How would a flat-Earth model account for global airline flight routes and time zone synchronization?
Executive summary
Flat‑Earth proponents try to reconcile long‑haul flight routes and time zones by invoking alternate map geometries, selective route examples, and ad hoc explanations about navigation and the Sun’s behavior; mainstream analyses and flight‑time tests, however, show that actual routes and durations align with great‑circle (spherical) geometry and conventional solar time, not a flat disk [1] [2] [3]. The debate therefore hinges less on isolated route appearances on certain map projections and more on measurable distances, observed flight times, and the global pattern of daylight consistent with a rotating sphere [1] [4].
1. How flat‑Earth accounts describe flight routes
Flat‑Earth sources claim many long flights appear “straight” on their disk maps and argue airlines either follow those straight lines or conspire to hide true routes, using examples like southern‑hemisphere connections or select roundabout itineraries to suggest inconsistency with a globe [5] [6]. Some flat‑Earth analyses assert that non‑stop routes—Perth–Johannesburg, Sydney–Santiago, and others—are impossible on a disk and therefore prove a sphere, a claim made by both critics and proponents but interpreted oppositely by each side [5] [3].
2. Why map projection tricks matter for perceived routes
A key mainstream rebuttal is that map projections distort straightness: the shortest path on a sphere (a great circle) often appears curved or oddly oriented on rectangular maps, so cherry‑picked visuals can mislead observers into thinking a globe is incompatible with a given plotted line [1]. Science communicators point out that drawing great‑circle arcs on a rectangular map makes them look curved, which explains why transoceanic flights seem counterintuitive on some projections and why a single selection of flights cannot overturn spherical geometry [1].
3. Flight times and aircraft performance as empirical tests
Independent tests comparing reported flight durations with distances on both spherical and disk geometries find real‑world flight times consistent with great‑circle distances and jet airliner cruise speeds (around Mach 0.8), not the much greater speeds or fuel capacities that a flat‑Earth straight‑line geometry would require to match schedules [2]. Creationist and aviation sites that modeled times concluded that, unless thousands of passengers and airlines were falsifying times, many routes simply only make sense on a spherical Earth—a practical, measurable rebuttal to flat‑Earth distance claims [2] [3].
4. Time zones and the “spotlight Sun” versus rotating sphere
Flat‑Earth explanations often appeal to a localized or “spotlight” Sun and cultural constructs for timekeeping to explain day/night differences, suggesting time differences are illusions or controlled conventions [6]. Mainstream accounts emphasize that different parts of Earth face the Sun at different times because of rotation, producing staggered sunrise/noon/sunset and necessitating time zones to align human schedules with daylight—an account consistent with observation, clock behavior in travel, and basic models of planetary rotation [4].
5. Broader patterns, agendas, and limits of the reporting
Critics note that flat‑Earth arguments frequently rely on cherry‑picking routes, invoking conspiratorial explanations about airlines or cartography, and misinterpreting map projections rather than engaging the measurable evidence of distances and durations [1] [7]. Sources from both sides assert strong conclusions—flatearth.ws insists some non‑stop routes are impossible on a disk while science communicators demonstrate how projection distortion and population/infrastructure economics explain routing choices [5] [1]. Reporting reviewed here does not include direct airline operational data or primary flight‑tracking logs in this packet; therefore, while multiple analyses cited conclude real routes and times match a spherical Earth, detailed line‑by‑line flight data would further solidify that conclusion beyond these secondary analyses [2] [3].