davey_83

I work for Lloyds Bank, technical support and vehicle maintenance controller for our lease vehicles. Predominantly use a system called 1 link, allowing for real time communication with 95% of car dealers across the UK. I like the look of this map personally, maybe it's the colours. Sorry if I don't answer you correctly, my take on size representation of the continents isn't an exact science. It's incredibly difficult to accurately display the globe on a wall maps seen in schools for example.

The public has spoken Which would you rather have?

Thoughts on lack of GPS as mentioned........ The 60 minute rule doesn't apply any more and twin engined planes fly directly over oceans at ease now.

Cheers for the edit copy edit paste..... I find it interesting that GPS doesn't seem to function on aircraft south of the equator over water but perfectly fine over land hhmmmmmm - I'm calling BS again. Two engined plans go for hours through the middle of an ocean just fine according to flight tracker. Where is Antarctica, where is Antarctica.... It's around here somewhere lol

Having never traveled this description myself, I wouldn't be able say what I see. East Russia.

Wash your mouth out.....

Traveling east or west.......... You either chase the sun or you don't. You follow your compass which takes you along lines of latitude not longitude.

Yep this one is staying real close to land........ Look nowt I say is going to make you go oh yeah that makes sense. What is evident for me, isn't evident for others and that's perfectly fine. Odd that GPS doesn't work an hour away from land south of the equator?..... I could summarise why, but you'll already know what I'm going to say. Nothing fly's over Antarctica to pop up the other side as it can't be flown over.

What is said you reach the ice wall of Antarctica, from there independently not much is known.

However not if the earth is flat, which is the topic of discussion. The earth was thought to be first flat, so it would make sense that maps were flat before they were balls shaped and not the other way round.

Prove it? Ive replied in post #323

Globe model flight path......... Ok via Uzbekistan

No, however its a map derived from a globe. Steve I can see you aren't getting this. Google when asked the distance to HK, shows the quickest route on a globe model which goes over Turkey - so it's not me saying anything. The actual route taken to HK can be as I have shown on Jay's post to be over North Russia which IS a detour from the information shown by Google about the globe flight path. The black line that you've added to the map, are you aware that's a flat earth map and not a globe one looking down at the north pole.

Bold = win, I like it

Yes, not being able to sail below iirc 74' latitude and not a place one circumnavigate. Because Jay's flight to HK went over Russia which on the globe model is a massive detour......

Huh? When has that ever been said........... Just accept Jay's flight path works on a flat pancake earth more so than a globe lol

Or it's called not accepting everything you are told just because it's from "clever people" I'm pretty sure no one is falling off anywhere.

Dude, come back to me. Your own words not mine fall away from the globe model..........

Dude.... #micdrop

So with a plane flight, staying North creates a shorter distance? Yes or No...

I think it's fair to say published distances or flight path, would be from a heliocentric model and not a flat one. I've actually looked out the window of a flight from Manchester to Jamaica and starboard showed land (US) for hours and hours. Seen it with my own eyes and your flight path should be sea on both sides, so that's that. Consider London to HK, on a globe this should be a straight shot thru Turkey with no need to go over Russia and yet.......

Have you drawn this path on a globe? Or is expectation predicting the outcome? That last giant sentence takes some figuring out..... We've covered flight paths and both examples made more sense on the flat map than globe.

Pictures from Nasa are said to be composites, as said by themselves......... Not even the ISS is high enough to see snap shot of the earth in one go. What do you make of the path rockets/spacecraft's orbit around' the world? Do they not seem strange?.......Can you imagine how they look on a flat plain for example, I can.......

no, have you? Note that the given minimum of 35,000 feet (10.7 km) is a plausible cruise altitude for a commercial airliner, but you probably shouldn't expect to see the curvature on a typical commercial flight, because: 10.7 km is the bare minimum for seeing curvature, so the apparent curvature will be very slight at this altitude. 10.7 km is near the upper end of the usual range of commercial cruise altitudes. Many flights won't get this high, and very few will go significantly higher. A passenger window may not give the necessary 60° field of view, especially if you're over the wing.