What valid answer is given to the claim of shorter flight time in southern hemis

Hi there,
I made a deep dive in to the flat earth proves and that convinced me nearly 100%.

Until I found reports of flight times from Auckland/New Zealand to Buenos Aires with only about 12 hours single flight.
That fits pretty well into the sphereshaped earth model, but not into the flat earth map layed out by Gleason.
See this video:

I didn't find any contradictions to this valid report. There seem to be a lot of flights with similar long routes in southern hemisphere.

Because I find the arguments for flat earth very resonable (video with 200 proofs of FE) I don't want to put this theory beside already.

Is there a discussion of this topic here or somewhere else? I didn't find it so far. Only suggestions that such flights don't happen...
But that is not true obviously.

Thank you for your answer!

Hi there,
I made a deep dive in to the flat earth proves and that convinced me nearly 100%.

Until I found reports of flight times from Auckland/New Zealand to Buenos Aires with only about 12 hours single flight.
That fits pretty well into the sphereshaped earth model, but not into the flat earth map layed out by Gleason.
See this video:

I didn't find any contradictions to this valid report. There seem to be a lot of flights with similar long routes in southern hemisphere.

Because I find the arguments for flat earth very resonable (video with 200 proofs of FE) I don't want to put this theory beside already.

Is there a discussion of this topic here or somewhere else? I didn't find it so far. Only suggestions that such flights don't happen...
But that is not true obviously.

Thank you for your answer!

The fact that the FE community can't come up with a single map and that every map has issues with distances like you have found should be a good indication that a flat map is not correct.

Other than denying the fact that the flights exist, there isn't any other good explanation.

As for the hundreds of proofs, I haven't seen any presented that are not easily refuted.  Feel free to explore some of them here if you find any of them especially convincing.

At least some quite vocal FEers dismiss these flights as fake, solely because they show Earth isn't flat. They can provide nothing to establish them as fake, and can't point out any issue with the evidence that shows they are fake.

Others resort to a bi-polar map, like this:

This then allows those flights around the south pole to exist (but still not match properly).
However instead of solving the problem, it just pushes it around.
For example, on that map a flight from Australia to North America makes no sense.

But you might find a discussion of why you think Earth is flat to be more productive.

Thank you for your 2 answers that confirm my observations.

Because there is a lot of reason in many other FE statements I ask myself if the solution can be found on higher level.

This higher level could be the existance of a matrix. A hologram. In this case we are living within a computer-generated illusion. It doesn't matter wether the earth is flat or sphere-shaped.

It only matters when we find the glitches that allow us to see it is only illusion. We have not to prove what illusional theory is correct bc they all are not.

That are my thoughts at the moment. Like to discuss that too.

And the Gleason map (and every single other "flat earth map") that are presented on a flat piece of paper, but do not have a fixed scale, cannot possibly represent a flat earth.

Thank you for your 2 answers that confirm my observations.

Because there is a lot of reason in many other FE statements I ask myself if the solution can be found on higher level.

This higher level could be the existance of a matrix. A hologram. In this case we are living within a computer-generated illusion. It doesn't matter wether the earth is flat or sphere-shaped.

It only matters when we find the glitches that allow us to see it is only illusion. We have not to prove what illusional theory is correct bc they all are not.

That are my thoughts at the moment. Like to discuss that too.

I prefer the idea that Earth is round, and many FE arguments are just misunderstandings/misrepresentations of the RE model.

For example, a more appropriate title for "200 proofs Earth is not a globe" would be "a few repeated misrepresentations of the RE along with some unsubstantiated claims to pretend it isn't round.

For example, in one he claims you can see the statue of liberty from 60 miles away, claiming it should be over 2000 ft below the horizon.
And of course, nothing is provided to substantiate this claim, or the justification that it should be so far below the horizon.

The problem is, that in order for those numbers to hold, your eye level would need to be sea level, as that calculation demands it, as it makes no allowance for height of the observer.
In addition, there is no where you would be able to see the statue from 60 miles away, even if Earth was flat.
To most sides all around, after you go just a short distance away, you are surrounded by the tall buildings of the city.
And to the north, while there is a waterway, the curves also block your view as you need to see through the city.
The only place you can potentially see it from a large distance is a small window to the south.
But even then, you hit 20 miles before hitting land, and if you continue to 60 miles, you are on the other side of that land, and that land has a significant hill.

So that proof is just completely wrong in multiple ways, and is likely just a lie made up by him to pretend RE has a problem.

With that, I find no evidence that there needs to be some higher matrix with the FE aspects being some glitch, rather than just Earth being round and FEers not liking that.

And the Gleason map (and every single other "flat earth map") that are presented on a flat piece of paper, but do not have a fixed scale, cannot possibly represent a flat earth.

To me you could use the Gleason map to provide one version of mapping the globe-view on 2D. It is just one of several possible approaches to provide a 2D-view of globe earth.
That's why Australia has that stretched shape.
It is not a map to show a flat earth.

Quote from: Platonius21 on November 21, 2020, 07:00:12 AM

And the Gleason map (and every single other "flat earth map") that are presented on a flat piece of paper, but do not have a fixed scale, cannot possibly represent a flat earth.

To me you could use the Gleason map to provide one version of mapping the globe-view on 2D. It is just one of several possible approaches to provide a 2D-view of globe earth.
That's why Australia has that stretched shape.
It is not a map to show a flat earth.

And that is the big issue for a FE.
That map works just fine as a projection of a sphere onto 2D space.
When you factor in the distortions produced by the projection, it matches reality quite well.
If Earth was flat, that wouldn't be needed. Instead you would be able to just have a 2D map of Earth, with a constant scale all across it.
This shows that Earth is roughly a sphere, not flat.

Also, plenty of FEers present it as a map of a FE.

At least some quite vocal FEers dismiss these flights as fake, solely because they show Earth isn't flat. They can provide nothing to establish them as fake, and can't point out any issue with the evidence that shows they are fake.

Others resort to a bi-polar map, like this:

This then allows those flights around the south pole to exist (but still not match properly).
However instead of solving the problem, it just pushes it around.
For example, on that map a flight from Australia to North America makes no sense.

But you might find a discussion of why you think Earth is flat to be more productive.

Hi JB
Do you know how the Sun would move above the bi-polar model?

Do you know how the Sun would move above the bi-polar model?

Who cares?  The bipolar model does not represent a flat earth. It's a waste of time to imagine how the sun could move in a model that does not represent a flat earth.

Quote from: Groit on November 21, 2020, 04:33:55 PM

Do you know how the Sun would move above the bi-polar model?

Who cares?  The bipolar model does not represent a flat earth. It's a waste of time to imagine how the sun could move in a model that does not represent a flat earth.

There are FE that subscribe to the bipolar model. If you aren't interested in conversation, you don't have to post on a topic. It's really easy. These kind of posts are low content and instigating. Stop it.

Hi JB
Do you know how the Sun would move above the bi-polar model?

They typically resort to a northern circle and a southern circle, with the sun switching between them on the equinox.
The illumination of the planet is a constant problem for the FE, with them only able to push the problem around.

Who cares?  The bipolar model does not represent a flat earth. It's a waste of time to imagine how the sun could move in a model that does not represent a flat earth.

There seems to be at least some FEers that claim the bi-polar model is correct, or at least "possible".
The problem is not it not representing a FE, but it not representing Earth as it doesn't match reality.

There are FE that subscribe to the bipolar model. If you aren't interested in conversation, you don't have to post on a topic. It's really easy. These kind of posts are low content and instigating. Stop it.

Well then those are exactly the people that need to understand what I said (you know, the low content you referred to).  Any FE'er that subscribes to the bipolar model needs to have it pounded into their brain that the bipolar map CANNOT represent a flat earth.

Well then those are exactly the people that need to understand what I said (you know, the low content you referred to).  Any FE'er that subscribes to the bipolar model needs to have it pounded into their brain that the bipolar map CANNOT represent a flat earth.

And why specifically a bipolar map?
Why not just say that about all FE maps, as none can represent the round Earth you are on as a flat Earth, as Earth isn't flat?

And why specifically a bipolar map?
Why not just say that about all FE maps, as none can represent the round Earth you are on as a flat Earth, as Earth isn't flat?

I used the bipolar map because that was the one brought up in the discussion. But of course I agree with you - there is NO map on a flat sheet of paper that is accurate over large distances.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 22, 2020, 01:39:53 PM

And why specifically a bipolar map?
Why not just say that about all FE maps, as none can represent the round Earth you are on as a flat Earth, as Earth isn't flat?

I used the bipolar map because that was the one brought up in the discussion. But of course I agree with you - there is NO map on a flat sheet of paper that is accurate over large distances.

So your point amounts to "FE not real, so stop talking about it." Especially given your flippant "Who cares" entry point into the conversation. You are on a discussion forum. A question was asked about how something might work on a FE model, and you chose to join the conversation on a discussion forum to say "Who cares?" That's the low content I was talking about, and you've still yet to contribute anything. If you'd like to discuss or debate exactly WHY you think no maps could be accurate over large distances, this is the place to actually make your point instead of vaguely alluding to one. Otherwise, you are neither discussing nor debating, and I would implore you to stop otherwise you'll find yourself without the ability to post for a period of time.

If you'd like to discuss or debate exactly WHY you think no maps could be accurate over large distances, this is the place to actually make your point

My point is this:  NO existing maps of the earth, on a flat sheet of paper, having a fixed scale, are accurate over long distances.  And NO existing maps, on a flat sheet of paper, but not having a fixed scale, represent a flat earth.  And the "why" this is true is because unfortunately (for this forum), the earth is not flat.

It's not rocket science. 

This is rocket science at work:

This is rocket science at work:

No, that is photoshop at work.
The colour is drastically off what is expected.
But the real give away are the plentiful stars in the background.
If the camera had a high enough exposure to capture them, then Earth would just be a white ball, and the moon likely would be much brighter.
Based upon the relative size of the Earth and Moon, you are looking at something roughly 160 000 km away from Earth. (being generous and assuming the moon is in direct opposition, otherwise you need it even further away, and which would likely put it well outside the FOV of the camera)

So I'm calling fake.
Very few satellites are in that range, and I don't know of any taking visual photos of Earth.

Yeah, your right, my bad. I was not careful enough when I grabbed the picture. Here's what it actually says:

"This true-color image shows North and South America as they would appear from space 35,000 km (22,000 miles) above the Earth. The image is a combination of data from two satellites. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument aboard NASA’s Terra satellite collected the land surface data over 16 days, while NOAA’s Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) produced a snapshot of the Earth’s clouds."

So it's a mashup -- not an actual image.  Doesn't change my point though, there's lots of similar real images.

But good on you for picking it up.

I didn't read all this, but my experience in central america is that travelling east to west seemed to take longer then it should have. This may inducate a variation in the distance ftom what is on the map.

I didn't read all this, but my experience in central america is that travelling east to west seemed to take longer then it should have. This may inducate a variation in the distance ftom what is on the map.

Or, based upon your description, means literally nothing at all.

How about some specifics? Like traveling from where to where? By what means? Boat, plane, roller blades? And how long did take? How long did you expect it to take?  No one can address a thought like, “I went somewhere, it took longer than I thought...” that’s just beyond vague.

The vast majority of East-West traffic/connections seem to occur in the Northern hemiplane. Southern connections run predominantly N-S for those connections of any substantial distance. It's no doubt just a coincidence.

Probably more telling is population density:

MAP OF THE DAY: Pretty Much Everyone Lives In The Northern Hemisphere
90 percent of the world's people live in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://www.businessinsider.com/90-of-people-live-in-the-northern-hemisphere-2012-5



GDP wealth, as represented by this map, may be a factor as well:

If you'd like to discuss or debate exactly WHY you think no maps could be accurate over large distances, this is the place to actually make your point instead of vaguely alluding to one.

It's not hard to understand.  The WHY no flat-sheet-of-paper fixed scale map can be accurate is because it is impossible to accurately represent a curved surface on such a map. And the WHY the Gleason map or any similar non-fixed-scale map presented on a flat sheet of paper is not accurate is the same reason. An accurate flat-sheet-of-paper map of a flat surface MUST have a fixed scale.

Got an atlas laying around with a map of a continent? Using the scale shown on the map, try to validate the distances between cities on the four corners of the map using that scale. You can't. Because it is impossible.

That is why the Gleason map, a bipolar map, the map in your car's glove box, or any fixed scale map on a flat sheet of paper are not accurate.  And the fact that surveyors and cartographers have never been able to produce an accurate fixed scale, flat-sheet-of-paper map of the earth is overwhelming evidence the earth is not flat.

Pretty Much Everyone Lives In The Northern Hemisphere

No surprise, it will take longer to distribute population to vast expanses requiring distant travel in the southern hemiplane.

Quote from: Stash on December 27, 2020, 07:46:26 AM

Pretty Much Everyone Lives In The Northern Hemisphere

No surprise, it will take longer to distribute population to vast expanses requiring distant travel in the southern hemiplane.

Are you an AE North Pole Centered Monopole adherent?

I didn't read all this, but my experience in central america is that travelling east to west seemed to take longer then it should have. This may inducate a variation in the distance ftom what is on the map.

How straight were the roads/path you were travelling along?
If they go north and south a lot it will take longer.
And the other question is how much longer?

The vast majority of East-West traffic/connections seem to occur in the Northern hemiplane. Southern connections run predominantly N-S for those connections of any substantial distance. It's no doubt just a coincidence.

No, it isn't a coincidence. It probably has something to do with the fact that the majority of the population of the world live in the northern hemisphere.
But the mere existence of these connections in the southern hemisphere raise serious issues for the FE model.

No surprise, it will take longer to distribute population to vast expanses requiring distant travel in the southern hemiplane.

You mean the large areas to fill up with people?
That would mean there would be more people there.


Hemiplane doesn't make sense. If you want to reject hemisphere at least use northern circle and southern rim, because that does make sense on a FE model.

Quote from: Platonius21 on November 24, 2020, 06:55:58 AM

This is rocket science at work:

No, that is photoshop at work.
The colour is drastically off what is expected.
But the real give away are the plentiful stars in the background.
If the camera had a high enough exposure to capture them, then Earth would just be a white ball, and the moon likely would be much brighter.
Based upon the relative size of the Earth and Moon, you are looking at something roughly 160 000 km away from Earth. (being generous and assuming the moon is in direct opposition, otherwise you need it even further away, and which would likely put it well outside the FOV of the camera)

So I'm calling fake.
Very few satellites are in that range, and I don't know of any taking visual photos of Earth.

While what you say has an element of truth in it, however it is now pretty simple to take bracketed exposures of a subject(s) to produce a final image that will accommodate a high dynamic range situation such as the bright earth against a dark star filled background. One exposure for the earth and another for the background, The two images are then combined creating the final image.