[TitanicShark]

If your Flat Earth map is correct then why is North America smaller then South America? The difference is quite a bit too. Same with Australia. In reality North America is bigger then South America and Australia is smaller then you show it on a map. And before you start saying Round Earth maps on a flat surface are wrong, just consider that it is almost impossible to put a sphere's surface on a flat map.

[3DGeek]

If your Flat Earth map is correct then why is North America smaller then South America? The difference is quite a bit too. Same with Australia. In reality North America is bigger then South America and Australia is smaller then you show it on a map. And before you start saying Round Earth maps on a flat surface are wrong, just consider that it is almost impossible to put a sphere's surface on a flat map.

It's not "almost" impossible to put a sphere onto a flat map without distortion...it's is actually, mathematically, totally impossible.

The FE maps *must* disagree with RE globes in one or both of the following ways:

• The compass headings between places in the world must disagree between RE and FE.
• Distances in RE and FE must disagree.

So the distortions in the FE map in the Wiki are not there in *all* FE maps - some work harder to keep the size discrepancies down to a minimum on land - at the price of making compass headings worse (so the shapes of familiar continents seem more distorted) - others try to eliminate angular errors, at the cost of increasing size discrepancies.   Most do a compromise - and by pushing the biggest size discrepancies into the ocean areas, try to make it harder for people to criticise their maps.

But no matter what they do - there WILL be situations where a well-documented real-world distance or heading will be different in the FE map - and then there are grounds for criticism.

The usual RE question is:  How come the Australian state airline "Qantas" can offer their non-stop Sydney to Santiago, Chile route, (Quantas flight 27)?   On an RE map that is a 7000 miles. 12 hour flight.   This is within the capabilities of the 747-400 flight.

However,  on the FE map - the shortest route is more than twice as long - far *FAR* beyond the range of the 747-400 - and requiring it to fly faster than Concorde to make the trip in 12 hours.

That's not a fluke - Quantas also fly the Johannesberg, South Africa, to Perth, Australia route - taking 9 hours - which also would require Mach 2 flight speeds and a fuel supply hugely larger than a 747-400 can possibly carry.

The only semi-plausible answers I've heard from the FE world say that the Jet Stream carries the plane along much faster and with far less fuel consumption...but handily fails to explain how the aircraft manages the return trip - same distance - fighting the Jet Stream every inch of the way.

Usually the debate collapses under a wealth of misunderstandings about "great circle routes" and how Quantas flight 27 would have to overfly China and a bunch of other places when passengers do not see anything but water beneath them for the entire journey...this of course is debated ferociously...carefully side-stepping the time and fuel matters.

[geckothegeek]

There are very simple answers.:
The earth is not flat.
There is no flat earth map.
The so-called "flat earth maps" are simply the Unipolar and Bipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projections of the Globe.
Any projection is going to have severe distortions in some areas.

[3DGeek]

I get that.

It has already been pointed out that the FE map doesn't give us the right distances between (say) Sydney and Perth, Australia.

We might forgive that because FE proponents may not have the time/skills/knowledge to produce an accurate map that would stand up to that degree of accuracy - but we can't easily forgive the fact that the Sydney to Santiago, Chile, Quantas flight 27 (which is flown non-stop by a 747-400 airplane) is a 12 hour flight - which would require the 747-400 to fly more than twice it's maximum speed.

In RE terms, Sydney to Santiago is around 7,000 miles - which is comfortably within the range of a 747-400 - and flying at a fuel-efficient speed of around 600mph, 12 hours is a reasonable flight time.

In FE terms, Sydney to Santiago is more like 18,000 miles - which would require to refuelling stops - and the ability to fly at speed in excess of Concorde to get the trip completed in 12 hours.

This is not the only Quantas airlines flight with problems for FE proponents.  The non-stop Johannesberg, South Africa, to Perth, Australia flight takes 9 hours...and again, that would require a Mach 2 version of the 747 with a refuelling stop someplace in between in the FE world.

The only explanation I've heard so far is "Jet Streams"...which are claimed to be very fast south of the equator...which speed the plane along.  Mmmm'k.

But a wind that strong (far in excess of the speed of sound) would make ALL long distance flights in the West-to-East direction completely impossible...so this doesn't work.

Even more at issue - the shortest distance routes on the Flat Earth take the Sydney-Santiago flight over North America and all down the coast of South America.   The RE "great circle" route takes you over open ocean almost the entire way.   You'd think that pilots would have noticed that they were flying over land for much of the trip...and that the rate of passage of that land beneath the aircraft was indicating ground speeds in excess of Mach II.

This is (I suppose) dismissable as the airline pilots being "in" on the conspiracy - and airline passengers not looking out of the window during much of the flight.

But I used to work making 747 flight simulators to train those pilots...and our simulations were "round earth" (trust me - doing it in flat earth would have been a hell of a lot simpler!)...so wouldn't I have had to be part of the conspiracy too?

Which means...well, I'm not sure what it means...but it doesn't make sense!

[TomInAustin]

So this is it?  Re people debating each other about FE theory?

[geckothegeek]

So this is it?  Re people debating each other about FE theory?

There really is no such thing as FE theory.
Just FE ideas.

[3DGeek]

So this is it?  Re people debating each other about FE theory?

Well, this section of the forum is called "Flat Earth Debate"...what else did you expect to find here?

[TomInAustin]

So this is it?  Re people debating each other about FE theory?

Well, this section of the forum is called "Flat Earth Debate"...what else did you expect to find here?

LOL, you missed my point. 

[geckothegeek]

I get that.

It has already been pointed out that the FE map doesn't give us the right distances between (say) Sydney and Perth, Australia.

We might forgive that because FE proponents may not have the time/skills/knowledge to produce an accurate map that would stand up to that degree of accuracy - but we can't easily forgive the fact that the Sydney to Santiago, Chile, Quantas flight 27 (which is flown non-stop by a 747-400 airplane) is a 12 hour flight - which would require the 747-400 to fly more than twice it's maximum speed.

In RE terms, Sydney to Santiago is around 7,000 miles - which is comfortably within the range of a 747-400 - and flying at a fuel-efficient speed of around 600mph, 12 hours is a reasonable flight time.

In FE terms, Sydney to Santiago is more like 18,000 miles - which would require to refuelling stops - and the ability to fly at speed in excess of Concorde to get the trip completed in 12 hours.

This is not the only Quantas airlines flight with problems for FE proponents.  The non-stop Johannesberg, South Africa, to Perth, Australia flight takes 9 hours...and again, that would require a Mach 2 version of the 747 with a refuelling stop someplace in between in the FE world.

The only explanation I've heard so far is "Jet Streams"...which are claimed to be very fast south of the equator...which speed the plane along.  Mmmm'k.

But a wind that strong (far in excess of the speed of sound) would make ALL long distance flights in the West-to-East direction completely impossible...so this doesn't work.

Even more at issue - the shortest distance routes on the Flat Earth take the Sydney-Santiago flight over North America and all down the coast of South America.   The RE "great circle" route takes you over open ocean almost the entire way.   You'd think that pilots would have noticed that they were flying over land for much of the trip...and that the rate of passage of that land beneath the aircraft was indicating ground speeds in excess of Mach II.

This is (I suppose) dismissable as the airline pilots being "in" on the conspiracy - and airline passengers not looking out of the window during much of the flight.

But I used to work making 747 flight simulators to train those pilots...and our simulations were "round earth" (trust me - doing it in flat earth would have been a hell of a lot simpler!)...so wouldn't I have had to be part of the conspiracy too?

Which means...well, I'm not sure what it means...but it doesn't make sense!

But I used to be in the navy and worked on military things like surface search radars and also on civilian things like the spacing of microwave repeater stations.
They were all based on the earth being a globe.......so wouldn't I have had to be part of the conspiracy too ?

Well !..........3DGeek.....We must be related......You're a 3D and I'm a gecko !  Welcome to the club ! LOL

[Pete Svarrior]

So this is it?  Re people debating each other about FE theory?

Yes, that tends to happen when a noob makes a thread on a subject that's already been discussed to death. Nobody serious will be interested in re-doing it over and over, but geckothegeek & co. are always ready to jump in and remind everyone that he dislikes the fact that the Earth is flat.

[3DGeek]

Yes, that tends to happen when a noob makes a thread on a subject that's already been discussed to death. Nobody serious will be interested in re-doing it over and over, but geckothegeek & co. are always ready to jump in and remind everyone that he dislikes the fact that the Earth is flat.

I understand that frustration - but for a "noob", the only source of "approved" information are on the Wiki - and if something is not adequately covered there, you're guaranteed to get recurrences of these debates.

The whole point of a Wiki is that it's easy for a group of people to go and fix/improve/extend things - and if that were what was done, I think there would be fewer of these redundant threads.

[Pete Svarrior]

I understand that frustration - but for a "noob", the only source of "approved" information are on the Wiki - and if something is not adequately covered there, you're guaranteed to get recurrences of these debates.

Perhaps an addition to the FAQ instructing people about basic netiquette is in order, but otherwise I don't think it would be productive for the Wiki to contain the outcome of every discussion had here. We're already low on resources as-is, it would be unsustainable.

Forum etiquette dictates that you'd search for existing threads before posting a new one. For example, you could have found this very recent thread, which is more or less still active:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6067.0

The whole point of a Wiki is that it's easy for a group of people to go and fix/improve/extend things - and if that were what was done, I think there would be fewer of these redundant threads.

It is done. Everyone is allowed and encouraged to get an account (most easily arranged by simply asking me for one).

[3DGeek]

I understand that frustration - but for a "noob", the only source of "approved" information are on the Wiki - and if something is not adequately covered there, you're guaranteed to get recurrences of these debates.

Perhaps an addition to the FAQ instructing people about basic netiquette is in order, but otherwise I don't think it would be productive for the Wiki to contain the outcome of every discussion had here. We're already low on resources as-is, it would be unsustainable.

Forum etiquette dictates that you'd search for existing threads before posting a new one. For example, you could have found this very recent thread, which is more or less still active:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6067.0

The whole point of a Wiki is that it's easy for a group of people to go and fix/improve/extend things - and if that were what was done, I think there would be fewer of these redundant threads.

It is done. Everyone is allowed and encouraged to get an account (most easily arranged by simply asking me for one).

"Low on resources" doesn't make for a good argument.  Adding a page to a Wiki might increase disk usage by a few tens of kilobytes - no more than the space consumed by keeping discussions open on this forum...and actually rather less.

I'm not suggesting keeping the results of every discussion there - but at least lay out the answers to more of the questions people bring to the table here - and even (if honesty is valued) a list of the things that FE theory fails to adequately answer (eg Moon rotation, two-tides-per-day, etc).

Doing this would allow you to point (with a direct link) to the exact place where the "definitive" answer already can be found - so that the starting point of each new round of discussions is the end point of the previous round - and not all the way back at the beginning again.

The Wiki is woefully missing a LOT of important answers.   I read it all - very carefully - before I started posting here - and for me it brought up FAR more questions than answers.

[Pete Svarrior]

"Low on resources" doesn't make for a good argument.  Adding a page to a Wiki might increase disk usage by a few tens of kilobytes - no more than the space consumed by keeping discussions open on this forum...and actually rather less.

We're fairly technically literate, there's no need for any of this partonising talk. I was talking about human resources.

a list of the things that FE theory fails to adequately answer (eg Moon rotation, two-tides-per-day, etc).

Oh, you're here to shitpost. My bad, have a good day!

[TomInAustin]

So this is it?  Re people debating each other about FE theory?

Yes, that tends to happen when a noob makes a thread on a subject that's already been discussed to death. Nobody serious will be interested in re-doing it over and over, but geckothegeek & co. are always ready to jump in and remind everyone that he dislikes the fact that the Earth is flat.

If the FAQ was updated to actually cover FAQ's it would help.   My limited time here I have seen the same questions come up that are not covered in the WIKI/FAQ.

[juner]

But I used to be in the navy and worked on military things like surface search radars and also on civilian things like the spacing of microwave repeater stations.
They were all based on the earth being a globe.......so wouldn't I have had to be part of the conspiracy too ?

Well !..........3DGeek.....We must be related......You're a 3D and I'm a gecko !  Welcome to the club ! LOL

Everyone knows you were in the Navy (allegedly). You post it in every thread. No one gives a shit. Stop derailing threads with your nonsense. Next offense is a month-long ban.