Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #120 on: August 12, 2017, 12:27:28 AM »
One question.....Just answer in miles, please.:-)
How wide is the  (diameter from ice ring to ice ring inner part facing ocean) on the "Unipolar Model" Flat Earth Map ?
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #121 on: August 12, 2017, 12:31:08 AM »
I must have just gotten lucky and got a good one. It works OK all the time for me.
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #122 on: August 12, 2017, 12:36:21 AM »
On that note, would any of these methods suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?
No, it uses 2 known locations, and one measured distance between them. The known locations are called that to differentiate them from the following calculated points. They are 'known' because they are two points that are identified to measure the distance between them. Every other point isn't known until it's calculated using the ASA triangle method. They don't pick points on a coordinate grid, they pick two points to use (these are located within predefined flat areas) physically measure the distance between them (as mentioned, prior to the 50's they used rods of precisely known lengths) then use a theodolite to find an angle from each known point and calculate the distance to the next point. They proceed there and expand the triangle grid outwards using ASA from each new point.

One question.....Just answer in miles, please.:-)
How wide is the  (diameter from ice ring to ice ring inner part facing ocean) on the "Unipolar Model" Flat Earth Map ?
He's mentioned elsewhere he doesn't know, and can't say if anyone has ever posited the number.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #123 on: August 12, 2017, 01:00:32 AM »
I have also used my my GPS on trains (TRE and DART) .
It also showed me exactly where I was (stations, cross streets, etc.) and kept a running report of speed.
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #124 on: August 12, 2017, 01:08:11 AM »
On that note, would any of these methods suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?
No, it uses 2 known locations, and one measured distance between them. The known locations are called that to differentiate them from the following calculated points. They are 'known' because they are two points that are identified to measure the distance between them. Every other point isn't known until it's calculated using the ASA triangle method. They don't pick points on a coordinate grid, they pick two points to use (these are located within predefined flat areas) physically measure the distance between them (as mentioned, prior to the 50's they used rods of precisely known lengths) then use a theodolite to find an angle from each known point and calculate the distance to the next point. They proceed there and expand the triangle grid outwards using ASA from each new point.

One question.....Just answer in miles, please.:-)
How wide is the  (diameter from ice ring to ice ring inner part facing ocean) on the "Unipolar Model" Flat Earth Map ?
He's mentioned elsewhere he doesn't know, and can't say if anyone has ever posited the number.
But Tom is supposed to be the flat earth authority ?.
If he doesn't know, who does ?
I'm just guessing ???. The diameter is 25,000 miles ??? The circumference of the ice wall is 78,000 miles. ???
How many NASA guards ???)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 01:15:04 AM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #125 on: August 12, 2017, 02:04:01 AM »
Quote
Quote
Quote
One question.....Just answer in miles, please.:-)
How wide is the  (diameter from ice ring to ice ring inner part facing ocean) on the "Unipolar Model" Flat Earth Map ?
He's mentioned elsewhere he doesn't know, and can't say if anyone has ever posited the number.
But Tom is supposed to be the flat earth authority ?.
If he doesn't know, who does ?
I'm just guessing ???. The diameter is 25,000 miles ??? The circumference of the ice wall is 78,000 miles. ???
How many NASA guards ???)

Tom definitely claims that he has no idea what the map of the flat earth is - or how large it is.

This is a clever effort to deflect our previous efforts to complain about how far planes have to fly to get from A to B.

OK - but we're smarter than that.   So now, we have a proof that the Earth isn't flat that works REGARDLESS of how you lay out the map - OR how large or small you make it.   It's a subtle proof - but it's rock solid.

Hooray!  No longer do we have to care what Tom Bishop does or doesn't know about the map.   The one fact he DOES cling to is that it's flat.   Well, now we have a solid proof that even that simple fact cannot possibly be true.

So - in order to deflect this - he must somehow throw doubt on our distance measurements.

It would be simple enough to simply claim that the airlines have the distances incorrect...but I foresaw this complaint and in the first post to this thread I demonstrated that these distances are 100% consistent with the flight times posted by the airlines and the cruise speed of the aircraft they use.

So if the distances are wrong (which Tom **DESPERATELY** need to to be true) then EITHER the flight times are wrong - or the speeds of the aircraft are wrong.

OK - but the flight times have been experienced by MILLIONS of people - and if they were wildly incorrect, we'd all know for 100% sure...no conspiracy can be  as large as the entire flying public of the world.

So his ONLY remaining straw to clutch at - his lifeline - is that the speeds that are claimed for these aircraft are wildly incorrect.

BUT - the coup-de-grace is this:  If the speed for the 747 is wildly different than the manufacturers (pilots, control towers, airlines) claim - then IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!   If all of the 747's are 50% faster - then all of the distances we have are incorrect by the same ratio.   AND THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE INTERNAL ANGLES OF THE QUADRILATERALS DON'T ADD UP.

Yes, we've just pulled the last remaining plank from beneath Mr Bishops' feet.   He has literally nowhere else to go.   The argument is rock-solid.

It's over.

The Earth is ROUND.   (You probably knew that already).

He may flim-flam about it for a bit longer - but I have another knockout blow coming soon...check out my new thread.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #126 on: August 12, 2017, 07:18:05 PM »
My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
Really? Because mine is pretty spot on within 1 MPH usually. As long as I'm not changing speeds faster than it's refresh rate. It also does a pretty damn good job at giving arrival times, which means it needs to be fairly accurate for speed, distance, and current location.

The reason for your 1 MPH discrepancy is because you are assuming that your wheels are round.  Change your calculations from circumference to length, and you will be spot on.  This proves our flat wheel theory.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #127 on: August 13, 2017, 01:57:25 PM »
My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
Really? Because mine is pretty spot on within 1 MPH usually. As long as I'm not changing speeds faster than it's refresh rate. It also does a pretty damn good job at giving arrival times, which means it needs to be fairly accurate for speed, distance, and current location.

The reason for your 1 MPH discrepancy is because you are assuming that your wheels are round.  Change your calculations from circumference to length, and you will be spot on.  This proves our flat wheel theory.

Car speedometers are NOT ACCURATE.  They are DESIGNED to be inaccurate!  Because car companies don't want to be sued if you get a speeding ticket, but claim that the speedometer said you were within the speed limit, they deliberately make them report a slightly higher speed than the car is really moving.   The precise amounts of this deliberate error are not widely reported by car companies...but evidence is that the error is usually around 2.5%.

Other sources of speedometer error are that your tire pressures are never 100% correct (which slightly reduces or increases the radius) - that people put "skinny tires" on the car to make it lower to the ground - that the speedometer feed typically comes from just one wheel - and when you got around a curve, the outside wheels are rotating faster than the inner wheels.  Other cars take a feed from the drive shaft and are producing a compromise speed between the drive wheels.

So don't rely on the speedometer (or the odometer) to be precise.

GPS is also not precise - a modern GPS unit is accurate only to about 10 feet and older ones are worse.  Also, on cloudy days or when it's raining heavily, or if you're under heavy tree cover after it's been raining - the GPS may only be able to pick up three satellites rather than the usual four...and that makes increases the error to as much as 100 feet.

But - a positional error will average out over time - to the SPEEDS reported by GPS can be very accurate indeed.

There is also an issue that GPS-calculated speeds in units designed for cars may have the same deliberately overly-high speeds that your speedometer has because the manufacturers don't want people complaining about the mis-match between the GPS speed and the speedometer speed.

So - speeds in cars are untrustworthy.

Distances in cars are better - the odometer should be much more accurate - it's illegal for them to be made to be deliberately inaccurate.  So providing you don't do something weird like taking more right turns than left (UPS delivery drivers do this!) or putting skinny tires onto the car - then odometer readings are good providing you have the right tire pressures.

But I don't see what this brings to the table here.    It really doesn't matter what car speedometers read - it doesn't change any of the answers here.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #128 on: August 13, 2017, 03:01:22 PM »
My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
Really? Because mine is pretty spot on within 1 MPH usually. As long as I'm not changing speeds faster than it's refresh rate. It also does a pretty damn good job at giving arrival times, which means it needs to be fairly accurate for speed, distance, and current location.

The reason for your 1 MPH discrepancy is because you are assuming that your wheels are round.  Change your calculations from circumference to length, and you will be spot on.  This proves our flat wheel theory.

Car speedometers are NOT ACCURATE.  They are DESIGNED to be inaccurate!  Because car companies don't want to be sued if you get a speeding ticket, but claim that the speedometer said you were within the speed limit, they deliberately make them report a slightly higher speed than the car is really moving.   The precise amounts of this deliberate error are not widely reported by car companies...but evidence is that the error is usually around 2.5%.

Other sources of speedometer error are that your tire pressures are never 100% correct (which slightly reduces or increases the radius) - that people put "skinny tires" on the car to make it lower to the ground - that the speedometer feed typically comes from just one wheel - and when you got around a curve, the outside wheels are rotating faster than the inner wheels.  Other cars take a feed from the drive shaft and are producing a compromise speed between the drive wheels.

So don't rely on the speedometer (or the odometer) to be precise.

GPS is also not precise - a modern GPS unit is accurate only to about 10 feet and older ones are worse.  Also, on cloudy days or when it's raining heavily, or if you're under heavy tree cover after it's been raining - the GPS may only be able to pick up three satellites rather than the usual four...and that makes increases the error to as much as 100 feet.

But - a positional error will average out over time - to the SPEEDS reported by GPS can be very accurate indeed.

There is also an issue that GPS-calculated speeds in units designed for cars may have the same deliberately overly-high speeds that your speedometer has because the manufacturers don't want people complaining about the mis-match between the GPS speed and the speedometer speed.

So - speeds in cars are untrustworthy.

Distances in cars are better - the odometer should be much more accurate - it's illegal for them to be made to be deliberately inaccurate.  So providing you don't do something weird like taking more right turns than left (UPS delivery drivers do this!) or putting skinny tires onto the car - then odometer readings are good providing you have the right tire pressures.

But I don't see what this brings to the table here.    It really doesn't matter what car speedometers read - it doesn't change any of the answers here.

3D Greek-
I would have to disagreee agreeably.........LOL....... But as I mentioned previously , I have checked my car's odometer and spedometer and my GPS and found them all to be accurate.
9
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #129 on: August 13, 2017, 03:51:05 PM »
3D Greek-
I would have to disagreee agreeably.........LOL....... But as I mentioned previously , I have checked my car's odometer and spedometer and my GPS and found them all to be accurate.

The ODOMETER is legally required to be reasonably accurate - but the SPEEDOMETER isn't.

Check out:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer#Error

Also, the LEGAL rules in various countries:

European law (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 39) says it's illegal to ship cars with speedometers that read even 0.0000001% low.  They can however read HIGH by up to 10%+4mph!!

It's no accident that BMW speedometers read 2.5% high plus between 2 and 3 mph.

Many "car nut" web sites run on for multiple pages of people trying to figure out how fast they can drive without exceeding the speed limit (but not much below it) by knowing the error built into their car speedometers.

A few years ago, for a while, the Ford Explorer had a software bug that showed the "true" speed on the LCD display while the analog display showed their deliberately "faked" speed. There was a recall to fix it (by making the LCD display have the same deliberate error as the analog display):




Offline Frank

  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #130 on: August 14, 2017, 05:20:47 AM »
If the earth were a globe (convex) we should expect to see more than 180 degrees when the interior angles are added between any three connecting flight routes which create a triangle.

Lets assume that these values on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en are accurate values from flight logs:

Quote
Brisbane   Darwin   2849km   4hr 05min   Qantas
...
Darwin   Perth   2649km   3hr 50min   Qantas
...
Perth   Brisbane   3605km   4hr 10min   Qantas
   

Inputting those figures into an SSS Triangle Theorem Calculator to get the interior angles of the triangle those three sides create:

Angles:
A = 46.6692 °
B = 81.857 °
C = 51.4738 °

Adding up the angles: 46.6692 ° + 81.857 ° + 51.4738 ° = 180 °

Therefore the earth is flat.

-----------

Lets try some international flights for added resolution:

Quote
Sydney   London (LHR)   17174km   23hr 20min   Qantas
...
London (LHR)   Dubai   5493km   7hr 40min   Qantas
...
Dubai   Sydney   12039km   13hr 40min   Qantas

Angles:
A = 7.77844 °
B = 17.2553 °
C = 154.966 °

7.77844 ° + 17.2553 ° + 154.966 ° = 179.99974 °

Therefore the earth is slightly concave.

-----------

Another international flight route:

Quote
Los Angeles   Sydney   12052km   14hr 30min   Qantas
..
Honolulu   Los Angeles   4114km   5hr 10min   Codeshare
..
Honolulu   Sydney   8154km   10hr 0min   Qantas

Angles:
A = 7.60894 °
B = 15.2149 °
C = 157.176 °

7.60894 ° + 15.2149 ° + 157.176 ° = 179.99984 °

Therefore the earth is slightly concave.

Dear Mr. Bishop, please forgive me replying to you. I am new to this group. I just read part of this thread, until I came to your comment about adding up the angles. Please let me correct you: The angles do indeed add up to more then 180°. I am a long haul pilot and also a sailor, and to people like me the mathematical challenge you are trying to tackle is an "everyday problem", so to speak, and one that our students have to solve over and over again in training. I don't know what kind of calculator it is you are refering to, however that calculation can be solved on a piece of paper and a chart. Just by looking at it I can tell right now that the distances and angles match and by no means do disprove that the earth is a globe. In the face of the numbers, however, it would be hard to maintain the opinion that the earth is flat.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 05:36:10 AM by Frank »

Offline Frank

  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #131 on: August 14, 2017, 06:31:23 AM »
uh, and I just read further. It seems to me you, Mr. Bishop, are fixating on the need to prove that distances between points are indeed the distances that people who "believe in a globe" are claiming they are. Your claim that GPS data is based on a globe and therefore cannot be used to prove or disprove groundspeed, distances and other claims made in this thread, is unfortunately not quite correct. Whereas GPS data is indeed based on data derived from the model of a rotational ellipsoid and then corrected for the parts of (round) Earth that don't match the mathematical model with the World Geodatic System 1984 (WGS84), it is not the only way a modern airliner measures it's position and ground speed. As a matter of fact, GPS wouldn't be needed at all (and wasn't as a general rule until the nineties). An Airliner navigates by the use of an inertial reference system, which is self-reliant, if the correct position is inserted before the aircraft starts to move. (By way of design, that reference system would not even work on a flat Earth, especially one that is not rotating.) However, the reference system accumulates errors, and thus the position becomes more inaccurate the longer the aircraft is moving. Old(er) aircraft like the 737-300 generation, 747 classic, DC10 and the likes used solely ground based navigation systems (VOR, DME-DME updating) to correct the "drift" of their inertial reference system (which then was called inertial navigation system). Over oceanic airspace that was not possible, hence there was an increasing drift error the longer the aircraft flew over water (without updating). That was accounted for in the design of the airways, so no aircraft would get too close to another one. Modern airliners update their position also by GPS. So now we have ground based navigaton aids that reflect the actual distances on Earth and that can be used for very accurate ground speed estimation, and GPS, and we find, that there is no difference outside normal tolerances in between the two - neither in position nor in speed measurement. This means, we are using systems that would work on a flat Earth (ground based navigation) and systems that use the round Earth as a model (GPS) and both enable us to navigate very accurately on the real Earth. So, if I read you correctly, this invalidates your claim, that data based on a globe can not be used to prove actual distances on the real Earth (flat or round). Furthermore, any conceivable model of a flat Earth causes distances away from its center to become so large, that far bigger speeds than the actual ones would be necessary to cover them. And by "far bigger" I mean multiples of the speed of sound. However, airliners don't fly that fast. (The problems of supersonic, let alone hypersonic airtravel are rediculously high.) Not even the geatest inaccuracy of an airborne air speed indicator, independent of any navigation system, could explain that impossibility away, because of the sheer velocity that would be required. Air masses don't move that fast either - especially not in one direction and, for the way back, in the other. Which brings me to the problem of weather systems, which cannot be explained by a flat earth eiter, especially one that is not rotating.

Where this may be possible to explain with refering to (for you) more tangible explanations, it seems to be involving a lot of text to write. I would rather like to point out the following:

We, the people who believe the earth is a globe, have a mathematical model of "our" earth. I am working with this model every day, and it works in real life - both, in the air, and on the oceans, to a great precision. Furthermore, weather observation, the physics of gyros, gasses and many, many other easily observabale trades of nature and the world we live in, whatever shape it may have, match that model.

Without disrespect,  that the earth should be flat bears a lot of problems. First and foremost, that, as you claim, no model of a flat earth has been charted that can explain and unify all or even a small percentage of the observations that can easily made by man. As a matter of fact, it stops explaining most of the things beyond "the earth does not look like a ball from where I am standing". While you of course have every right to believe anything you like, I hope I am not being rude by saying, that your "model" of a flat earth is very underdeveloped at the moment. So much so, that you (and/or your fellow believers) have to withdraw into the "fog of uncertainty" very often, where suddenly mismatches between your statements and between your statements and so far undisputed claims (e.g. the speed of sound, accuracy of ground speed measurment and so on) are being "explained away" to make other things match - and, as a last resort, the sources of those so far undisputed claims are being brought into disrepute by implying (or openly writing), they are part of a conspiracy. Thus, to a fictive observer without any further knowledge of the earth, who is venturing past "The Earth Looks Flat From My Position", your flat Earth bears more questions than answers, and that is without claiming, that any other model is more correct - wouldn't you agree?

So, for practical purposes, your flat Earth model does not work, starting from the absence of the actual "model", which makes, it seems, - and please correct me if I am wrong - this whole "Flat Earth Debate" obsolete.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 08:29:06 AM by Frank »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #132 on: August 14, 2017, 01:31:49 PM »
If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #133 on: August 14, 2017, 01:50:38 PM »
If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.
Just, correct me if I'm wrong here. What you appear to be implying is that it his information doesn't matter because it relies on Lat/Long, which only works on RE. But, it works. Consistently. All over. So....what? FE doesn't even have something to do that with, seeing as it doesn't have a working map. For a given coordinate system to work (such as Lat/Long) doesn't it mean the figure has to be the shape the coordinate system assumes it is in order for it to work at all? I can't take a sphere, unfold and stretch it out into a flat plane, and still have all of the coordinates match up properly. Hell, I'll be left with areas that don't have coordinates at all. Please explain. You keep objecting to these things because they "Use a RE coordinate system" but please explain how a system can be accurate for a shape it isn't designed for.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #134 on: August 14, 2017, 02:12:33 PM »
If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.
All over. So....what? FE doesn't even have something to do that with, seeing as it doesn't have a working map. For a given coordinate system to work (such as Lat/Long) doesn't it mean the figure has to be the shape the coordinate system assumes it is in order for it to work at all? I can't take a sphere, unfold and stretch it out into a flat plane, and still have all of the coordinates match up properly. Hell, I'll be left with areas that don't have coordinates at all. Please explain. You keep objecting to these things because they "Use a RE coordinate system" but please explain how a system can be accurate for a shape it isn't designed for.

Accuracy is a matter that is in contention. Please refer to my previous post about GPS distances not being valid. The GPS systems carried by athletes gave different distances when compared to the USATF certified track distances which were measured with a wheeled device.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 02:17:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #135 on: August 14, 2017, 02:14:37 PM »
If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.


Here is some light reading Tom

zeal·ot
ˈzelət/Submit
noun
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
synonyms:   fanatic, enthusiast, extremist, radical, young Turk, diehard, true believer, activist, militant; More

fa·nat·ic
fəˈnadik/Submit
noun
noun: fanatic; plural noun: fanatics
1.
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.
synonyms:   zealot, extremist, militant, dogmatist, devotee, adherent; More
informal
a person with an obsessive interest in and enthusiasm for something, especially an activity.


Sound familiar?
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #136 on: August 14, 2017, 02:18:18 PM »
If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.
All over. So....what? FE doesn't even have something to do that with, seeing as it doesn't have a working map. For a given coordinate system to work (such as Lat/Long) doesn't it mean the figure has to be the shape the coordinate system assumes it is in order for it to work at all? I can't take a sphere, unfold and stretch it out into a flat plane, and still have all of the coordinates match up properly. Hell, I'll be left with areas that don't have coordinates at all. Please explain. You keep objecting to these things because they "Use a RE coordinate system" but please explain how a system can be accurate for a shape it isn't designed for.

Accuracy is a matter that is is contention. Please refer to my previous post about GPS distances not being valid. The GPS systems carried by athletes gave different distances when compared to the USATF certified track distances which were measured with a wheeled device.

As Frank pointed out, there is no need for GPS, it just makes the system more accurate. Totally invalidates your argument. Please address his comments on ground speed necessary to travel the southern hemisphere distances. 

Why are you fighting this?  You should have embraced this thread as a way to map a flat Earth.    You keep saying there are no resources to map FE but you have been handed methodology to do just that.




The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #137 on: August 14, 2017, 02:21:43 PM »
As Frank pointed out, there is no need for GPS, it just makes the system more accurate. Totally invalidates your argument. Please address his comments on ground speed necessary to travel the southern hemisphere distances. 

Why are you fighting this?  You should have embraced this thread as a way to map a flat Earth.    You keep saying there are no resources to map FE but you have been handed methodology to do just that.

As commented, if those other systems use Latitude and Longitude in any way, that makes them inaccurate too. Or, are you arguing that an airplane can get to a very distant location without knowing the coordinates of itself or its destination?

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #138 on: August 14, 2017, 02:34:41 PM »
If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.
All over. So....what? FE doesn't even have something to do that with, seeing as it doesn't have a working map. For a given coordinate system to work (such as Lat/Long) doesn't it mean the figure has to be the shape the coordinate system assumes it is in order for it to work at all? I can't take a sphere, unfold and stretch it out into a flat plane, and still have all of the coordinates match up properly. Hell, I'll be left with areas that don't have coordinates at all. Please explain. You keep objecting to these things because they "Use a RE coordinate system" but please explain how a system can be accurate for a shape it isn't designed for.

Accuracy is a matter that is in contention. Please refer to my previous post about GPS distances not being valid. The GPS systems carried by athletes gave different distances when compared to the USATF certified track distances which were measured with a wheeled device.
Did you read your own article? The higher end GPS devices are extremely accurate according to that article. Which can almost be guaranteed to be what's in use in a plane. The one's specifically being called out as inaccurate are the consumer grade devices because of the more limited software, less frequent checking in, and just generally less attention to detail. Going by that article, accuracy cannot be what is under contention unless you are also postulating that aircraft are using consumer/recreational grade GPS units and software.

As Frank pointed out, there is no need for GPS, it just makes the system more accurate. Totally invalidates your argument. Please address his comments on ground speed necessary to travel the southern hemisphere distances. 

Why are you fighting this?  You should have embraced this thread as a way to map a flat Earth.    You keep saying there are no resources to map FE but you have been handed methodology to do just that.

As commented, if those other systems use Latitude and Longitude in any way, that makes them inaccurate too. Or, are you arguing that an airplane can get to a very distant location without knowing the coordinates of itself or its destination?
How is Lat/Long inaccurate?
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #139 on: August 14, 2017, 02:37:40 PM »
Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280



Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 02:40:39 PM by frodo467 »