Thanks for sharing that — it's an interesting approach using
statistical modeling and flight data to estimate Earth's curvature. But here are a few
critical questions and thoughts that might help us dig a bit deeper:
1. Flight paths don’t always follow straight linesAirlines use
great circle routes, which are curved paths on a globe but appear warped on flat maps. However, those routes are also chosen based on
air traffic, weather, fuel efficiency, no-fly zones, and jet stream winds. These all influence travel time — not just the shape of the Earth. So relying on flight durations as the core metric to “prove curvature” is already assuming the globe model without addressing all those real-world variables.
2. GPS and aviation software are built on globe assumptionsFlight software is based on
globe-based algorithms — so the data output (e.g., distances, flight durations) already presumes a curved Earth. If you use data shaped by a model to prove the model, you risk circular reasoning. This needs to be accounted for in any truly objective test.
3. Flights in the Southern Hemisphere raise major questionsIf the Earth is a globe, flights between certain cities in the
Southern Hemisphere (e.g., Santiago to Sydney) should follow specific curved paths with consistent durations. But these routes often take
strange detours through the Northern Hemisphere, and in some cases,
direct flights are rare or missing entirely — even when direct routes should exist on a globe.
This unexplained deviation seems
more consistent with a flat Earth map, where southern continents are actually farther apart than globe maps suggest.
4. “Matches globe numbers” because it was built toThe article says the result is
“practically identical” to the globe’s curvature value (π/20,000 km). That’s interesting — but also a red flag. Public data is gathered, filtered, and interpreted through globe-based infrastructure. So it’s no surprise when it reflects globe-based values. But it doesn’t prove them.
5. Let’s not forget basic observation- We still see the same stars year-round, even though we’re supposedly on the opposite side of the sun 6 months later.
- The horizon remains perfectly flat from high altitudes (e.g. atop the Glass House Mountains or Nullarbor Plains), with no measurable curve across 100+ km.
- NASA admits most images of Earth are CGI composites, not genuine photos.
- The Moon landings used 1960s tech and yet we now “don’t know how to get past the Van Allen belts.”
It’s good that they tried to use accessible math and public data — but we still need to
question whether the inputs and assumptions were neutral or already tilted toward the globe.
Appreciate the conversation — I’m not saying I know it all, but I am saying we should be
allowed to ask hard questions without being dismissed.
