(Psalms 103:5) (Is The Earth is Not a Globe or is The Earth a Globe?)

[posthuman]

All these are regular flights you can book right now.

All these are impossibly longer than reality if you use the flat earth map you posted

And @Moses_Young i will actually back this up because it turns out that doing the research is incredibly easy, even though you lot refuse to do it.

here is the flight path on flat earth from Sydney to Buenos Aires. It's over 26,000 miles and would take 52 hours in the air, longer than any commercial jet is capable of, and would cross all of north America.



Now, this flight actually takes place dozens of times a week. It has been flown by thousands and thousands of people. You yourself can book a ticket now.

It's under 7,000 miles and only 16 hours.
the green line is the actual flight path:



Flat earth is 100% false.

 

[Conformed]

If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best—because the truest—thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[Conformed]

As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well—and only tolerably well, for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we [8]speak—that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be, whether the captain of the ship “supposes” the Earth to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of “plane sailing,” a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[Conformed]

That the mariners’ compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing were placed on a globe with “north” and “south” at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[posthuman]

 

[Cameron143]

View attachment 269277

Hey Fishy, you're so fine.
Your so fine you blow my mind.
Hey Fishy.
Hey Fishy.

 

[Dino246]

If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best—because the truest—thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Your “proofs” have crossed the line into moronic. Just give up. If you continue, you’re proving you’re a troll.

 

[Gideon300]

The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface—this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.

Hmm, most Flerfers say that there is no space so how can there be astronauts? And how do you know that the human eye plays tricks like you suppose? Where is the evidence? Is the moon really a flat strip that only looks like a sphere? You make no sense.

 

[Magenta]

also the Nile drops over 75 meters - way more than a foot.

i am finding that your posts are full of false information ((lies)) and false reasoning ((deceit)).

you're a republican?

The Nile River falls 3,708 feet from its source to its mouth, which is a drop of about 0.87 feet
per mile on average. The Nile's source is Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya at an
elevation of 3,724 feet, and its mouth is in Alexandria, Egypt at an elevation of 16 feet.
That was from a general search...

 

[Gideon300]

Okay, this is more useful. But you will note that my statement was that "the flights do not cross the actual "south pole" and most certainly don't take a short cut through Antarctica."

Your map from the tourist company doesn't show either of these things. And if you looked into it further, you'd find that even ball Earthers admit that the "ceremonial" south pole advertised on the map by the tourist company is not the "real" south pole. Why not put the ceremonial south pole at the real south pole, if the real south pole does indeed exist and can be so readily visited by tourists?

There are two poles, magnetic and geographic. As you get close to the pole (North or South), it becomes impossible to determine accurately where the pole is magnetically. That's because the force lines get closer together, confusing a magnetic compass.

Antarctica is not a perfect circle. It is about 4,500 km diameter. It is one of the most inhospitable and dangerous place on earth. The first crossing of the continent was in 1958. The expedition was supported by Sir Edmund Hilary, who was the first to successfully to climb Everest, apart from Sherpas who may have climbed before. Mallory may have made the summit, but he died on Everest, no one knows.

No tourist is going to be suitable equipped to traverse Antarctica. Even flying over it is dangerous. An Air New Zealand flight crashed into Mt Erebus in poor weather. Air New Zealand ceased tourist flights over Antarctica after that disaster. The wreckage is still visible at times. So no, they did not fly over the edge and disappear forever.

 

[posthuman]

Your “proofs” have crossed the line into moronic. Just give up. If you continue, you’re proving you’re a troll.

He's plagiarizing this -

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55387/55387-h/55387-h.htm

 

[kinda]

Hey Fishy, you're so fine.
Your so fine you blow my mind.
Hey Fishy.
Hey Fishy.

I think there is someone else plagiarizing in this thread.

 

[Moses_Young]

All these are regular flights you can book right now.

View attachment 269271

All these are impossibly longer than reality if you use the flat earth map you posted.

a flight from Perth to Buenos Aires would have to carry a lot of special equipment in case they were forced to emergency land on Antarctica and would have to be a very large airliner to abide by restrictions for how far it travels between emergency diversion airports. That means only the largest jets are practical to make that route and there needs to be the demand for them to be full in order to be commercially viable, but they also have to have reduced capacity to carry shelter.

It doesn't snt make business sense. So if you want to go from buenos aires to Perth, you gonna connect in Sydney first. But that's still an impossibility if the Earth is flat, yet it happens a dozen times every day.

The earth isn't flat.

Maybe try responding to the actual claim rather than refuting a straw man of your own making?

 

[posthuman]

Maybe try responding to the actual claim rather than refuting a straw man of your own making?

View attachment 269289

Already did.

Not economically viable.

Flight data completely refutes flat earth...

Maybe face reality instead of getting mad and ignoring all the facts?

 

[posthuman]

Already did.

Not economically viable.

Flight data completely refutes flat earth...

Maybe face reality instead of getting mad and ignoring all the facts?

Oh boo hoo, a big red X because you have been completely refuted and have no argument.

@Moses_Young

How about addressing the fact that the reality of actual airline travel 100% debunks the crazy completely refuted conspiracy theory you spend your whole life uselessly pushing?

 

[Moses_Young]

Oh boo hoo, a big red X because you have been completely refuted and have no argument.

Waaah

Lol. You were marked incorrectly because you didn't respond to the claim made. We could get into an endless cycle of "you're wrong" - "no, you're wrong". I'm not playing that game. If you have new information to further support your claim, then show it. If it's just a game of ignore the evidence presented and repeat the initial claim, I'm not interested, thanks.

The shortest route would usually be the most economical. I provided evidence of shortest routes crossing Antarctica (if ball-Earth is correct) which would be expected to be the most economical, yet the flight routes shown don't exist. Obviously they're not economical - I hold because the Earth is flat (and the routes are therefore much longer than these would be a ball-Earth).

Your claims about flight data, economic non-viability and me getting mad disproving Flat Earth - lol - not proof.

 

[posthuman]

Johannesburg to Sao Paulo:



Under 10 hours, regular flight tens of thousands of people have taken. 4,600 miles. Here is the actual flight path:




If the Earth was flat, almost 10,000mi, 21hr flight time. This would be the path:




@Moses_Young


time for you to live in the real world and stop repeating lies.

 

[posthuman]

Lol. You were marked incorrectly because you didn't respond to the claim made. We could get into an endless cycle of "you're wrong" - "no, you're wrong". I'm not playing that game. If you have new information to further support your claim, then show it. If it's just a game of ignore the evidence presented and repeat the initial claim, I'm not interested, thanks.

The shortest route would usually be the most economical. I provided evidence of shortest routes crossing Antarctica (if ball-Earth is correct) which would be expected to be the most economical, yet the flight routes shown don't exist. Obviously they're not economical - I hold because the Earth is flat (and the routes are therefore much longer than these would be a ball-Earth).

Your claims about flight data, economic non-viability and me getting mad disproving Flat Earth - lol - not proof.

Blah blah blah.

economics includes there being a demand sufficient to fill a 747 with passengers and there being airports en route for emergency landings.

you have zero argument you just have tired old memes.

 

[Moses_Young]

Johannesburg to Sao Paulo:

View attachment 269290

Under 10 hours, regular flight tens of thousands of people have taken. 4,600 miles. Here is the actual flight path:

View attachment 269291


If the Earth was flat, almost 10,000mi, 21hr flight time. This would be the path:

View attachment 269292


@Moses_Young


time for you to live in the real world and stop repeating lies.

I note that you're changing the subject (i.e. flight times between countries and a specific Flat Earth map), rather than providing the ball-Earth excuse as to why the shortest flight routes over Antarctica (according to ball-Earth) don't exist.

I've already conceded I'm not aware of a completely accurate Flat Earth map, and besides, the flight times and distances between countries will vary depending on what route is taken, speed of plane, jet streams etc. What can't be argued is that usually, the shortest path will be taken, which is clearly not the case for flights between New Zealand/Australia and South America/Africa.

 

[posthuman]

I note that you're changing the subject (i.e. flight times between countries and a specific Flat Earth map), rather than providing the ball-Earth excuse as to why the shortest flight routes over Antarctica (according to ball-Earth) don't exist.

I've already conceded I'm not aware of a completely accurate Flat Earth map, and besides, the flight times and distances between countries will vary depending on what route is taken, speed of plane, jet streams etc. What can't be argued is that usually, the shortest path will be taken, which is clearly not the case for flights between New Zealand/Australia and South America/Africa.

no accurate flat earth map because the earth isn't flat.

get a new hobby, m8

100% debunked for a thousand years in a million different ways.