Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Freind on December 06, 2025, 09:00:25 AM
-
Routine flights:
Santiago, Chile TO Auckland, New Zealand = ~13 hours
Santiago, Chile TO Los Angeles, California = ~13 hours
(https://i.imgur.com/SN1f0k4.png)
Why would jets travel twice the speed to Auckland?
They don't.
-
So, the only thing that's put to bed is your intellectual honest. Firstly, it's 11 LA and 13 Auckland. Then of course, you pick a projection that likely represents a massive distortion of reality, attempting to maximize as much as you possibly can the distance between South America and Australia.
If you take an Azimuthal projection centered on LA, you'll see that the difference isn't all that big.
It's all going to depend on what's the most accurate projection.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Los_Angeles_centered_azimuthal_equidistant_projection.gif/960px-Los_Angeles_centered_azimuthal_equidistant_projection.gif)
-
So, this projection actually won and award because it allegedly reflects most accurately both the relative sizes of the continents and the distances between them, and it accomplishes that by angling continents away from one another. But ... wait a minute, that's what would actually happen on an FE, where the Southern "Hemisphere" would in fact angle away more than on a globe. But, then, lo and behold, you still have the same problem here that you attribute to FE, since the distance between Santiago and Auckland is much greater than that between Santiago and LA. In point of fact, it's well docuмented that there are some extremely quick jet streams near Antarctica that can increase air speed by several hundred MPH.
(https://i.ibb.co/7x20DbWD/authagraph.jpg)
-
So, the only thing that's put to bed is your intellectual honest. Firstly, it's 11 LA and 13 Auckland. Then of course, you pick a projection that likely represents a massive distortion of reality, attempting to maximize as much as you possibly can the distance between South America and Australia.
If you take an Azimuthal projection centered on LA, you'll see that the difference isn't all that big.
It's all going to depend on what's the most accurate projection.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Los_Angeles_centered_azimuthal_equidistant_projection.gif/960px-Los_Angeles_centered_azimuthal_equidistant_projection.gif)
You know what the "~" (tilde) symbol means, right?
It means "approximately". That is often done when the exact figure doesn't matter.
In this case, it does NOT matter.
(https://i.imgur.com/2kR6mjO.png)
So, 50 minutes difference. It doesn't matter. An acceptable FE map shows it is more than twice the distance.
Why don't you give me the FE map you accept, and draw a line from Santiago to LA, and another line to Auckland.
I would love to see the map you accept.
-
Speaking of projections, this here presents some very solid evidence in favor of FE. Let's look at an Azimuthal Equidistant Projection centered on the so-called "South Pole".
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_south_SW.jpg/960px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_south_SW.jpg)
You'll notice that as you get farther from the center point, they tend to get stretched wider, so most of the Northern "Hemisphere" becomes practically unrecognizable, where North America and Asia look nothing whatsoever like the continent shapes we're used to on Mercator.
But now let's look at an Azimuthal Equidistant centered on the North Pole.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/960px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg)
So, apart from Antarctica, somehow South America, Africa, and Australia still retain their very familiar shapes. How can you have that narrow Southern tip of South America, since you'd expect it to widen dramatically? Africa you'd expect to look like a square, with the Southern half as wide as the Northern.
And yet ... everything except Antarctica is completely recognizable.
Well, that's because this actually reflects much closer to reality. If it didn't, you'd see much more distortion.
Well, you might say, South America, Africa, and Australia are much bigger than they should be. Not so fast. Gall-Peters produced a projection which they claim accurately represents the actual sizes of the continents, whereas the Mercator, they say, significantly shrunk those continents due to its having been Norther-Hemisphere centric or focused.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg/1200px-Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg)
Continent sizes are in fact really close to what's on that Azimuthal North Pole Equidistant map above.
So, for the accurate "ball" model, we're at the mercy of the government agencies, and even they admit that they stitched together various linear paths of satellites, and you can see signs of this on the Google Earth model.
-
But, instead of considering the problem with projections, you simply cherry-pick one (and even distort it) that you can pretend proves your case, when in point of fact you've already made up your mind and are simply begging the question, attempting to find evidence for it through your application of confirmation bias.
-
But, instead of considering the problem with projections, you simply cherry-pick one (and even distort it) that you can pretend proves your case, when in point of fact you've already made up your mind and are simply begging the question, attempting to find evidence for it through your application of confirmation bias.
What I presented is based on a widely accept FE map.
What is the map you actually accept, and explain what happens at all the edges of the map.
-
You know what the "~" (tilde) symbol means, right?
It means "approximately". That is often done when the exact figure doesn't matter.
In this case, it does NOT matter.
(https://i.imgur.com/2kR6mjO.png)
So, 50 minutes difference. It doesn't matter. An acceptable FE map shows it is more than twice the distance.
Why don't you give me the FE map you accept, and draw a line from Santiago to LA, and another line to Auckland.
I would love to see the map you accept.
No, jackass .. .you've ignored everything I just posted, which is that everything depends entirely on the PROJECTION, which you simply ignore and are oblivious to. This projection here, which won and award in 2016, is said to be one of the closest to reality in both maintaining the relative sizes of the continents and also the distances between various points on them. If you look at it, you have the exact same problem that you claim the cherry-picked "acceptable FE map" has, namely, that the distance between Santiago and Auckland is much greater than the distance between Santiago and LA, and so there must be a speed difference there, and you can go ahead and look up a map of the jet stream speeds, where the farther South you get the faster the jet streams can go, resulting in up to several hundreds MPH increase in speed.
(https://i.ibb.co/7x20DbWD/authagraph.jpg)
-
Regarding the "Authagraph Projection", invented by a Japanese architect in 1999, and which won an award in 2016 for being the most accurate projection due to the following "Key Features":
Key Features & Accuracy
- Reduced Distortion: It minimizes the size exaggeration of landmasses (like Greenland or Russia) seen in Mercator, showing continents closer to their true relative sizes and positions.
- Accurate Distances: By angling continents, it accurately depicts distances between them, reflecting a more realistic global perspective.
- Ocean Representation: It faithfully includes all oceans and Antarctica, which are often poorly represented on other maps.
- Seamless Tiling: The map can be tiled in any direction, allowing different regions to be centered without seams, offering a continuous view.
Hmmm. You would expect angling continents away from one another in the "Southern Hemisphere" on an FE (North Pole Azimuthal Equidistant Map).
-
No, jackass .. .you've ignored everything I just posted, which is that everything depends entirely on the PROJECTION, which you simply ignore and are oblivious to. This projection here, which won and award in 2016, is said to be one of the closest to reality in both maintaining the relative sizes of the continents and also the distances between various points on them. If you look at it, you have the exact same problem that you claim the cherry-picked "acceptable FE map" has, namely, that the distance between Santiago and Auckland is much greater than the distance between Santiago and LA, and so there must be a speed difference there, and you can go ahead and look up a map of the jet stream speeds, where the farther South you get the faster the jet streams can go, resulting in up to several hundreds MPH increase in speed.
(https://i.ibb.co/7x20DbWD/authagraph.jpg)
I cherry-picked nothing. I took a map I understood to be accepted by flatearthers, simply because they accept it.
Fine, then say I debunked that map I used. Say it.
Then, tell me which FLAT earth map you accept, and tell me what happens at the borders of that map.
-
You know what the "~" (tilde) symbol means, right?
It means "approximately". That is often done when the exact figure doesn't matter.
In this case, it does NOT matter.
(https://i.imgur.com/2kR6mjO.png)
So, 50 minutes difference. It doesn't matter. An acceptable FE map shows it is more than twice the distance.
Why don't you give me the FE map you accept, and draw a line from Santiago to LA, and another line to Auckland.
I would love to see the map you accept.
There never can be a map that they will accept because NO FE map or model can ever work because in the end it will prove that they’re wrong. It’s their dilemma and they are unwilling to accept the truth. Unfortunately, many of these FEers have raised their theory (I use that term loosely) to nearly the level of dogma.
I hold that geocentrism to be true, but then again there are scientific models that show that it can work with daily observations without contradiction.
It’s my contention that this FE nonsense was put out by the conspirators to muddy the waters and make geocentrism, among other unconventional ideas, look idiotic and thus make it unpalatable to accept for the common man.
-
The real battle is not “flat vs globe.”
The real battle is:
Geocentric reality
vs.
ʝʊdɛօ‑Masonic cosmology of infinite meaningless space
-
The real battle is not “flat vs globe.”
The real battle is:
Geocentric reality
vs.
ʝʊdɛօ‑Masonic cosmology of infinite meaningless space
Obviously not the topic here.
-
The real battle is not “flat vs globe.”
The real battle is:
Geocentric reality
vs.
ʝʊdɛօ‑Masonic cosmology of infinite meaningless space
Agreed.
"Flat vs globe" is easier to say, like a shortcut, but you're right -- it's a bigger deal than "who cares what shape the earth is".
Oh boy. Does it ever matter!
Anyone who spends more than 15 min/week thinking about deep subjects knows what I'm talking about. Molecules-to-man evolution has caused men to think their choices don't matter, that they don't matter, they might as well commit various sins, be selfish. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die". The infinite Big-Bang-generated Cosmos lie is about hiding God.
-
I'm going to go with "jet streams" for the explanation. Along with "you have to have an accurate projection" as Ladislaus pointed out.
Not every point is conclusive in one direction, or easily explained/refuted.
This point does not "falsify" the earth being flat, much less does it prove we're on a wet spinning spaceball hurtling through an infinite universe.
It's basic logic.
-
I'm going to go with "jet streams" for the explanation. Along with "you have to have an accurate projection" as Ladislaus pointed out.
Not every point is conclusive in one direction, or easily explained/refuted.
This point does not "falsify" the earth being flat, much less does it prove we're on a wet spinning spaceball hurtling through an infinite universe.
It's basic logic.
First you need to start with a map that you consider true.
The default is what the Doctor of the Church, Venerable Bede, wrote in the 8th century:
“We call the earth a sphere, not because the circle of the circuмference is equally round in all directions, but because, by the compresence of all its parts, it is gathered into the shape of a sphere. Hence, it is that the stars of the northern hemisphere are not visible to the inhabitants of the southern, and conversely, those which are familiar to the southerners are unknown to the northerners."