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 lines
Airlines 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 assumptions
Flight 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 questions
If 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 to
The 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.
