Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Airline flight data - summary.
« on: August 11, 2017, 09:12:47 PM »
We are now at the point where Tom Bishop has only one remaining way to dispute the data I've provided that PROVES that there cannot possibly be a workable Flat Earth map.

He now claims that neither the airlines, nor their pilots, nor the airplane manufacturers are aware that their planes are actually flying at twice the speed of sound rather than the more mundane 0.8 of the speed of sound that they claim.   Mysteriously, these engines that are designed to work in the subsonic realms are actually producing about four times the thrust they are believed to produce (double the speed - quadruple the drag!) and consuming fuel at about a third the miles-per-gallon number they were designed to achieve.

This is an impressive denial of reality.

So Flat Earthers - do you still believe in Tom's unassailable logic?

I'm interested to hear since not one of you has chimed in to help him.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2473
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2017, 10:16:26 PM »
He now claims that neither the airlines, nor their pilots, nor the airplane manufacturers are aware that their planes are actually flying at twice the speed of sound.

That is not what was claimed at all.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2017, 10:49:19 PM »
He now claims that neither the airlines, nor their pilots, nor the airplane manufacturers are aware that their planes are actually flying at twice the speed of sound.

That is not what was claimed at all.

What you claimed is that no one knows the distance between points on earth. 
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

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

Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2017, 10:52:07 PM »
He now claims that neither the airlines, nor their pilots, nor the airplane manufacturers are aware that their planes are actually flying at twice the speed of sound.

That is not what was claimed at all.

What you claimed is that no one knows the distance between points on earth.

I know one claim was "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."
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 Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2017, 12:08:32 AM »
I just had an idea, but I don't know if it's feasible, since I'm not that much of a math ace.

Instead of using distances Tom won't believe anyway, why don't we find the limit of at which distances a FE would not be possible anymore? I don't know if it's comprehendable, but there must be a border where for certain distances, a Flat Earth would just barely be possible. Then we can calculate how fast an airplane would have to travel to be on time with the given flight times and distances, and see if that's realistic.

I don't know if that makes sense, but it's what was going through my head ???

E: Basically we give them as much benefit of the doubt as possible with the distances until a FE becomes possible, then we see how fast a plane would have to fly to be on time (since we know how long any given flight would take). We could even let Tom estimate the distances and see how close to Mach 10 planes would apparently get without noticing.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 12:14:43 AM by Mock »

Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2017, 12:23:25 AM »
I just had an idea, but I don't know if it's feasible, since I'm not that much of a math ace.

Instead of using distances Tom won't believe anyway, why don't we find the limit of at which distances a FE would not be possible anymore? I don't know if it's comprehendable, but there must be a border where for certain distances, a Flat Earth would just barely be possible. Then we can calculate how fast an airplane would have to travel to be on time with the given flight times and distances, and see if that's realistic.

I don't know if that makes sense, but it's what was going through my head ???

E: Basically we give them as much benefit of the doubt as possible with the distances until a FE becomes possible, then we see how fast a plane would have to fly to be on time (since we know how long any given flight would take). We could even let Tom estimate the distances and see how close to Mach 10 planes would apparently get without noticing.
This won't work for the simple fact Tom claims (in effect) that we can't know the true distance between any two points unless we've personally walked the distance with a measure of some kind. That's why he said we don't know the distance from New York to Paris.
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 Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2017, 12:56:37 AM »
Quote
This won't work for the simple fact Tom claims (in effect) that we can't know the true distance between any two points unless we've personally walked the distance with a measure of some kind. That's why he said we don't know the distance from New York to Paris.
Yeah, I got that. My proposed method is:

1. Find any reasonable distances between the four places used in the proof that would work for a Flat Earth.
2. Then calculate the speed at which planes would have to go to travel those distances and be on schedule.
3. See which ones are way too fast, which ones are way too slow and adjust your distances - again so that a FE is possible.
4. Repeat 2 and 3 multiple times.

I think that at some point, we will have reached some kind of equilibrium, where the values for the distances are as accurate as they can get, assuming the cities they connect are located on a Flat Earth. If the times, velocities and distances match up, then we have proof that a Flat Earth is possible. If they don't, we'll have proof it isn't.

I hope I was able to formulate it a bit better this time :)

EDIT: Could someone please just tell me real quick if it will work? I really want to go to sleep right now, it's 3:06 AM
« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 01:13:47 AM by Mock »

Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2017, 01:27:39 AM »
Quote
This won't work for the simple fact Tom claims (in effect) that we can't know the true distance between any two points unless we've personally walked the distance with a measure of some kind. That's why he said we don't know the distance from New York to Paris.
Yeah, I got that. My proposed method is:

1. Find any reasonable distances between the four places used in the proof that would work for a Flat Earth.
2. Then calculate the speed at which planes would have to go to travel those distances and be on schedule.
3. See which ones are way too fast, which ones are way too slow and adjust your distances - again so that a FE is possible.
4. Repeat 2 and 3 multiple times.

I think that at some point, we will have reached some kind of equilibrium, where the values for the distances are as accurate as they can get, assuming the cities they connect are located on a Flat Earth. If the times, velocities and distances match up, then we have proof that a Flat Earth is possible. If they don't, we'll have proof it isn't.

I hope I was able to formulate it a bit better this time :)

EDIT: Could someone please just tell me real quick if it will work? I really want to go to sleep right now, it's 3:06 AM
If you keep the ratios between them the same you will never have the angles work. You would need to drastically adjust the ratios of the distances in order to be able to create a flat pair of triangles that would be able to work in the way the picture says they should.
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 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2017, 01:51:40 AM »
He now claims that neither the airlines, nor their pilots, nor the airplane manufacturers are aware that their planes are actually flying at twice the speed of sound.

That is not what was claimed at all.

Not directly - but you've been saying that your remaining doubt as to my method is that you thought that test pilots would fly the plane between two places (whose distance you believe are different than they believe them to be) and measure the time it takes.   Since aircraft would only be able to cover the distances they need to to cross the vastness of the flat earth oceans if they could fly at twice the speed of sound.

So - your doubt only carries meaning if you think that the airlines (etc) are unaware of how fast their planes fly.

SIMPLE QUESTION:

   Are you now saying that the airlines and their manufacturers actually DO know how fast their planes fly?

   Yes or no.


Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2017, 10:47:21 AM »
Quote
This won't work for the simple fact Tom claims (in effect) that we can't know the true distance between any two points unless we've personally walked the distance with a measure of some kind. That's why he said we don't know the distance from New York to Paris.
Yeah, I got that. My proposed method is:

1. Find any reasonable distances between the four places used in the proof that would work for a Flat Earth.
2. Then calculate the speed at which planes would have to go to travel those distances and be on schedule.
3. See which ones are way too fast, which ones are way too slow and adjust your distances - again so that a FE is possible.
4. Repeat 2 and 3 multiple times.

I think that at some point, we will have reached some kind of equilibrium, where the values for the distances are as accurate as they can get, assuming the cities they connect are located on a Flat Earth. If the times, velocities and distances match up, then we have proof that a Flat Earth is possible. If they don't, we'll have proof it isn't.

I hope I was able to formulate it a bit better this time :)

EDIT: Could someone please just tell me real quick if it will work? I really want to go to sleep right now, it's 3:06 AM
If you keep the ratios between them the same you will never have the angles work. You would need to drastically adjust the ratios of the distances in order to be able to create a flat pair of triangles that would be able to work in the way the picture says they should.

I made a post about this :) Could you explain over there what you mean by keeping the ratios the same?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 09:26:13 PM by Mock »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2017, 05:36:44 PM »
He now claims that neither the airlines, nor their pilots, nor the airplane manufacturers are aware that their planes are actually flying at twice the speed of sound.

That is not what was claimed at all.

Not directly - but you've been saying that your remaining doubt as to my method is that you thought that test pilots would fly the plane between two places (whose distance you believe are different than they believe them to be) and measure the time it takes.   Since aircraft would only be able to cover the distances they need to to cross the vastness of the flat earth oceans if they could fly at twice the speed of sound.

So - your doubt only carries meaning if you think that the airlines (etc) are unaware of how fast their planes fly.

SIMPLE QUESTION:

   Are you now saying that the airlines and their manufacturers actually DO know how fast their planes fly?

   Yes or no.

Tom could name his own price working for Boeing and showing them how far off they are on test flight numbers.
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

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

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2017, 06:09:38 PM »
He now claims that neither the airlines, nor their pilots, nor the airplane manufacturers are aware that their planes are actually flying at twice the speed of sound.

That is not what was claimed at all.

Not directly - but you've been saying that your remaining doubt as to my method is that you thought that test pilots would fly the plane between two places (whose distance you believe are different than they believe them to be) and measure the time it takes.   Since aircraft would only be able to cover the distances they need to to cross the vastness of the flat earth oceans if they could fly at twice the speed of sound.

So - your doubt only carries meaning if you think that the airlines (etc) are unaware of how fast their planes fly.

SIMPLE QUESTION:

   Are you now saying that the airlines and their manufacturers actually DO know how fast their planes fly?

   Yes or no.

Tom could name his own price working for Boeing and showing them how far off they are on test flight numbers.

Yeah - you could just see it:  "Hey guys - I know you have no real idea how fast your planes fly - but I think they are going at Mach 2!"...yeah - I can see holding down that job for about as long as it takes the HR department to draw up the layoff notice!

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2017, 06:20:24 PM »
He now claims that neither the airlines, nor their pilots, nor the airplane manufacturers are aware that their planes are actually flying at twice the speed of sound.

That is not what was claimed at all.

Not directly - but you've been saying that your remaining doubt as to my method is that you thought that test pilots would fly the plane between two places (whose distance you believe are different than they believe them to be) and measure the time it takes.   Since aircraft would only be able to cover the distances they need to to cross the vastness of the flat earth oceans if they could fly at twice the speed of sound.

So - your doubt only carries meaning if you think that the airlines (etc) are unaware of how fast their planes fly.

SIMPLE QUESTION:

   Are you now saying that the airlines and their manufacturers actually DO know how fast their planes fly?

   Yes or no.

Tom could name his own price working for Boeing and showing them how far off they are on test flight numbers.

Yeah - you could just see it:  "Hey guys - I know you have no real idea how fast your planes fly - but I think they are going at Mach 2!"...yeah - I can see holding down that job for about as long as it takes the HR department to draw up the layoff notice!


Maybe the methodology was too complicated.   Maybe we should allow that any airliner cruises at .99999 mach (of course they don't) and plot distances using a constant rather than a variable.  If Quantas takes 14 hours to fly point to point then it's x miles if we can agree on a value for .99999 mach.  The speed of sound varies based on altitude (air density) and temperature.  Much like air traffic in the flight levels uses an altimeter(barameter) setting of 29.92 so everyone is on the same page in an area, surely we can agree on an MPH of KPH constant.

Is this too complicated?    My goal here is not to make Tom Bishop look sillier than he already does but to have a factual set of threads that new comers can be pointed to.



The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

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