![Oh look, the sun’s movement around the earth [750x1334 - 1.21MB]](https://pic8.co/sh/OZWKTc.png){kind=link}
I was a travel agent many years ago. How many flight paths did you find that go OVER the arctic circle or Antarctica?
Why do you think flight times prove anything is a far more interesting question.
Like I said in a previous reply to someone, there are aspects which work on both flat and ball models, however there is no curvature, so there is no ball.
Let me know once you have proof of curvature lol
The Verrazano Narrows bridge is a hilarious example of ‘accounting for curvature’ which highlights the level water under the bridge.
You were a travel agent and you suddenly can't map out a flight plan that would go around the hypothetically round planet?
Do you understand that flying 18 hours east makes it faster to get back to where you started by continuing to travel east instead of turning around? That doesnt bother you at all?
Oh, you think being obtuse is a valid debating style.
There are ZERO commercial flight paths over the arctic or Antarctica. Maybe you tried to find one, but instead of being honest and saying you couldn’t find one, your reptile brain decided to try and gaslight me. Yeah, nah.
Do you understand what ‘flying east’ means? It means you are flying at a right angle to north. North being the magnetic North Pole. Again, this is true on BOTH models.
Who said anything about about flying north and south?
Why is it that you keep changing the target?
(post is archived)