Jerry Williams (AKA Greater Sapien) flies non-stop from Sydney to Johannesburg.

QANTAS QFA 63 flies non-stop from Sydney, Australia to Johannesburg in South Africa.  The given route is close to this:

FlightAware QANTAS QFA63 Sydney to Johannesburg

Earlier this year Jerry Williams, Greater Sapien on YouTube flew to Johannesburg on that flight.
He videoed and tracked the whole flight.
Rather than showing a video over 13 hours long he forwarded all the material to WheresWa11y  who post this sort of thing.
WheresWa11y reduced it to the following 17 minute video which shows the highlight with UTC timestamp and compares the track with the ADS-B track where available.

GreaterSapien - The Day The Sun Stood Still - QF63 SYD-JNB by WheresWa11y

The shortest distance between Sydney and Johannesburg on the usual Flat Earth map would overfly India and be around 23,700 km - quite impossible non-stop.
The route taken by the real flight initially heads almost south.
The flight took off about 1:06 UTC and landed at about 14:17 UTC - an elepsed time of 13 hours and 11 minutes.

How would such a flight be possible on the flat earth where the shortest distance would be about 23,700 km?
And note that the flight started out flying nearly south!

---

Flight distances on the usual Flat Earth Map. If someone has a different map maybe they could show the distance on it.

1892 - Gleasons Map - Air Routes

That's the mid-1800's model. The Zetetic  movement switched over to Bi-Polar models in the early 1900's upon direct discovery of the South Magnetic Pole.

Later unrelated offshoots continued to use and present the Monopole model.

That's the mid-1800's model. The Zetetic  movement switched over to Bi-Polar models in the early 1900's upon direct discovery of the South Magnetic Pole.

Later unrelated offshoots continued to use and present the Monopole model.

Do you have a map with correct distances?

That's the mid-1800's model. The Zetetic  movement switched over to Bi-Polar models in the early 1900's upon direct discovery of the South Magnetic Pole.

Later unrelated offshoots continued to use and present the Monopole model.

You mean "Later unrelated offshoots continued to use and present the Monopole model." like this society?
While I'm quite aware of it, I can find no mention of your bipolar model here other than Sandokhan's variation.

But, since you raise the bipolar model as I knew you would, that Sydney to Johannesburg flight fits well onto that mldel.
But I would very much like to see the route and distance you would suggest for Sydney to Santiago flight QFA 27.

Also, I'm still waiting on your explanation as to how Charles Kingsford Smith flew from Hawaii to Suva, Fiji and then to Brisbane on your bipolar map.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 20, 2019, 08:48:09 PM

I note that Googleotomy asks

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 20, 2019, 09:01:46 PM

But you might explain the route a ship would take from California to Japan on the BiPolar map?

And I ask how you explain the route Kingsford Smith flew from Hawaii to Fiji on the BiPolar map.
Here is a link to a photocopy of the chart used by Harry Lyon, the navigator on that trans-Pacific flight.
No. 2021, 1902 (Item 4), Fiji islands Chart showing Fiji. Chart includes flight calculations, and shows portion of route of the Faith in Australia 1928 Pacific crossing.
Note that the 180°E - 180°W "edge" on that map intersects that route in the eastern islands of Fiji. So try fitting that on your Bi-polar map.
Now you might claim that edge might be "somewhere else". OK just show where it is and there are certain to be crossings of that too.

So, over to you.

And remember that they had no GPS and had to use dead reckoning and stellar navigation with an RDF when close to the destination.

"It's all fake"

~wise

"... offshoot movement ..." here Tom Bishop has presumed to represent the mainline of the FE "movement". WHat say the other FEs, do those who don't support the Tom Bishop bi-polar map. Is it correct that most support his map and the rest accept they are an "offshoot".

Quite a challenge to determine what is an "offshoot" on FE. I would appreciate knowing what the mainline belief on FE is. When I tried to pin that down, I got "other models", "could be something", "don't know yet, young science", etc.

I personally flew from Sydney Australia to LA CA USA, it was the exact time on the schedule which matched the published distance and time, which matched the published data on airliner speed and distance. No secret intermediate stop, no NASA thug threatening my family, just RE.

Would like to see what the distance is on Tom Bishop's map, but need a scale, and FE maps never have scales.

Tom Bishop, bi-polar map with a scale? I want to see how far LA is from Sydney on your map.

I thought Quantas was killing all these passengers...

"... offshoot movement ..." here Tom Bishop has presumed to represent the mainline of the FE "movement". WHat say the other FEs, do those who don't support the Tom Bishop bi-polar map. Is it correct that most support his map and the rest accept they are an "offshoot".

Quite a challenge to determine what is an "offshoot" on FE. I would appreciate knowing what the mainline belief on FE is. When I tried to pin that down, I got "other models", "could be something", "don't know yet, young science", etc.

I personally flew from Sydney Australia to LA CA USA, it was the exact time on the schedule which matched the published distance and time, which matched the published data on airliner speed and distance. No secret intermediate stop, no NASA thug threatening my family, just RE.

Would like to see what the distance is on Tom Bishop's map, but need a scale, and FE maps never have scales.

Tom Bishop, bi-polar map with a scale? I want to see how far LA is from Sydney on your map.

What sensible route could you fly on that map from "from Sydney Australia to LA CA USA"?
I've flown from Brisbane to Honolulu and back and certainly did not fly over Asia and Europe.
We flew North-East! And if anyone asks how one can tell what direction a plane or ship is travelling - say, "Look out the window"!


Appropriate distances can be scaled from a map like the following if the "length of the equator" is known. I have used 40,075 km but another value could be used.
Though I calculated the distance from the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection equations.

Bipolar Map Scaled - Santiago to Sydney 18300 km

But, of course, that map is just a "place-holder" and no Flat Earther has determined the true map  .
It is just another AE Projection so is not really a "Flat Earth map" determined by Flat Earthers.

That's the mid-1800's model. The Zetetic  movement switched over to Bi-Polar models in the early 1900's upon direct discovery of the South Magnetic Pole.

Later unrelated offshoots continued to use and present the Monopole model.

The Flat Earth Society Wiki must have been written sometime before early 20th century then.

The Flat Earth is laid out like the United Nations logo. The North Pole is at the center while Antarctica is at the rim. The continents are spread out around the North Pole.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Circumnavigation

"... offshoot movement ..." here Tom Bishop has presumed to represent the mainline of the FE "movement". WHat say the other FEs, do those who don't support the Tom Bishop bi-polar map. Is it correct that most support his map and the rest accept they are an "offshoot".

The “offshoots” seem to be much better at merchandising.  Never seen a bipolar flat earth t-shirt or mug available anywhere.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2019, 11:25:49 PM

That's the mid-1800's model. The Zetetic  movement switched over to Bi-Polar models in the early 1900's upon direct discovery of the South Magnetic Pole.

Later unrelated offshoots continued to use and present the Monopole model.

The Flat Earth Society Wiki must have been written sometime before early 20th century then.

Quote from: theflatearthsociety.org

The Flat Earth is laid out like the United Nations logo. The North Pole is at the center while Antarctica is at the rim. The continents are spread out around the North Pole.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Circumnavigation

And the TFES.org that Tom Bishop usually posts on says this about circumnavigation:

Circumnavigation

A commonly used image of the Earth.

The Flat Earth is laid out like a North-Azimuthal projection.
The North Pole is at the center while Antarctica is at the rim. The continents are spread out around the North Pole.

Circumnavigation on a Flat Earth is achieved because on a compass East and West are always at right angles to North. Traveling Eastwards continuously takes you in a circle around the North Pole. East and West are curved.
                           "North is Hubwards, South is Rimwards, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins"

Now, I have no argument with that, other than its ignoring polar-circumnavigation, but we are left wondering just where are these "unrelated offshoots" that "continued to use and present the Monopole model".
The Wiki of both Societies say that "The Flat Earth is laid out like a North-Azimuthal projection."

As I said, those websites and anyone presenting that map is an offshoot organization. The original research from its progeny cumulated with a Bi-Polar model.

We present that model for informational and educational purposes. Information on the Bi-Polar model is also found on the Wiki. The FAQ represents the Monopole model as one proposed model.

Common model != Current model. Euclidean space is still taught in school despite RE space being non-euclidean. It is taught in school for educational and legacy purposes, and is a model that is much more common than the non-euclidean model that RE says that space exists as. Yet if we follow the progress of that science we find that science moved away from Euclid's axioms (mostly because they need GR to explain why the earth seems like it's accelerating upwards and SR to explain why the earth seems horizontally motionless despite being in motion).

As I said, those websites and anyone presenting that map is an offshoot organization. The original research from its progeny cumulated with a Bi-Polar model.

We present that model for informational and educational purposes. Information on the Bi-Polar model is also found on the Wiki. The FAQ represents the Monopole model as one proposed model.

Common model != Current model.

Except that very few seem to accept a bipolar model other than you and Sandokhan.

But if you claim that your flat earth is anything like that please explain how Kingsford Smith flew from Hawaii to Fiji.
Here is a link to a photocopy of the chart used by Harry Lyon, the navigator on that trans-Pacific flight.
No. 2021, 1902 (Item 4), Fiji islands Chart showing Fiji. Chart includes flight calculations, and shows portion of route of the Faith in Australia 1928 Pacific crossing.
Note that the 180°E - 180°W "edge" on that map intersects that route in the eastern islands of Fiji. So try fitting that on your Bi-polar map.
Now you might claim that edge might be "somewhere else". OK just show where it is and there are certain to be crossings of that too.

And remember that they had no GPS and had to use dead reckoning and stellar navigation with an RDF when close to the destination.

Euclidean space is still taught in school despite RE space being non-euclidean.

Who said anything about "RE space being non-euclidean"? Sure Einstein's GR describes gravitation being caused by curvature of spacetime!.
But even under GR the departure of space from being Euclidean is too slight measure anywhere near here.

It is taught in school for educational and legacy purposes, and is a model that is much more common than the non-euclidean model that RE says that space exists as.

No! Teaching Euclidean geometry is very relevant as very few need be concerned with non-Euclidean spaces.

Yet if we follow the progress of that science we find that science moved away from Euclid's axioms.

No, science has not "moved away from Euclid's axioms". They are still just as valid in Euclidean space and few need anything else!
The few that need to work with various non-Euclidean spaces learn those in higher mathematical courses.

---

But your bipolar model is more of a backward step because it places the edge of your flat earth where there are numerous flight and shipping routes.

How do you explain those?

And how do you explain the numerous equatorial circumnavigations?

Except that very few seem to accept a bipolar model other than you and Sandokhan.

The commonality of the model does not mean that anyone studied or researched the matter to verify or demonstrate it's attributes. It is merely the most commonly visualized model.

I don't know what you are asking about a flight to Hawaii. Please show the jet streams and the map you are using, and that there are no other possibilities or configurations for whatever you think there is an issue with.

I don't know what you are asking about a flight to Hawaii. Please show the jet streams and the map you are using, and that there are no other possibilities or configurations for whatever you think there is an issue with.

Look at where Hawaii is and where Fiji is on that map. Jet streams have nothing to do with it!

You show a route over the Pacific from Hawaii to Fiji on that map. Is that so hard?
Or a route from Japan to near Pearl Harbour that the Japanese fleet might might have followed so that their aircraft could attack on 7 December 1941! Is that so hard?
Look at where Japan is and look where Hawaii is on that map.

Where is the research for that map and the placement of Hawaii and the continents?That is only one possibility for the Bi-Polar model.

If you want to discuss flight routes on a Bi-Polar model then you will need to discuss jet streams and assess all possibilities and configurations. Once you have researched that matter, showing no possible explanation, only then should you post a critique.

Tom Bishop is even more of a slippery eel than the usual disambiguators in FE. He will do everything to avoid answering the actual question.

Isn't that right, Tom?

Or is it the Flat Earth BiPolar movement's belief that thebattack on Pearl Harbour was staged? Faked? Part of the conspiracy?

If you are trying to show that something is impossible then you need to do that: Show that it is impossible. That means spending much effort devoted to assessing all possibilities of jetstreams, trade winds, flight paths, placement of land, etc.

If you are unable or unwilling to do that then you and demonstrated nothing.

really? 

This is just a 13 minutes video some of them recorded from google earth. What kind of dishonesty, what kind of fraudment is this? This is not deserve even to get debunked because no need to do it.

Where is the research for that map and the placement of Hawaii and the continents?That is only one possibility for the Bi-Polar model.

If you want to discuss flight routes on a Bi-Polar model then you will need to discuss jet streams and assess all possibilities and configurations. Once you have researched that matter, showing no possible explanation, only then should you post a critique.

Loolinh forward to yuor map then where all pther possibilities have been eliminated.

https://images.app.goo.gl/q8zceUhjWhAwW3DPA

Where is the research for that map and the placement of Hawaii and the continents?That is only one possibility for the Bi-Polar model.

It's from your Wiki!

Or would you prefer this one?


So your excuse is that you have no idea where the Hawaiian Islands are?
It's just as well Kingsford Smith's navigator did know when they flew from Oakland to Honolulu and then to Fiji.
And it's just as well the location of Honolulu was known when my family flew to from Brisbane to Honolulu via Sydney back in 1972.

If you want to discuss flight routes on a Bi-Polar model then you will need to discuss jet streams and assess all possibilities and configurations. Once you have researched that matter, showing no possible explanation, only then should you post a critique.

No, I do not "need to discuss jet streams and assess all possibilities and configurations". Jet streams have nothing to do with the issue.
If you believe the earth to be flat the onus is on you to come up with a workable continental layout.

A flat earth must have edges that cannot be crossed and wherever you place that edge, be it the South Pole, longitude 180° or anywhere else some air or sea route can be found that crosses.

If you doubt that just present a suggestion and we'll take it from there.

Euclidean space is still taught in school despite RE space being non-euclidean.
It is taught in school for educational and legacy purposes, and is a model that
is much more common than the non-euclidean model that RE says that space
exists as. Yet if we follow the progress of that science we find that science moved
away from Euclid's axioms (mostly because they need GR to explain why the
earth seems like it's accelerating upwards and SR to explain why the earth
seems horizontally motionless despite being in motion).

The "biggest local non-Euclidean thing" is the surface of the Earth, where Euclidean approach is still accurate enough at the small distances,
and at the bigger ones Euclidean geometry explains what should geodesy / triangulation measure IF the Earth was flat.

Euclidean geometry is still taught as the easiest (the most efficient for the general purposes) and still "close enough".
Also, later, when you expand to non-Euclidean, it is easier to explain the deviation: from what non-Euclidean measures deviate in curved spacetime?

As for the whole Space, according to GR, the spacetime deviation by gravitation causes
the Earth radius change of about 2GM / c² = 8.8 millimeters.
(Where is the upward acceleration here?)

Is this almost 9 mm value worth calculating for the general purposes at the local scale?
Most of the population are not astronomers or rocket scientists.

If you are trying to show that something is impossible then you need to do that

Er, you want us to prove a negative?

It's up to you to prove it is possible.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2019, 10:09:14 PM

Where is the research for that map and the placement of Hawaii and the continents?That is only one possibility for the Bi-Polar model.

It's from your Wiki!

The Wiki says:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model

There are a wide variety of continental layout possibilities for Bi-Polar map. The continental layout is unknown and has yet to be fully researched due to ambiguities of jet streams, flight routing, and non-direct flights. The Bi-Polar model is sometimes illustrated with vertical ovals, vertical circles, or with a placeholder map.

If you refuse to address all possibilities, then you have addressed nothing.

If you refuse to address all possibilities, then you have addressed nothing.

Incorrect!
I have a continental layout that works and easily explains all these routes and flight distances.
Until you present a flat earth one that works and easily explains all these routes and flight distances there is no more to say.

It's not my job to find a working model for YOU!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 01, 2019, 05:53:40 AM

If you refuse to address all possibilities, then you have addressed nothing.

Incorrect!
I have a continental layout that works and easily explains all these routes and flight distances.
Until you present a flat earth one that works and easily explains all these routes and flight distances there is no more to say.

It's not my job to find a working model for YOU!

No you don't. You have a model with a bunch of weird routes, such as flights from Sydney to Huston going North of Hawaii.



Unless you are prepared to address and demonstrate ALL flight routes, to show that they ALL fly in accordance with a globe model, then you have nothing except for lying assumption.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2019, 06:24:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 01, 2019, 05:53:40 AM

If you refuse to address all possibilities, then you have addressed nothing.

Incorrect!
I have a continental layout that works and easily explains all these routes and flight distances.
Until you present a flat earth one that works and easily explains all these routes and flight distances there is no more to say.

It's not my job to find a working model for YOU!

No you don't. You have a model with a bunch of weird routes, such as flights from Sydney to Huston going North of Hawaii.



Unless you are prepared to address and demonstrate ALL flight routes, to show that they ALL fly in accordance with a globe model, then you have nothing except for lying assumption.

I do not have to defend a video like that! But when I get the time I might look further.

But if you think that there are flight routes the do not fit the Globe YOU present them not some Flat Earth YouTube lackey!

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2019, 06:24:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 01, 2019, 05:53:40 AM

If you refuse to address all possibilities, then you have addressed nothing.

Incorrect!
I have a continental layout that works and easily explains all these routes and flight distances.
Until you present a flat earth one that works and easily explains all these routes and flight distances there is no more to say.

It's not my job to find a working model for YOU!

No you don't. You have a model with a bunch of weird routes, such as flights from Sydney to Huston going North of Hawaii.



Unless you are prepared to address and demonstrate ALL flight routes, to show that they ALL fly in accordance with a globe model, then you have nothing except for lying assumption.

Isnt the fact that all flights arrive at their destination with no murdered passengers on board, having flown over the locations they claim to have flown demonstration enough? I know I can go to any location, look at flightradar24, find a nearby flight on it then look up and see that plane flying overhead. With binoculars I can even see and confirm the tail number. I can then also use dump1090 on my laptop using RTL sdr and a usb radio receiver and receive the ADS-B transmissions directly from the aircraft myself.

I have done all of those actions myself, not watched someone doing it on YouTube.

Where is the research for that map and the placement of Hawaii and the continents?That is only one possibility for the Bi-Polar model.

If you want to discuss flight routes on a Bi-Polar model then you will need to discuss jet streams and assess all possibilities and configurations. Once you have researched that matter, showing no possible explanation, only then should you post a critique.

Do you agree that the WGS-84 model correctly shows the layout and shape of the earth?

Quote from: rabinoz on June 29, 2019, 10:13:21 PM

really? 

This is just a 13 minutes video some of them recorded from google earth. What kind of dishonesty, what kind of fraudment is this? This is not deserve even to get debunked because no need to do it.

Called it!

I have zero clue why anyone would interpret the OP as offering legitimate evidence.

"Someone told someone else this story and someone else put together these cool pictures!"