I live in, you don't.

What total rubbish! You cannot find accurate distances from the time of flights.
That depends on so many factors including high-speed head and tail-winds - jet streams, ever heard of them?

Yes, you can get a good approximation for the distances from flight times, as you do with:

Quote

Average flight time from
Calculating The true distance from Perth to Sydney= 805 kms/h x 3:55 = 3.158 kms.
Distance on the map (wrong distance from Perth to Sydney) = 3.290 kms.

So you disagree by 4% - BIG DEAL!

Now, Mr Brotherhood of the Dome, show me a flat earth map that has the distance from Perth to Sydney of 3158 kms.
Then use that method to calculate the true distance from Johannesburg to Sydney and from Sydney to Santiago.
I dare you to!

The flat earth map that we have shows Australia about 8,700 km wide?

Australia on Gleason's Map, E-W 8,700 km and N-S 3,200 km

Australia on Google Earth, E-W 3,700 km and N-S 3,200 km

So where is your true Flat Earth Map with all the correct distances - you failed in your attempt to make one!
Do you know something? Measured distances prove that the earth cannot be flat.

Bye bye Mr Failed Map Maker.

Why do you so boring? Don't you bore any by saying lies?

I see that true facts bore you as they bore most flat earthers.



So where is your true Flat Earth Map with all the correct distances - you failed in your attempt to make one!
Do you know something? Measured distances prove that the earth cannot be flat.

Bye bye Mr Failed Map Maker.

You are wrong like everytime you are. Your life is completely wrong. Actually you are the man who the teachers teach the students as "bad man".

I told after near to finish map, The map corrects the flat earth with only Australia should be about 1.000 kms to the east. The whole flat earth projection is about true. Just a few correctance need for distances. I told that finish it is not a problem, but copyright. I suggest to the "flat earth society" for accept to get its copyright but nobody interest with it, including you and your institude that subsidiary of NASA. I'm sorry but I can't deliver my map to some hands with getting the risk to can't use it by copyright problems.

You low iq ignorant never understand me.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 06, 2017, 09:43:04 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 12:06:12 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 05, 2017, 08:59:41 PM

You're completely missing the point. I never claimed to have a flat Earth map. Clearly you can't move past that notion, and I'll stop trying here.

I never said that you did.

You keep making generalisations that are meaningless without something to back them up.
As I said before and will undoubtedly have to say again:
You will not face the simple fact that if the earth were flat, a flat map is simply a scale drawing of the earth.
Then any measurement between two points on the map with a ruler can be simply scaled up by the scale factor.
That is exactly what can be done on a map of a limited region of the Globe but there will in general be some scale distortion..

If you disagree with this, please explain why.

Mind you I still think that it is quite ridiculous claiming that "the earth's flat", but not having the slightest idea what it looks like.
You seem to have no idea of even where the poles or equator might be.

But your main argument always seems to be "I know nothing!". Why do you even bother posting?

Again, can we try to talk like people who both don't know what the shape of the Earth is? This is getting frustrating.

What you're saying would be fine, if you were working with maps of a flat Earth. However, the various lines and proportions on those maps happen to suggest that they are not maps of a flat Earth. When people hand you projections of a globe, just tell them they are projections of a globe and move on. I'm just trying to save you some work.

Could you explain why 2D projections of a globe and the globe itself are all functional, self consistent, and accurate to observations but there are no 2D maps of a flat Earth that are any of those things, despite the fact that making an accurate 2D map of a flat surface is orders of magnitude easier than making an accurate 2D map of a spherical surface?

Because I'm not a cartographer. Not sure who you think is making these maps.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on December 06, 2017, 10:38:53 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 06, 2017, 09:43:04 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 12:06:12 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 05, 2017, 08:59:41 PM

You're completely missing the point. I never claimed to have a flat Earth map. Clearly you can't move past that notion, and I'll stop trying here.

I never said that you did.

You keep making generalisations that are meaningless without something to back them up.
As I said before and will undoubtedly have to say again:
You will not face the simple fact that if the earth were flat, a flat map is simply a scale drawing of the earth.
Then any measurement between two points on the map with a ruler can be simply scaled up by the scale factor.
That is exactly what can be done on a map of a limited region of the Globe but there will in general be some scale distortion..

If you disagree with this, please explain why.

Mind you I still think that it is quite ridiculous claiming that "the earth's flat", but not having the slightest idea what it looks like.
You seem to have no idea of even where the poles or equator might be.

But your main argument always seems to be "I know nothing!". Why do you even bother posting?

Again, can we try to talk like people who both don't know what the shape of the Earth is? This is getting frustrating.

What you're saying would be fine, if you were working with maps of a flat Earth. However, the various lines and proportions on those maps happen to suggest that they are not maps of a flat Earth. When people hand you projections of a globe, just tell them they are projections of a globe and move on. I'm just trying to save you some work.

Could you explain why 2D projections of a globe and the globe itself are all functional, self consistent, and accurate to observations but there are no 2D maps of a flat Earth that are any of those things, despite the fact that making an accurate 2D map of a flat surface is orders of magnitude easier than making an accurate 2D map of a spherical surface?

Because I'm not a cartographer. Not sure who you think is making these maps.

I didn't ask why YOU didn't make a map.  I asked why one doesn't exist.  Surely some cartographer in the history of map making could have created one, and yet there aren't any.  Why is that?  Don't deflect.

Besides, mapping a 2D surface is not very sophisticated cartography.  You can take simple measurements and then scale them down.  It's not like actual cartography, where the curvature of the Earth interferes with what would otherwise be very easy.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 06, 2017, 11:09:41 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on December 06, 2017, 10:38:53 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 06, 2017, 09:43:04 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 12:06:12 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 05, 2017, 08:59:41 PM

You're completely missing the point. I never claimed to have a flat Earth map. Clearly you can't move past that notion, and I'll stop trying here.

I never said that you did.

You keep making generalisations that are meaningless without something to back them up.
As I said before and will undoubtedly have to say again:
You will not face the simple fact that if the earth were flat, a flat map is simply a scale drawing of the earth.
Then any measurement between two points on the map with a ruler can be simply scaled up by the scale factor.
That is exactly what can be done on a map of a limited region of the Globe but there will in general be some scale distortion..

If you disagree with this, please explain why.

Mind you I still think that it is quite ridiculous claiming that "the earth's flat", but not having the slightest idea what it looks like.
You seem to have no idea of even where the poles or equator might be.

But your main argument always seems to be "I know nothing!". Why do you even bother posting?

Again, can we try to talk like people who both don't know what the shape of the Earth is? This is getting frustrating.

What you're saying would be fine, if you were working with maps of a flat Earth. However, the various lines and proportions on those maps happen to suggest that they are not maps of a flat Earth. When people hand you projections of a globe, just tell them they are projections of a globe and move on. I'm just trying to save you some work.

Could you explain why 2D projections of a globe and the globe itself are all functional, self consistent, and accurate to observations but there are no 2D maps of a flat Earth that are any of those things, despite the fact that making an accurate 2D map of a flat surface is orders of magnitude easier than making an accurate 2D map of a spherical surface?

Because I'm not a cartographer. Not sure who you think is making these maps.

I didn't ask why YOU didn't make a map.  I asked why one doesn't exist.  Surely some cartographer in the history of map making could have created one, and yet there aren't any.  Why is that?  Don't deflect.

Besides, mapping a 2D surface is not very sophisticated cartography.  You can take simple measurements and then scale them down.  It's not like actual cartography, where the curvature of the Earth interferes with what would otherwise be very easy.

The Earth being round has been the mainstream idea since before modern science had existed. I'm not sure who you think is trying to make a flat Earth map.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on December 06, 2017, 11:25:30 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 06, 2017, 11:09:41 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on December 06, 2017, 10:38:53 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 06, 2017, 09:43:04 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 12:06:12 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 05, 2017, 08:59:41 PM

You're completely missing the point. I never claimed to have a flat Earth map. Clearly you can't move past that notion, and I'll stop trying here.

I never said that you did.

You keep making generalisations that are meaningless without something to back them up.
As I said before and will undoubtedly have to say again:
You will not face the simple fact that if the earth were flat, a flat map is simply a scale drawing of the earth.
Then any measurement between two points on the map with a ruler can be simply scaled up by the scale factor.
That is exactly what can be done on a map of a limited region of the Globe but there will in general be some scale distortion..

If you disagree with this, please explain why.

Mind you I still think that it is quite ridiculous claiming that "the earth's flat", but not having the slightest idea what it looks like.
You seem to have no idea of even where the poles or equator might be.

But your main argument always seems to be "I know nothing!". Why do you even bother posting?

Again, can we try to talk like people who both don't know what the shape of the Earth is? This is getting frustrating.

What you're saying would be fine, if you were working with maps of a flat Earth. However, the various lines and proportions on those maps happen to suggest that they are not maps of a flat Earth. When people hand you projections of a globe, just tell them they are projections of a globe and move on. I'm just trying to save you some work.

Could you explain why 2D projections of a globe and the globe itself are all functional, self consistent, and accurate to observations but there are no 2D maps of a flat Earth that are any of those things, despite the fact that making an accurate 2D map of a flat surface is orders of magnitude easier than making an accurate 2D map of a spherical surface?

Because I'm not a cartographer. Not sure who you think is making these maps.

I didn't ask why YOU didn't make a map.  I asked why one doesn't exist.  Surely some cartographer in the history of map making could have created one, and yet there aren't any.  Why is that?  Don't deflect.

Besides, mapping a 2D surface is not very sophisticated cartography.  You can take simple measurements and then scale them down.  It's not like actual cartography, where the curvature of the Earth interferes with what would otherwise be very easy.

The Earth being round has been the mainstream idea since before modern science had existed. I'm not sure who you think is trying to make a flat Earth map.

"Free thinkers" have had thousands of years to put a flat Earth map together.  Who cares if it's not mainstream?  There hasn't been a single "free thinking" cartographer in the past 2000 years?  Doesn't that seem unlikely?  There have been all kinds of non-mainstream ideas that have been explored and worked on with scientific rigor just in the past 500 years.  Isn't it unlikely that the "true" map of a flat Earth would have gone unmade?  Especially given how easy it would be to make that map.  You literally need nothing but distance measurements and the ability to handle ratios.  The fact that something so easy has never been done is a giant neon indicator that it can't be done.

Doesn't seem too unlikely, given the incredible minority of people who believe the Earth is flat as well as the incredible minority of people who chose to study cartography.

Doesn't seem too unlikely, given the incredible minority of people who believe the Earth is flat as well as the incredible minority of people who chose to study cartography.

Have you forgotten how to PM? Go and get these maps from Gotham.

The Earth is still flat. 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FET has maps(s) that get closer to truth.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The wind knows of what I speak, not these purported facts and picturesque numbers presented to confuse reality, as we observe it.       

He claims that "FET has maps(s) that get closer to truth." Show us these FET maps(s) that get closer to truth!

yousurname is correct that the Earth is flat.  We have maps on our side of the truth divide when it comes to fact checking Earth shape.

Flat maps and their believers/followers have been around for much longer than the globe and round Earth believer crowd. I recommend skeptics of flat maps to do a study on map history.

Flat maps are being used in navigation by sea, ground and air made by cartographers so we can put that deflection to rest.  Oh, it is FE pilots that stand by these claims. 

Don't fear truth yousurname. Good to have you aboard. 

Or does even gotham mean these "flat maps . . . being used in navigation by sea, ground and air made by cartographers" are really simply projections of the globe.

And all you can do is plead ignorance!

You complain that there are too few flat earthers to works on this (impossible) map, yet your all-knowing True Believer brotherhood of the dome claims that there are "about 40 millions" flat earthers.

Second Update of  December 2017 (correction)

I made this working because as I said that the previous data was suspicious. Although the interest in "google trends" at the top level of the year, general interest seem as non changed. So I made this second research.

Update of  06 December 2017 (correction)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flat earth: 11,1 > 12,2 + 10 %
Result of the statistics:

It seems the increased interest after congress have yet impacted to the statistics in google search.

According to these (corrected) statistics,
the number of flat earth believers started to increase again and arrived to 39.985.000 (about 40 millions)

You have "about 40 millions" flat earthers and still can't make a map.
Yet map makers have been making globes and flat projections of the globes for many many centuries!

I'm not gotham. Are you having a conversation with me or him?

You seem to be unable to accept, even for a short period, the notion of discussing this as if the shape of the Earth was irrelevant.

I'm not even arguing with you about the shape of the Earth. Not sure why you have to steer everything towards that discussion.

I'm not gotham. Are you having a conversation with me or him?

You, being a flat earther, might have more success at eliciting these accurate flat earth maps from gotham than I.

You seem to be unable to accept, even for a short period, the notion of discussing this as if the shape of the Earth was irrelevant.

What is it about if not the shape of the earth? If the earth is a Globe the Sydney to/from Santiago flights present not the slightest problem.

It is on the "most popular" flat earth map that those flights are quite untenable.

I'm not even arguing with you about the shape of the Earth. Not sure why you have to steer everything towards that discussion.

Well, just what are you arguing about then?
The topic is "Flight Sydney to Santiago" and the OP

I read on the internet about the direct route from Sydney to Santiago, which would take about 11 hours (this time would be inconsistent with the flat earth map). Some people say this route would be fake, others say that the flat earth map is wrong and should be corrected, and others say the route would be there, and this short flightime would be possible due to the high speed of the southern wind that increases airplane speed, and of course the return time would be higher (some people say it would be 7 hours extra), the plane could not use the route because that air would blow in the opposite direction. An example in this video:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Early in the thread you post:

There's not much to suggest this poses any kind of problem for FET, and this topic has been discussed hundreds of times. That's why it's avoided.

And my claim all along is that these flights (taken together with other long distance flights) pose an insurmountable problem for FET.

So just what are you on about?

I'm just trying to clear up some obvious misconceptions you have about how maps work.

You can't say the flights wouldn't work on a flat Earth, because the Earth is flat and they work just fine. Anyway, there's no map to disprove it, so once again, you can't say it wouldn't work.

I'm just trying to clear up some obvious misconceptions you have about how maps work.

You can't say the flights wouldn't work on a flat Earth, because the Earth is flat and they work just fine. Anyway, there's no map to disprove it, so once again, you can't say it wouldn't work.

You can't say that flights would work on a flat Earth, because the Earth is not flat and they work just fine, anyway, there are no maps that disprove it. so once again, you can't say it would work.

I'm just trying to clear up some obvious misconceptions you have about how maps work.

You can't say the flights wouldn't work on a flat Earth, because the Earth is flat and they work just fine. Anyway, there's no map to disprove it, so once again, you can't say it wouldn't work.

You're assuming the conclusion and then using that assumption to support the conclusion.  That's circular reasoning and it's really bad.

It is a fact that the flights happen.  It is a fact that those flights are fully consistent with a spherical Earth.  It is not a fact that the Earth is flat, so the burden falls to you to demonstrate how those flights would work on a flat Earth model.  If you believe the lack of a map prevents that, then you don't have an argument.  Claiming that there may be some flat Earth model somewhere that could explain the flights equally as well as the globe is just imagination until you have something concrete to share.

I'm just trying to clear up some obvious misconceptions you have about how maps work.

You can't say the flights wouldn't work on a flat Earth, because the Earth is flat and they work just fine. Anyway, there's no map to disprove it, so once again, you can't say it wouldn't work.

This is a bit long, but here goes.

You claim that, "the Earth is flat and they work just fine", but the Earth being flat is far from proven.
Then your statement, "there's no map to disprove it, so once again, you can't say it wouldn't work" is certainly not necessarily true.

It is quite possible to find a set of measurements that will not fit on any flat plane.
On the Globe the following is quite possible, though would need good navigation equipment.
Start at the 0°,-70° (near Japurá - State of Amazonas, Brazil) travel 10,000 km due north to the North Pole,
then turn 90° right (to starboard if you like) and travel due South along longitude 20°E for a distance of 10,000 km
to lat/long 0°,20° (in the jungle on the Equator, Democratic Republic of the Congo),
then turn 90° right again and travel due West along latitude 0° (the Equator) for a distance of 10,000 km.
On the Globe this will get back to the start in Brazil, but it cannot do that on any flat surface.

Another somewhat similar set of measurements is the equatorial circumference of the Globe is very close to 40,000 km
and all Polar circumferences are also very close to 40,000 km. These cannot fit on a plane surface.

Now these measurements are not very easy for individuals to perform and that is where arriving at approximate distances via air route times can give some sort of answer.

These Southern Hemisphere routes make the usual North Polar AEP map quite untenable.
So Danang gas suggested a South Polar AEP map.  I can see the attraction for him because it makes the Southern Hemisphere shapes and distances more realistic. He and I are both from south of the Equator.
But, of course, the Beijing to Los Angeles route would make that map quite untenable.

For any flat earth continental layout that you chose, I claim that I can find sets of flights that would be impossible on your flat earth.

What I have not yet done is to get accurate data for a set of flights that could not fit on any flat surface.
My excuse is simply that there is a lot of work involved in doing it properly - and I am too lazy.

Our newly rechristened Brotherhood of the Dome has actually done quite a good job for many Northern Hemisphere routes.
He has done a few overland southern ones, and his distance agrees with the actual Perth-Sydney distance within a few percent.

But he refuses to look at intercontinental southern routes because "they are not fully tracked".

Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!