Okay, another question.  (This isn't that question, but how did CathInfo morph from an "all Nishant Xavier, all the time" forum, to a flat earth/heliocentrism-vs-geocentrism forum?  This seems to have taken on a life of its own!)

Anyway, here's the question.

Scientists and astronomers, using the tools of orthodox, commonly received science, are able to predict all sorts of phenomena with great precision, in the case of the 2017 solar eclipse, right down almost to the second, exactly where it was projected to have totality, and they were able to do that years prior to the event.  If the cosmos were something different than what they say it is, then using those same tools, and making those same assumptions, how do they get it right?  Is it not a little far-fetched to think that all the scientists say "all right, guys, sssshhh!, make sure nobody hears this, we'll use one set of tools and calculations to fake everyone out, and another real set of tools and calculations --- predicated upon a flat earth and/or geocentrism --- to predict with pinpoint accuracy when eclipses, and so on, will take place"?

And as for the airline routes between places in the Southern Hemisphere, yes, making huge dog-legs up to North America, Europe, and the Middle East seems counter-intuitive, but train routes --- which are of necessity fixed --- very often take circuitous routes to serve the maximum possible number of passengers.  The Amtrak Cardinal route comes immediately to mind, though that is largely driven by Senator Robert Byrd's efforts to get train service for remote and lightly populated parts of West Virginia.  (Pretty ride if you ever get a chance, BTW.)  And many of these south-to-south flights have huge layovers in the hubs, which seem like they might be just two flights cobbled together, rather than one intentional flight from, e.g., BSAS to Johannesburg, or Santiago to Sydney.

I'm neither trying to debunk FE/geocentrism or heliocentrism (or "no-centrism"), these are just random questions that come to mind.

I've had similar questions about who is in the know and who isn't.

I don't know about the solar eclipse which I've wondered about too, but I've asked someone who does land surveying and he believes in the curve but said the calculations are already built in to their equations so they don't have to do that math all over again.

It seems to me to be similar to doctors who believe the PCR test where they assume the correct science has already been done for them by the "experts".

As for the plane routes, it's true that one will often have to go out of their way to make a connection since fights are based on popularity and revenue.  However, the video I posted in the other thread on that topic showed how they never go over Antarctica which would be a direct route from Australia to South Africa, and yet they frequently fly over the Arctic for flights such as LA to London with the excuse it's somehow more direct.  Why?

There are many emergency landings which only make sense on flat earth as well.

Here's a Santiago-Sydney flight:  https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28

On the Azimuthal Projection ("flat earth") map, the direct line between Santiago and Sydney goes over North America.

The flight shown in the link goes South over the ocean near the edge of antarctica. It's difficult to tell for sure from that image, but the path looks likely to be a great circle on a globe.

It's a good question and I didn't downvote you.

Here is a possible explanation:

Here is a possible explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt06AmOnH04

Yes, I agree the flight almost certainly would have used a jet stream going east.
But going west it should take noticeably longer. And it seems to have:

13:17      https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28
12:06      https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27

I'll have to look at some of the other details later.

I don't know about the solar eclipse which I've wondered about too, but I've asked someone who does land surveying and he believes in the curve but said the calculations are already built in to their equations so they don't have to do that math all over again...

There are many emergency landings which only make sense on flat earth as well.

No, what I'm saying is that (a) there are calculations, predicated upon a global earth, and upon heliocentrism (or "not upon geocentrism", which would be a better way of putting it in some cases, such as positions of stars and galaxies), that make sense, work the same way every time, and can be proven to be correct mathematically, and (b) if these make sense and arrive at the correct conclusions, such as precisely where and when a solar eclipse may be predicted to have totality, then is there a separate set of "true", "flat earth" calculations that arrive at the exact same conclusions, calculations that the scientists and astronomers are really using "when they catch everyone else's back turned", and that are also provable to be correct mathematically?

You point out that your contact "believes in the curve", and presumably uses the commonly accepted calculations, yet arrives at the conclusions that we can see, such as predictions of totality down to the second as we saw in 2017 with the solar eclipse.

Also, how do these "emergency landings" only make sense on a flat earth?  Do they sometimes take place in farfetched locations, instead of someplace over what one would expect to be a reasonable distance from the flight path they claim to be following?  Do they happen in places where you would expect them to on a flat-earth map with the North Pole at the center?

And as long as we're talking poles, how can a compass point south if there is no "South Pole"?

I have no agenda here, I'm just trying to think logically about the scenario.

And as long as we're talking poles, how can a compass point south if there is no "South Pole"?

I have no agenda here, I'm just trying to think logically about the scenario.

Hi Simple Man,
I truly appreciate your open mindedness on the matter. A compass only points north, which is directly below the north star which does not move or change position.

When we want to find south on a compass we look 180 degrees opposite of north. In flat earth understanding there is no South Pole, rather a ring of ice (and according to Admiral Byrd, a large land mass) which encompasses the circle and contains the oceans.

Water is flat. The fact that water is flat (that it seeks its own level) is incompatible with globe theory.

When we are standing at any point on earth, our compass will point north, toward the center of the flat earth map. What we call south will be in the opposite direction, toward the ring of ice which encompasses the circle of the earth as spoken of in God's word.

You point out that your contact "believes in the curve", and presumably uses the commonly accepted calculations, yet arrives at the conclusions that we can see, such as predictions of totality down to the second as we saw in 2017 with the solar eclipse.

I agree, that's a problem for FE. They would have difficulty even predicting sunrise and sunset, especially in the southern hemisphere in the seasons when days are very long or very short.

Also, how do these "emergency landings" only make sense on a flat earth?

Here's a typical claim: on the globe a flight from Tokyo to Los Angelus should go across the pacific. But they actually fly over/near Alaska. So GE is wrong.

Problem is, the FEers are asserting what a flight path "should  be", when a great circle actually does go over/near Alaska.

I posted earlier that Sydney-Los Angeles flight path does not go near Alaska.

And as long as we're talking poles, how can a compass point south if there is no "South Pole"?

Magnetic south pole may still exist in the FE world, depending on who you listen to.

Water is flat. The fact that water is flat (that it seeks its own level) is incompatible with globe theory.

FEers frequently repeat "water seeks its own level".

So I look at water and I see free-surface "curved" water in
- water droplets
- meniscus (in a tube or cylinder)
- waves
- bubble levels

Water is subject to external forces like everything else.

Gravity (or "density and buoyancy" :) is another external force.