This graphic shows the path of a flight from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates to Fort Worth, Texas, USA. The top graphic shows how the flight appears as it is tracked on a globe map. The bottom graphic shows how the flight path would look on a flat earth map. As you can see, the flight path on the ball earth map appears to take a strange northern loop and pass unnecessarily over land in the high northern latitudes. Why not just go in a straight line? On the flat earth map, however, the flight path going over land in the northern latitudes makes perfect sense, as it is a straight line from point A to point B.
Flat Earth Perspectives 
[…] Abu Dhabi to Fort Worth, Texas Flight Path […]
LikeLike
This can be easily explained, and I hope you realize the disservice you are doing to Flat Eartherism.
You drew the flight paths on a FLAT MAP of the globe – he Mercator projection. If you take an ACTUAL GLOBE and trace the path on it, you’ll find it will be PERFECTLY STRAIGHT.
LikeLike
[sigh]
LikeLike
Sigh indeed. Your top graphic is a Mercator Projection, the bottom one an Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, so you have totally negated your claims by conflating apples and oranges.
You could just have easily drawn a straight line on the Mercator Projection, so why didn’t you?
The shortest distance on a sphere is a Great Circle.
Why didn’t you use one of the other projections commonly used, such as Van der Grinten, Gnomonica, Lambert azimuthal equal area, stereographic, Cassini, Equirectangular, conical,pseudoconic, pseudocylindrical, and so on. They all have a specific purpose but are only useful for that specific purpose.
The Azimuthal Equidistant Projection you cite is mostly useless for navigation which is why the Mercator Projection is used for the vast majority of navigational charts.
LikeLike
You spent a lot of time on my site. Why? Do you get paid for this kind of work?
LikeLike
“You spent a lot of time on my site. Why? Do you get paid for this kind of work”
[sigh]
No, very little time as I can type reasonably quickly and know what I am talking about. You don;t, you need to refer to what others tell you.
LikeLike
All you can do is sigh because you have no answer for it. Leo is absolutely correct.
LikeLike
Nope. Leo is wrong. You are wrong. And the ball Earth is one of the biggest hoaxes in human history. The *sigh* is getting tired of setting the record straight after comments like yours. Flight paths alone are 100% proof enough that the Earth is a plane.
LikeLike
Flight paths alone are 100% proof enough that the Earth is a terrestrial spheroid
LikeLike
Nope.
LikeLike
Then explain how when it is night on 1 half of the earth it is daytime on the other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you mean: “Then explain, please if you would…?” I don’t think “please” was in your demand that I explain life to you… so NO, I’m not explaining anything to you.
LikeLike
Flight paths alone are 100% proof enough that the Earth is a terrestrial spheroid
Rather than “Nope” prove me wrong. You can’t, can you, because you know nothing about navigation.
LikeLike
I didn’t demand anything. It was a simple statement really. And you won’t explain anything Because you can’t. You have no logical explanation for anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope again. Flat earth IS the logical explanation for EVERYTHING, but I don’t feel like writing a paper on it for you. It takes a lot of effort to explain in written words how it all works. And guess what? This isn’t my full time job. Would you like to become my Patreon? Look up the info elsewhere; it’s all of the interwebs.
LikeLike
Here. This isn’t a bad animation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IuFKKg6PjA
I’m almost 100% sure you’re not hanging around here to actually learn something new, but just in case: To understand day and night, it is necessary to unlearn the idea that light travels forever; it depends on the power of the source of light, and even the Sun doesn’t cover the entire earth; just look at your lamp when you turn it on at night… the light gradually fades as it climbs up the wall. On the flat earth model, the Sun shines down like a spotlight over the area of Earth that it is traveling over. And when the Sun is too far away from your perspective for the light to reach you, we call that night. This model is way more amazing and beautiful than the floating in space balls model. And let me ask you: can you explain how it is possible with the ball earth model for there to be over 15 hours of sunlight in Summertime in Oregon USA when the ball supposedly spins at a constant rate of speed? Shouldn’t there be exactly 12 hours of daylight and exactly 12 hours of night every 24 hours?
LikeLike
Actually, you can’t compare a lamp to our sun. This is because a lamp is not very powerful, and the sun is a magnificent, burning ball of fire that gives off an enormous amount of light, which is how it reaches all sides of our earth. This is the only logical answer.
LikeLike
Actually, you can. And your comment is the opposite of logical. According to what you’re saying, no scientific experiment in a controlled laboratory using scaled-down elements is applicable to the real world? And the Sun may not be a “burning ball of fire,” nuclear no less. I don’t know what it is exactly (and neither do you), but it doesn’t make ANY sense to be that an intelligent Creator would create a source of life for human beings that gives off harmful nuclear radiation. Thanks for commenting, though.
LikeLike
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/math/how-many-minutes-of-daylight-do-we-gain-or-lose-each-day
LikeLike
Thanks for directing me to that website with all of those advertisements from pharmaceutical giant Merck. Must be a reputable website that’s telling the truth, then. Now, apparently you’ll believe everything you read, so there’s not much that can be done for you here. Take heart though… I too once thought that the dinosaurs that I saw up on the screen in Spielberg’s Jurassic Park were real.
LikeLike
I never thought they were real.
LikeLike
Ball earth… dinosaurs… Santa… same diff.
LikeLike
You are correct. You did not do a disservice to any flat Earther out there; as the following reputable link tells us.
Keep up the good work 😊
https://www.distance.to/Texas,USA/Abu-Dhabi,ARE
LikeLike
You are correct. You did not do a disservice to any flat Earther out there with reference to your map; as the reputable link below tells us.
Keep up the good work 😊
https://www.distance.to/Texas,USA/Abu-Dhabi,ARE
LikeLike
Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
Yes, international flight paths are irrevocably one of the biggest scientific truths to continually expell the ball earth model, without fail. Did you know, air traffic controllers employ “imaginary numbers” in their calculations of flight paths? These are numbers which do not exist in the framework of regular 1-10 or even the minus equivalent. For example, the square root of “-1” is “i”. Now, speaking as an honest Flat Earther, if I were given the task of air traffic control, I am pretty sure I would need to know some pretty imaginary mathematics too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_unit
Cheers, Simon.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments. I had this notion confirmed in person when a friend of mine (who is a ball earther and doesn’t know I’m a flat earther) said he flew non-stop from Ireland to San Francisco, and that the flight took him over Greenland and Canada (or something to that effect). I asked him why would that flight would have to go over Canada (already knowing full well the answer), and he said, “Cause of the Earth’s curvature.” I just said, “Ah” and silently weeped for humanity.
LikeLike