Answering a simple question with a question. Quite the shocking turn of events! Anyway...

The first rule of Big Cartography is you do not talk about Big Cartography.

All the best.

"Earth-shaped" would have been much funnier.

Genuinely curious LB..... :

Are there other observable planets and moons that are not spheres? (asteroids not included)

https://www.newsweek.com/we-asked-tw...planets-728959

"They appear to be spherical, they could be disks," he added. "I don't think it really matters too much,"

You will notice the people that answered that exact question speak in a very similar manner as a poster here. Go figure!

[x] Litmus test
[ ] Weird

I have no idea. Again, linguistics not astrology.

No, I’m asking you what shape a pool ball is.

LB, since your field of expertise is linguistic studies and you obviously have an interest in politics, let me ask a different question. Do you feel "globalism" should be more appropriately termed "discism"?

Because you don't know yourself?

Might confuse people too much with disc golf so probably not.

Lucky, what shape is a basketball?

Basketballs are basketball shaped, obviously.

Oh...so close!

Place the known landmasses of the Earth on a non-spherical shape in a way that is consistent with air travel times between those known landmasses. (Hint: you can't do it.)

Is there a YouTube video or something that explains this argument or how did you come about it?

Which travel time in particular is one that doesn't work?

I'll take a wild guess that the answer to this would depend on what shape someone dreamed up the world to be.

You don't need a youtube video. You are capable of visualizing in three dimensions. If you aren't, then draw paper cutouts of the continents, stick them on a dinner plate, a donut-shaped life ring, or whatever object is the shape you imagine the earth to be. Then get a string and measure the distance between various points on your conception of Earth. Put those distances into ratios. Then compare your ratios to ratios based on the known in-air travel times for commercial airliners between those same points.

It won't be an exact science because commercial airliners don't all travel at the exactly same speed and altitude, they don't travel in perfectly straight lines, and jet streams, etc. are real, but you get the idea. You can't get close to approximating the ratios of air travel times if you put those land masses on a dinner plate or a donut shaped object.

If you do the string test on a globe, the ratios will be much closer, albeit still affected by the factors I mentioned above.

You could if you artificially manipulate then misreport airspeeds.

Oh ****, I fear I've said too much.

Talking about some specific flights I'm sure would be a lot easier. Seeing that there is or was a 16 hour flight from Rio to Cape Town but then only 9 hours from São Paulo to Cape Town-- which makes no sense as Rio and São Paulo aren't that far away from each other-- but I didn't look too hard there.

But if you do need a youtube video

I am not going to do this exercise for you. I told you how to do it. I didn't even know that a youtube video existed. It was just a blindingly obviously geometric concept to me.

That's why I speculated that his answer would involve a conspiracy between Big Airline and Big Cartography.

YouTube videos exist about every topic except Big Cartography, because the first rule of Big Cartography yadda yadda.

Travel time varies a lot depending on the flight schedules/layover times when one has 1-2 stops on the way, but do not let details like this get in the way of your logic.

All the best.

What’s the incentive for the powers that be to conceal Earth’s flatness?

To my considerable amazement, scientists at the University of Zurich actually took the time to prove the point using flight times.

This article is from the Daily Mail, so we can probably safely assume that Kelhus is not a flat earther.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...net-ROUND.html