OK, got one. Straight lines
« on: April 01, 2014, 03:34:51 PM »
Firstly I would like to say I love this website.

Its mental and the guys answering the posts are very funny.

So here is my attempt at debating. Apologies if this is already asked. I couldn't be bothered to trawl the forum to find it.

Please can you tell me why airliners who fly from Heathrow to Florida Fly so far north over the Atlantic and come down closer to the east coast of the USA as opposed to going in a straight line direct?
A straight line (on a flat earth) would take them very close to the azores for this route, but alas they don't.

Why are fuel conscious airlines burning so much needless fuel??? unless they aren't and in fact the earth is a sphere.
I look forward to your response
Tom

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2014, 03:51:48 PM »
They avoid the westerly jet stream.

The reverse route, they could easily take advantage of the same.
My I.Q. is 85......or was it 58.

I am the stupiderist person on the FES.

THORK IS TERRIBLE.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2014, 04:12:10 PM »
aston240 has probably never even seen a flat Earth map. 

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2014, 04:26:46 PM »
Firstly I would like to say I love this website.

Its mental and the guys answering the posts are very funny.

So here is my attempt at debating. Apologies if this is already asked. I couldn't be bothered to trawl the forum to find it.

Please can you tell me why airliners who fly from Heathrow to Florida Fly so far north over the Atlantic and come down closer to the east coast of the USA as opposed to going in a straight line direct?
A straight line (on a flat earth) would take them very close to the azores for this route, but alas they don't.

Why are fuel conscious airlines burning so much needless fuel??? unless they aren't and in fact the earth is a sphere.
I look forward to your response
Tom

We've had a plague of newcomers lately quizzing us on this airline route or that.  Are you all commercial pilots?  How do you know what the route is?  Chances are you only know what the hypothetical best route would be on a spherical earth, without allowing for atmospheric occurrences which would alter said route even if the earth were a sphere. 

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2014, 04:38:25 PM »
thanks for the replies,

As a matter of fact planes feature frequently in my day to day work.
No the North atlantic tracks cant always avoid the Jet stream. the Planners try their best to get the best track but its not always the case, Slots etc.

I know what the route is because there are a series of 5-7 pre-set north atlantic tracks all taking the planes way further north than a straight line would suggest they take.
in fact if we had a flat earth and the crews flew direct then it would avoid the jetstream altogether. So why are these planes all taking this more northerly route even though it sometimes clashes with the westerlies?

Jroa, has anyone seen a flat earth map??

Thanks and again cant wait for the reply.

T

Ghost of V

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2014, 04:46:47 PM »
Jroa, has anyone seen a flat earth map??

Here's a rudimentary map of the Flat Earth as we know it, with some basic FE elements thrown in (sun, wall, etc).


Rama Set

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2014, 04:55:49 PM »
Jroa, has anyone seen a flat earth map??

Here's a rudimentary map of the Flat Earth as we know it, with some basic FE elements thrown in (sun, wall, etc).



There is no accurate FE map, so take any routes plotted on one with a generous helping of salt.

Ghost of V

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2014, 04:59:22 PM »
There is no accurate FE map, so take any routes plotted on one with a generous helping of salt.

This is about as accurate as you're going to get, unless you have a better one.

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2014, 05:30:54 PM »
Excellent Map,
I will take it with a dumper truck of salt, however can I assume the countries are fundamentally in the correct position?

If so, Can you explain why the most southern commercial airline route operated by Aerolineas Argentinas from Auckland to Buenos Aires doesn't carry enough fuel to even make it half way across your map, yet, it makes the flight quite happily without breaking any international fuel policies? Or crashing.

The distance between the two airports (in my spherical world) is 6436 miles, great circle. Your map would make that same straight line roughly 20,000miles give or take 5000miles.
This would mean (you know what this would mean), that old Aerolineas Argentinas would be losing a few too many planes regularly.

And yes an Azimuthal equidistant map would be a better option than the one you have posted. Antarctica would be more believable for one. Still it doesn't help your cause.

T

Rama Set

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2014, 05:33:27 PM »
There is no accurate FE map, so take any routes plotted on one with a generous helping of salt.

This is about as accurate as you're going to get, unless you have a better one.

Its an important caveat to point out.  A lot of people come here expecting to base arguments off an accurate map, but that is a pointless line of thinking.

Ghost of V

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2014, 06:14:18 PM »
And yes an Azimuthal equidistant map would be a better option than the one you have posted.



Satisfied?

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2014, 06:46:10 PM »
Always satisfied,

Quite a long way their, NZ to south america? Where are all the planes crashing?
Are these debates boring when we don't say anything that's refutable?

Whats the distance from one side of the disk to the other?
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was  45,317km.
Bit shorter than your map suggests.
Arent you supposed to answer a question with a question? that way you lose less?
T

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2014, 07:20:40 PM »
Always satisfied,

Quite a long way their, NZ to south america? Where are all the planes crashing?
Are these debates boring when we don't say anything that's refutable?

Whats the distance from one side of the disk to the other?
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was  45,317km.
Bit shorter than your map suggests.
Arent you supposed to answer a question with a question? that way you lose less?
T

It's worth noting that most of us acknowledge the spatial distortion in the southern hemidisc, myself included.  I often refer to the admittedly inaccurate monopole map as assuming that the earth is flat in the same way that a sheet of paper is flat.  It isn't.  I suspect that the earth is infinite plane in a closed loop, which is difficult to render as a map.

These debates aren't boring, I'm always happy to see new interested faces.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2014, 08:00:54 PM »
Arent you supposed to answer a question with a question? that way you lose less?
We don't care about "winning" or "losing". What we care about is truth.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2014, 08:47:27 PM »
Ah yes, that well known half of the world, the southern hemidisc.......

Ok, so assuming no map can be accurately drawn of your world, as none of you are cartographers, and you don't care about winning or losing.

Could you explain to me how the Coriolis effect is supposed to work on a flat earth and please could you explain why the stars in the sky are so different from different parts of each hemidisc?
Aren't we all looking up at the same sky?

Also I'm off to bed, I will ponder long and hard on these replies and come back to you tomorrow with some more easily disproved questions for the flat earthests

Peace
T

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2014, 08:53:32 PM »
The Coriolis effect, at least as far as wind currents are concerned, is most likely caused by celestial gears, the same mechanism that leads to stars rotating in opposite directions across the hemidiscs.

Small-scale liquid motion, which is what most people refer to when they think of the Coriolis effect (my toilet flushes in the opposite direction than it would in Australia!) is demonstrably false. I've flushed quite a few toilets in Australia and they don't look much different from those on the northern hemiplane, except they occasionally have spiders in them. The lovely people at Snopes have done a good job debunking that myth.

Also: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html

As for the large-scale Coriolis effect affecting rivers, they are most likely gradually put in motion by the wind currents.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 08:56:09 PM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #16 on: April 01, 2014, 08:54:20 PM »
This would mean (you know what this would mean), that old Aerolineas Argentinas would be losing a few too many planes regularly.

Malaysia, Argentina, it's pretty much the same thing really.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #17 on: April 01, 2014, 10:23:47 PM »
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was  45,317km.

That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not?  Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too? 

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2014, 10:35:57 PM »
Fuel is more efficient than people think. The Conspiracy control how efficient people think fuel is. So the planes are not needlessly wasting fuel.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2014, 10:46:12 PM »
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was  45,317km.

That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not?  Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too?

Nice catch, jroa.  Spherical earth's circumference is 40,075 km. 

I thought perhaps this would be a matter of mixing up units, but according to this link the 45k km figure seems to be the accepted value.  Interesting.

Edit: yes, I'm sure that's with all the curvy bits straightened out.  But it's still interesting.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 10:49:39 PM by Tintagel »