The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 11, 2020, 03:00:24 AM

Title: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 11, 2020, 03:00:24 AM
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: totallackey on February 11, 2020, 01:06:09 PM
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.
This has been addressed numerous times.

These airlines offer such flights for purchase.

The thing is, if you buy such a ticket, it is:

A) a NON-REFUNDABLE PURCHASE; and,
B) You end up typically moved to a different flight with a stop over (one that conveniently matches the Azimuthal Equidistant Map).

For those rare non-stop flights that do occur, it would not be surprising to find that aerial refueling is taking place, something of which the passengers would be totally unaware.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: AATW on February 11, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
lackey, why do you keep posting stuff without providing any evidence?
What evidence do you have that people who book these flights are "typically" moved to a flight with a stop over or that any mid-air refueling is taking place?

The non-stop flight from Chile to Melbourne was launched in 2017

https://www.latam.com/en_uk/press-room/releases/LATAM_Airlines_to_launch_its_longest_non-stop_flight_ever_between_Santiago_and_Melbourne/
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Tumeni on February 11, 2020, 02:46:50 PM
For those rare non-stop flights that do occur, it would not be surprising to find that aerial refueling is taking place, something of which the passengers would be totally unaware.

How would you manage this without passengers being aware of it? How do you get a refueling tanker within appropriate distance without passengers seeing, feeling or hearing it?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: totallackey on February 11, 2020, 04:17:22 PM
lackey, why do you keep posting stuff without providing any evidence?
I'm not.
What evidence do you have that people who book these flights are "typically" moved to a flight with a stop over
The lack of these actual non-stop flights taking place and yet, the people end up where they want to end up strongly suggests they are getting there some how.
... or that any mid-air refueling is taking place?
I specifically wrote, "...it would not be surprising to find that mid-air refueling is taking place."

That statement makes no immediate claims, but instead indicates more research is required.
The non-stop flight from Chile to Melbourne was launched in 2017

https://www.latam.com/en_uk/press-room/releases/LATAM_Airlines_to_launch_its_longest_non-stop_flight_ever_between_Santiago_and_Melbourne/
Okay.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 11, 2020, 04:36:18 PM
"The lack of these actual non-stop-stop flights taking place and yet, the people end up where they want to end up strongly suggests they are getting there some how."

What about the ones that actually happen? I mean you're focusing on ones that do stop overs but even if most do, there's still going to be some that do the full trip with no stops. Even if you say it's rare that doesn't suddenly mean it doesn't happen. to use an example I've used before, if there's a small hole on a wall and i throw a handful of marbles at the hole, even if most of them don't go into it and one happens to get in, that doesn't mean the hole is non existent.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: rpt on February 11, 2020, 04:41:00 PM
The lack of these actual non-stop-stop flights taking place
Where's your evidence that any of these flights are not happening?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: totallackey on February 11, 2020, 04:41:56 PM
"The lack of these actual non-stop-stop flights taking place and yet, the people end up where they want to end up strongly suggests they are getting there some how."

What about the ones that actually happen? I mean you're focusing on ones that do stop overs but even if most do, there's still going to be some that do the full trip with no stops. Even if you say it's rare that doesn't suddenly mean it doesn't happen. to use an example I've used before, if there's a small hole on a wall and i throw a handful of marbles at the hole, even if most of them don't go into it and one happens to get in, that doesn't mean the hole is non existent.
I haven't denied some of these flights have happened.

I am simply stating there are possibilities available for these flights to have taken place, such as midair refueling.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: totallackey on February 11, 2020, 04:42:56 PM
The lack of these actual non-stop-stop flights taking place
Where's your evidence that any of these flights are not happening?
Did I write that?

Or, you are claiming none of these non-stop flights are cancelled?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 11, 2020, 04:44:15 PM
it would be damn impressive to keep that a secret... Since the commercial pilots would know it was happening, the engineers who make the planes would know it was happening... Ordinary people keeping it all under wraps out of the goodness of their hearts?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: totallackey on February 11, 2020, 04:46:03 PM
it would be damn impressive to keep that a secret... Since the commercial pilots would know it was happening, the engineers who make the planes would know it was happening... Ordinary people keeping it all under wraps out of the goodness of their hearts?
What reason would they have to run and tell?

Do you see pilots running around telling their day-to-day job stories?

Do you see a lot of pilots interviewed about flights?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: TomInAustin on February 11, 2020, 04:47:41 PM


This has been addressed numerous times.

And debunked as many times.

Quote

These airlines offer such flights for purchase.

The thing is, if you buy such a ticket, it is:

A) a NON-REFUNDABLE PURCHASE; and,
B) You end up typically moved to a different flight with a stop over (one that conveniently matches the Azimuthal Equidistant Map).


Proof?



Quote
For those rare non-stop flights that do occur, it would not be surprising to find that aerial refueling is taking place, something of which the passengers would be totally unaware.


OMG, aerial refueling in an airliner, this is a new low. 
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 11, 2020, 04:49:43 PM
it would be damn impressive to keep that a secret... Since the commercial pilots would know it was happening, the engineers who make the planes would know it was happening... Ordinary people keeping it all under wraps out of the goodness of their hearts?
What reason would they have to run and tell?

Do you see pilots running around telling their day-to-day job stories?

Do you see a lot of pilots interviewed about flights?
Because it would suggest the flight is going further and that it's being covered up, since the flight plans and routes are shown publicly and in real time on the flight to the passengers.

yes and yes. There's tons of pilots talking about their jobs, why wouldn't they? It's a cool and interesting job.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 11, 2020, 04:54:49 PM
I haven't denied some of these flights have happened.
I am simply stating there are possibilities available for these flights to have taken place, such as midair refueling.

So, I am simply stating that the flights are flying these routes are covering the distances reported with just the fuel needed onboard (with a safety reserve of course)!  Now who will be able to provide evidence to support our claims?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 11, 2020, 05:22:08 PM
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.





The predicted travel times/distances/paths of the flat earth model shaped like a circle with the north pole in the center not matching up with real observed travel times and distances has been discussed at great length. These should answer all of your questions.

This has been discussed so many times. I was also VERY curious about it. It was my very first post here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9213.0 I got all the responses from a flight time superthread. Here's a link:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0




-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 180 degrees the earth is flat.
-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 179.99984 degrees the earth is slightly concave.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121615#msg121615



-Distances between two cities which are far apart is unknown
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121996#msg121996


-Flight GPS systems are inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441


-GPS systems are based on a round earth therefore will give measurements/distances which support a round earth.
-Aircraft are using instruments which assume round earth coordinates which will support a round earth.
-There is no flat earth map.
-The difference in flight time is based off of flight speed which has yet to be proven.
-The airplane speed and range is based off round systems therefore will give speeds and ranges which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122359#msg122359


-plane speed measurements are unreliable
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122364#msg122364

-there are no flat earth flight programs, systems, GPS etc because the flat earth aircraft navigation fund is nonexistent.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122369#msg122369


-Triangulation as a measurement of distance can be inaccurate because the "known" locations used for triangulation are based on a round earth system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122410#msg122410


-there are almost an infinite number of continental configurations (If a flight disproves flat earth continental configuration 23985729387592873 you then need to test continental configuration 23985729387592874).
-Groundspeed measurement instruments use a round earth coordinate system therefore will give results which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122411#msg122411


-proof is needed that mile measurements on a highway are accurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122423#msg122423

-Google maps is based on a round earth coordinate system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122433#msg122433

-any navigation system based on longitude and latitude is a round earth navigation system (which is most likely used in all navigation systems)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122655#msg122655

-any map, navigation, or measurement system which uses Latitude and Longitude in any way is inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122664#msg122664

-That's not the map of the earth (a variant of there is no map of the earth)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122672#msg122672

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 11, 2020, 05:34:53 PM
WOW  :D

iamcpc, my hat is off to you.

TET
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: juner on February 11, 2020, 06:07:10 PM
WOW  :D

iamcpc, my hat is off to you.

TET

Please refrain from "me too" posts in the upper fora. They don't add anything to the conversation.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 11, 2020, 06:13:48 PM
Many of the links refer to comments by Tom Bishop who is unable to back up his comments with facts or explanations on eg. how GPS works, how to make a map etc.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 11, 2020, 11:20:44 PM
Triangles add up to 180 degrees, always. Maybe you’re thinking some don’t because of curve, but if you bend the legs of a triangle, it’s not a triangle.

A plane ticket would be exorbitantly expensive if planes had to be refueled mid flight. Furthermore, the forces keeping the fueling aircraft up translate to forces pushing the receiving plane down, and this turbulence is not smooth, and you need more power to maintain altitude. You’d notice onboard a very stable and large 747. Look up wake turbulence.

Because some 12+ hour flights in the Southern Hemisphere are nonstop and do make it relatively on time, then your map must account for it, which it currently does not (Any of the maps). If you say “it’s jet streams” then we can talk about it. A globe on the other hand, has no discrepancies and nuances like this one.

If these 747s and a380s, etc. are actually way more capable than we thought and the airline industry knows about it, Do you really think millions of people are really that depraved that they’d keep the lie?

GPS systems do indeed provide calcs based on a round earth Because they orbit the earth.

I read some of the threads and I think y’all take this “prove it” thing too far. For example, I have never actually been to Europe, therefor I don’t know it actually exists. If you showed me pictures of it or products from there, I could say it’s faked by Toms logic. That’s what I’m seeing in some of these threads, which is why I asked “are plane tickets real” because it would seem that Tom (and company?) would say no, these tickets are fake and there’s no proof these flights happen. It’s like, prove that the color red exists... prove we’re not in the matrix...
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 12, 2020, 09:44:23 AM
Triangles add up to 180 degrees, always. Maybe you’re thinking some don’t because of curve, but if you bend the legs of a triangle, it’s not a triangle.

Only if you limit yourself to Euclidean geometry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry)

Quote
The sum of the measures of the angles of any triangle is less than 180° if the geometry is hyperbolic, equal to 180° if the geometry is Euclidean, and greater than 180° if the geometry is elliptic

A triangle is just a polygon with 3 "straight" sides and 3 vertices. A spherical triangle is just a triangle drawn on a spherical surface rather than a flat surface. It's still considered a triangle. You can draw a straight line on a curved surface, think of walking over a hill, you can still walk in a straight line.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Tumeni on February 12, 2020, 11:57:12 AM
I read some of the threads and I think y’all take this “prove it” thing too far. For example, I have never actually been to Europe, therefor I don’t know it actually exists. If you showed me pictures of it ....

I concur. This is observed a lot on YouTube, where globe sceptics routinely respond with "Have you verified this PERSONALLY" or in similar terms, but it's just cherry-picking one thing in life to hang the question on.

If the sceptic truly wants to "question everything" (another line which appears frequently) then they would never get anything done in their day, for they'd never get beyond questioning their breakfast, and anything which preceded it.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 12, 2020, 03:59:28 PM
I read some of the threads and I think y’all take this “prove it” thing too far. For example, I have never actually been to Europe, therefor I don’t know it actually exists. If you showed me pictures of it ....

I concur. This is observed a lot on YouTube, where globe sceptics routinely respond with "Have you verified this PERSONALLY" or in similar terms, but it's just cherry-picking one thing in life to hang the question on.

If the sceptic truly wants to "question everything" (another line which appears frequently) then they would never get anything done in their day, for they'd never get beyond questioning their breakfast, and anything which preceded it.

It definitely happens. I feel like it happens a lot less here than places like the other FE forum where they demanded an uncut 14 hour video documenting the entire southern hemisphere flight.

Even if i did have an uncut 14 hour video he could easily say that it was edited or fake or demand proof that it was real.


Many of the links refer to comments by Tom Bishop who is unable to back up his comments with facts or explanations on eg. how GPS works, how to make a map etc.

If you read through the tread he had provided sources/evidence for many of his claims. Some of the other claims he provided sources/evidence in different threads that i'm too lazy to dig through to find.

I believe there were a few of his claims which didn't have evidence/sources provided.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 13, 2020, 09:43:57 PM
That’s fine, I’m too lazy to fly for 14 hours to prove my point.

What Tom did was flatten out a non Euclidean triangle, and then proved a flat triangle has 180 degrees. In reality, the triangle between 3 cities, if you can call it that, is a non-Euclidean shape, and the sides are not lines but arc lengths with a 3 dimensional vector, so you can’t just plug that into a triangle angle calculator online. You need to find the vectors for each arc at the ends and find the angles that way. I could do that and take a picture of the math, but alas, laziness. I will if you ask.

I think you have the right idea, but it’s not fully explored, iamcpc.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 14, 2020, 04:39:37 PM
That’s fine, I’m too lazy to fly for 14 hours to prove my point.

What Tom did was flatten out a non Euclidean triangle, and then proved a flat triangle has 180 degrees. In reality, the triangle between 3 cities, if you can call it that, is a non-Euclidean shape, and the sides are not lines but arc lengths with a 3 dimensional vector, so you can’t just plug that into a triangle angle calculator online. You need to find the vectors for each arc at the ends and find the angles that way. I could do that and take a picture of the math, but alas, laziness. I will if you ask.

I think you have the right idea, but it’s not fully explored, iamcpc.

As you investigate these you will find that there are many different FE models. A flat disk FE model with a great ice wall and a north pole center is significantly weakened by measured and known flight times, measured and known flight paths, measured and known travel times/paths and measured and known shipping times/paths. Also I believe this specific flat disk model really struggles with the phases of the moon. I am of the opinion than there are FE models which are significantly more accurate.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: TissueOfLies on February 14, 2020, 06:55:43 PM
That’s fine, I’m too lazy to fly for 14 hours to prove my point.

What Tom did was flatten out a non Euclidean triangle, and then proved a flat triangle has 180 degrees. In reality, the triangle between 3 cities, if you can call it that, is a non-Euclidean shape, and the sides are not lines but arc lengths with a 3 dimensional vector, so you can’t just plug that into a triangle angle calculator online. You need to find the vectors for each arc at the ends and find the angles that way. I could do that and take a picture of the math, but alas, laziness. I will if you ask.

I think you have the right idea, but it’s not fully explored, iamcpc.

As you investigate these you will find that there are many different FE models. A flat disk FE model with a great ice wall and a north pole center is significantly weakened by measured and known flight times, measured and known flight paths, measured and known travel times/paths and measured and known shipping times/paths. Also I believe this specific flat disk model really struggles with the phases of the moon. I am of the opinion than there are FE models which are significantly more accurate.
So which FE model is the one we should consider? You mention that there are some that are significantly more accurate, can you tell us about those?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 14, 2020, 07:29:17 PM
Last I checked he believes that the bing map (a globe projection with extreme distortion at the poles) is the true flat map. Standing at the south or North Pole would then make you as wide as the globe so I wouldn’t consider that an accurate flat earth map.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Bikini Polaris on February 14, 2020, 08:22:28 PM
I read some of the threads and I think y’all take this “prove it” thing too far. For example, I have never actually been to Europe, therefor I don’t know it actually exists. If you showed me pictures of it ....

If the sceptic truly wants to "question everything" (another line which appears frequently) then they would never get anything done in their day, for they'd never get beyond questioning their breakfast, and anything which preceded it.

Spot on. Technically FEs aren't "sceptics" but "Pyrrhonists", that is they doubt literally everything and reach a methodological "suspension of judgement". One can see that from the fact that FEs accept different contradictory, and sometimes unprovable, statements at the same time, without questioning them and without sharing values but only few things they believe false. That's the reason the FE community is basically a divided one. In Philosophy being a Pyrrhonist poses many (unresolved) difficulties, not last the problem that if you cannot believe in anything you couldn't even be Pyrrhonist in the first place. So, in general, being Pyrrhonist is not a great achievement, being it a relatively easy and safe, but questionable, play. Back to the plane ticket problem, it extends to a whole running global society where nationally independent businesses run without exploiting the real flat geometry of the planet and losing so much money, because you know, the NASA conspiracy from the sixties..

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 14, 2020, 10:08:39 PM
because you know, the NASA conspiracy from the sixties..

Ya... I think this has had a larger than necessary influence on FErs becoming FErs, but that's anecdotal.


A flat disk FE model with a great ice wall and a north pole center is significantly weakened by measured and known flight times

Significantly weakened… You mean proven incorrect? If there is a single discrepancy with a theory in science, then the theory is wrong. This is why we know general relativity, string theory, etc. are all incorrect because they only work in a certain scale or explain only one part of reality but not another. All the theories for physics have at least one discrepancy, sort of like how all of the maps for a flat earth will always have at least one discrepancy with measuring distances alone. If you fixed the discrepancy I put in the original post with a new map, then I will find a new discrepancy with the new map.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 14, 2020, 11:02:05 PM
Significantly weakened… You mean proven incorrect?

One thing that you have to understand is that PROOF is impossible. To me PROOF means 0% chance of error.
You could say here this picture of the blue sky is PROOF the sky is blue.
But there is a very small chance that there is a flaw with the camera
There is small chance there could be a flaw in the evolution of our optical cortex/retina which makes our brain turn the incorrect color blue.
The photo could be photo shopped
Someone could have dumped a big cloud of blue dye/dust in the sky just before the picture was taken
Sometimes the sky is red and orange.

So it's no PROOF. It's evidence.


If there is a single discrepancy with a theory in science, then the theory is wrong.

Unless you are talking about quantum mechanics then there are different interpretations.

all of the maps for a flat earth will always have at least one discrepancy with measuring distances alone. If you fixed the discrepancy I put in the original post with a new map, then I will find a new discrepancy with the new map.

https://www.bing.com/maps represents the earth as a flat plane and has an interactive scale and I believe is an accurate map which supports the distances and measurements corroborated by measured flight/shipping/travel distances and times and is also supported by modern cartography.

Unfortunately no one from the FE community, except for me,  would ever even CONSIDER accepting a model like this.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Bikini Polaris on February 16, 2020, 02:11:21 PM
Significantly weakened… You mean proven incorrect?

One thing that you have to understand is that PROOF is impossible. To me PROOF means 0% chance of error.
You could say here this picture of the blue sky is PROOF the sky is blue.
But there is a very small chance that there is a flaw with the camera
There is small chance there could be a flaw in the evolution of our optical cortex/retina which makes our brain turn the incorrect color blue.
The photo could be photo shopped
Someone could have dumped a big cloud of blue dye/dust in the sky just before the picture was taken
Sometimes the sky is red and orange.

So it's no PROOF. It's evidence.

At the same time, outside the mathematical world, there do not exist 100% precise statements. The earth is round is just a hugely rough approximation of its shape. The same for a flat earth. The same for train schedules, the same for everything. But often evidence roughly excludes other possibilities, so that the freedom to be in some way is very much limited too.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 17, 2020, 05:33:19 PM
There’s a lot of wiggle room in the science world as far as different theories, etc. but some things are not up for debate. Some examples include things that are practiced everyday: Kirchhoffs’ laws, Newtonian physics, etc. you can debate the nuance, but on a practical level, we have things pretty well figured out. The earth is round is on the same level of general acceptance.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 17, 2020, 05:45:35 PM
There’s a lot of wiggle room in the science world as far as different theories, etc. but some things are not up for debate. Some examples include things that are practiced everyday: Kirchhoffs’ laws, Newtonian physics, etc.

If you believe in literal interpretations of literally dozens and dozens of verses in the bible Newtonian physics are definitely up for debate. As a matter of fact the world we live in went against almost all of Newtonian physics on, what appears to be, a fairly regular basis.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 17, 2020, 06:24:35 PM
On a practiacal basis, Newtonian physics works. It’s like the universal back of the envelope theory for engineers. I’ll put it this way: there is a specific way things work, which we are not sure about at this time. Then there are several ways we can describe the way things work. These descriptions manifest in the form of “laws” or just theories. In the study of thermodynamics for example, there are sometimes dozens of different ways to approximate a result all yielding different predictions. You often times have to specify what equation you use when presenting an approximation in your work and a brief explanation why you’d use that one.

All I’m saying is we have a good handle on how things work in reality because of experimentation, but we dont know for sure why it works the way it does. Also, just because the Bible says the earth is flat doesn’t mean it is. It’s just another theory that we need to test. I’ve been on the forum long enough to see that people’s faith is preceding their opinion of the results of their “tests”.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 18, 2020, 05:40:21 PM
All I’m saying is we have a good handle on how things work in reality because of experimentation, but we dont know for sure why it works the way it does. Also, just because the Bible says the earth is flat doesn’t mean it is. It’s just another theory that we need to test.

I agree. And Just because the Bible said that it's God's holy ruling that a person should be murdered for doing chores on Saturday does mean it is.
Just because the Bible said that all of the laws of physics were broken does not mean that it really happened.
etc.
etc.



All the testing in the world tells us the sun and moon, since the arrival of humans, have not stopped moving across the sky.
All the testing in the world tells us that there was no great flood which covered mount Everest:



The volume of a sphere is easy to calculate: V = 4/3πr³
The earth has a radius of 3959 miles. Now we need to know the radius of the flood. That’s the earth radius, plus the height of Everest, plus 15 cubits (22ft). So 3959 miles + 29,028 ft +22 feet = 3959 miles + 29050 feet = 3959 miles + 5.5018939 miles = 3964.5018939 miles
If we plug those two radii in to our volume formula, we get the volumes:
259,923,241,564 miles³ for the volume of the earth.
261,008,408,332 miles³ for the volume of the earth at flood.
So, if we subtract the earth volume from the flood volume, we’ll get the volume of water required to fill that space. That’s how much it would need to rain. That turns out to be 1,085,166,768 miles³of rain.
Now, let’s cut that by 25% because land, mountains, etc. occupy some of that volume. All that space would not be filled with water. The 25% figure is generous since oceans, which by definition sit at sea level, cover 70% of the earth and the rest of the earth isn’t nearly as high as Everest. But let’s grant the creationist this small charity.
That means that there had to be 813,875,076 miles³ of rain for the biblical flood. To put that in perspective, the oceans have about 321,000,000 miles³ of water. All the water on earth only adds up to about 332,500,000 miles³.
So for the biblical flood to have happened, the water on earth had to miraculously multiply by about 250%.


Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 19, 2020, 01:24:59 AM
Got a flat earth version of that math?

I didn’t say I believed the flood really happened. In fact, I don’t because I’m still struggling with how there’s kangaroos on only one continent. I’m just trying to play in your field but you seem to be playing a different sport, are you even a flat earther, iamcpc?


I’ve still yet to see a map that works. The bing map has discrepancies. The only time you wouldn’t have a discrepancy is if you picked two cities on the equator with the bing map. The bing map will tell you the actual distance, but if you use the provided scale, the two distances are different.

We could look at the map with the two poles if you’d like iamcpc.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 19, 2020, 01:49:52 AM
Got a flat earth version of that math?

unfortunately no because on the FE models there is no accepted map of the earth and a dozen different models.

I didn’t say I believed the flood really happened. In fact, I don’t because I’m still struggling with how there’s kangaroos on only one continent. I’m just trying to play in your field but you seem to be playing a different sport, are you even a flat earther, iamcpc?

Do I believe 100% that the earth is not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? NO.
Do I believe 100% that the earth is a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? NO.

Do i believe that there is evidence which supports the idea that the earth is  not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? YES.
Do I believe that there is evidence which debunks claims that observations/measurements mean the earth is a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? YES
Do I believe that there are convincing logical arguments which explain why the earth can be flat and we can have the observations/measurements made? YES


I think there are far too many unanswered questions in the various FE models for me to be 100% convinced that the earth is not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid.  There are way too many models with too little consistency within the community which significantly weakens the movement.




I’ve still yet to see a map that works. The bing map has discrepancies. The only time you wouldn’t have a discrepancy is if you picked two cities on the equator with the bing map. The bing map will tell you the actual distance, but if you use the provided scale, the two distances are different.
Bing maps does not have discrepancies because it has an interactive scale

We could look at the map with the two poles if you’d like iamcpc.

Bing maps has two poles.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 19, 2020, 03:33:25 PM
Quote
Bing maps does not have discrepancies because it has an interactive scale
Don't really want to revisit this discussion because zooming in and out on a picture of a map doesn't change the fact that it's massively distorted 'flat earth' map.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 19, 2020, 05:39:11 PM
Don't really want to revisit this discussion

If you don't want to revist this discussion then why did you revisit this discussion?

because zooming in and out

You can change the scale without zooming in and out.

on a picture of a map doesn't change the fact that it's massively distorted 'flat earth' map.

Bing maps is the least distorted maps. Have you ever used bing maps to navigate?




lets just say that I want to make a 2d representation of a 3d place. One scale is not sufficient.


I'm going to make a 2d "map" of a hallway with three children. Each child is three feet tall. here is the "map":

(https://i.imgur.com/9E2u90b.jpg)

By your logic this "map" is massively distorted because the child in the back, who is three feet tall, is much smaller than the child who is in the front. they should all be the exact same size.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: RoundLurker on February 20, 2020, 01:41:40 PM
Don't really want to revisit this discussion

If you don't want to revist this discussion then why did you revisit this discussion?

because zooming in and out

You can change the scale without zooming in and out.

on a picture of a map doesn't change the fact that it's massively distorted 'flat earth' map.

Bing maps is the least distorted maps. Have you ever used bing maps to navigate?




lets just say that I want to make a 2d representation of a 3d place. One scale is not sufficient.


I'm going to make a 2d "map" of a hallway with three children. Each child is three feet tall. here is the "map":

(https://i.imgur.com/9E2u90b.jpg)

By your logic this "map" is massively distorted because the child in the back, who is three feet tall, is much smaller than the child who is in the front. they should all be the exact same size.

Does Bing maps use different scales, all at the same time? 
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 20, 2020, 03:21:49 PM
Quote
If you don't want to revist this discussion then why did you revisit this discussion?
Because you were bringing it up and you're most certainly wrong. if you could take a photo of the earth in its entirety from space, if it were flat, from a long distance with a decent telescope of some kind so there isn't much perspective, what would it look like? if the answer you're going to give is the bing map then you're simply wrong. On the bing map (if it were reality and not a projection of a globe) if you stand at the poles your body stretches across the entire width of the world... because the poles on the bing maps are stretched out to fit a the rectangle. stop with all the "interactive zooming" stuff for a moment and answer the question.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 20, 2020, 04:06:20 PM

Does Bing maps use different scales, all at the same time?

Bing maps different different scales all at the same time. It has an algorithm which determines which scale, out of the the many different scales, is the most applicable based on what part of the map you are looking at and how far zoomed in you are.



Because you were bringing it up and you're most certainly wrong.

by your logic there is no such a thing as an accurate map. It's funny because i'm able to use maps like those to accurately navigate thousands and thousands of square miles of this earth is multiple different continents.


if you could take a photo of the earth in its entirety from space, if it were flat, from a long distance with a decent telescope of some kind so there isn't much perspective, what would it look like?

I don't know. I don't have an advanced degree in optics. Let alone a deep understanding of how our visual cortex makes images in micro or zero gravity when the light from the image has went from a vacuum through layers and layers of an atmosphere, bounced off the surface of a planet, went back through layers and layers of an atmosphere, and refracted through some sort of viewing portal or camera lense.   It could look like a sphere. It could look like a dinner plate. It could look like


if the answer you're going to give is the bing map then you're simply wrong.

I would hate to live in a world where, after thousands and thousands of years, we were still unable to make an accurate map of the world. This is where our views differ.

On the bing map ... if you stand at the poles your body stretches across the entire width of the world...

no it does not. Did you not see my previous post. You saying that is the same as saying that walking down a hallway shrinks you.



Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 11:57:09 PM
if the answer you're going to give is the bing map then you're simply wrong.

I would hate to live in a world where, after thousands and thousands of years, we were still unable to make an accurate map of the world. This is where our views differ.

We do have extremely accurate maps and their accuracy is dependent upon the projection from a globe using globe coordinates systems and distances. One can certainly create a map that is very accurate on a much, much smaller scale, for the sake of argument let's say 100km x 100km, without having to get into the globe projection business. But at scales greater than that accuracy will begin to subside. e.g., State Plane Maps.
"(State Plane Maps) By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations. Second, the system is highly accurate within each zone (error less than 1:10,000). Outside a specific state plane zone accuracy rapidly declines, thus the system is not useful for regional or national mapping."

But we are talking about World maps here. A World map is not a 'model', it is a representation of a model. In the case of all these maps, Bing, Google, AEP, etc., they are all representations, more specifically, 'projections' of the World model. And the 'projection' representations onto a flat map surface is that of a Globe 'model'. For example, Bing, like many other maps uses the very common Mercator Globe Projection, accurate for distances but distortion in size:

Bing: Greenland is massive! Bigger than Africa. It is not in reality.
(https://i.imgur.com/MproINB.png?1)

(https://i.imgur.com/TtGyRS7.gif)

The overall point is that using a map as the model for the world is going at it backwards as maps are derived from the model, not the other way around. At least in 2020. For globe believers the job has already been done, the model is a globe. And if you have a globe, check it out, it's extremely accurate and without distortion, if not a little unwieldy to take as your navigation tool on your next road trip.

If you want a flat earth 'model', not a map, but a model, for a flat earth, seemingly a model-to-map should be dead simple as there would technically be none of this globe projection business that distorts things. As well a flat earth model would need to be as accurate as a globe without distortion just like a globe doesn't possess distortion. An FE model-to-map should be 1-to-1.

So think model, not map. The map should be easy once an FE model exists.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 21, 2020, 10:45:13 AM
I've noticed Bing maps come up a lot in this forum. The reason seems to be that unlike Google maps, when you zoom out, you end up with a flat map, rather than a globe. But here's a little experiment you can try for yourselves. Zoom all the way out and then back in a little on Australia and then pan so you can see both Australia and a large part of Antarctica. Use the context menu (i.e. right click on Windows) "Measure distance" tool to draw a rectangle around Australia, note the area it calculates, I got about 6.5 million square miles. Now reset the measuring tool and draw another rectangle of the same approximate size over Antarctica. I got around 225 thousand square miles. In other words, one rectangle is 30x times larger than the other, yet they are visually identical.

This simply confirms that under the hood, Bing are using a globe model, they are just displaying a flat, Mercator projection of this globe model in the browser.

(https://i.imgur.com/oEotkWX.png)
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 21, 2020, 10:01:24 PM

Bing: Greenland is massive! Bigger than Africa. It is not in reality.
I've already demonstrated that, because of an interactive scale which changes based on how the user interacts with the map you are able to see Greenland is smaller than Africa.

i'm looking at Greenland right now on Bing and I can CLEARLY see that it's about 700 miles north to south according to the scale.


Please see the image shown below:
(https://i.imgur.com/3FhmM77.jpg)




Then, using bing maps, as i interact with the interactive map the interactive map scales and I can see that, the very northernmost countries in Africa are over 700 miles north to south. CLEARLY showing that Greenland is smaller than Africa.
(https://i.imgur.com/EoqQXOp.jpg)



I got about 6.5 million square miles. Now reset the measuring tool and draw another rectangle of the same approximate size over Antarctica. I got around 225 thousand square miles. In other words, one rectangle is 30x times larger than the other, yet they are visually identical.


Just because a map has an interactive scale does not mean that it's a map of the globe. If you zoom all the way it the planet is very clearly not depicted as a globe.

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 21, 2020, 10:57:42 PM
Just because a map has an interactive scale does not mean that it's a map of the globe. If you zoom all the way it the planet is very clearly not depicted as a globe.

True enough, but if you were trying to produce an interactive online flat map of a flat surface, why on earth would you use an interactive scale. What would be the point, other than to confuse everyone?

On the other hand if you take a sphere and project it onto a flat surface, you accept that however you project it, the result is compromised and with a Mercator projection you know your representations of lengths and areas are inaccurate particularly around the poles, so the behaviour of the Bing maps measuring tool is exactly what you'd expect of a Mercator projection of an underlying (nearly) spherical earth. Plus of course Bing's/Microsoft's own documentation specifies that they use a Mercator projection and use WGS84.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on February 22, 2020, 12:00:58 AM
Just because a map has an interactive scale does not mean that it's a map of the globe. If you zoom all the way it the planet is very clearly not depicted as a globe.

I'm not sure why we have to keep going through this, but according to Microsoft, the creator of Bing Maps:

"To simplify the calculations, we use the spherical form of this projection, not the ellipsoidal form. Since the projection is used only for map display, and not for displaying numeric coordinates, we don’t need the extra precision of an ellipsoidal projection. The spherical projection causes approximately 0.33% scale distortion in the Y direction, which is not visually noticeable...The ground resolution varies depending on the level of detail and the latitude at which it’s measured. Using an earth radius of 6378137 meters,"
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system

You do realize that Bing Maps is derived from a globe projection (Mercator) whether zoomed in or out? Yes?

Again, you're using an RE map as an FE model (that is clearly derived from a Globe) and not coming up with an FE model that could be made into an FE map.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 23, 2020, 01:39:59 PM
Just because a map has an interactive scale does not mean that it's a map of the globe. If you zoom all the way it the planet is very clearly not depicted as a globe.

I had a further think about what you said and wondered if it might be possible to demonstrate that Bing is in fact a map of the globe rather than just some map with (for some reason) an interactive scale.

How about this: type in -75,-80 into Bing maps and you're placing a pin at a precise lat/long 75S,80W. Repeat this process to add 3 more pins at -75,+80, 0,-80 and 0,+80. You now have 4 pins on the map making up the corners of a rectangle, the top of the rectangle is a line along the equator and the bottom is a line of the same apparent length cutting across Antarctica. Now use the measuring tool to measure the lengths of these two lines as accurately as you can. I got 17811km and 3288km respectively. Now calculate the great circle distances you would expect to find on a spherical Earth and compare the results. If the distances match up then Bing maps is giving you the same answers as a spherical earth.

I used an online calculator https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html (https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html) for the great circle distances and got 17790km and 3284km, so that's 21km and 4km difference respectively between Bing and the calculated values, or 0.1%.

I'd call that conclusive.

(https://i.imgur.com/44QIXPD.png)

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 24, 2020, 05:59:36 PM

You do realize that Bing Maps is derived from a globe projection (Mercator) whether zoomed in or out? Yes?

Again, you're using an RE map as an FE model (that is clearly derived from a Globe) and not coming up with an FE model that could be made into an FE map.

You can stand there and say that about every single FE model presented to you. This website says it's based on a globe projection. Congratulations. I admit you're able to find something on the internet that says the ______________ FE model is based on a glob projection.  I concede defeat in this matter. You are able to do this with literally every FE model I've ever seen.

I would just use the Bing map API to build my own map and then make an "about" section and say it's based on a FE projection. Just because someone puts text on an HTML document and puts it on a URL does not make it any more or less true.



Just because a map has an interactive scale does not mean that it's a map of the globe. If you zoom all the way it the planet is very clearly not depicted as a globe.

I had a further think about what you said and wondered if it might be possible to demonstrate that Bing is in fact a map of the globe rather than just some map with (for some reason) an interactive scale.

How about this: type in -75,-80 into Bing maps and you're placing a pin at a precise lat/long 75S,80W. Repeat this process to add 3 more pins at -75,+80, 0,-80 and 0,+80. You now have 4 pins on the map making up the corners of a rectangle, the top of the rectangle is a line along the equator and the bottom is a line of the same apparent length cutting across Antarctica. Now use the measuring tool to measure the lengths of these two lines as accurately as you can. I got 17811km and 3288km respectively. Now calculate the great circle distances you would expect to find on a spherical Earth and compare the results. If the distances match up then Bing maps is giving you the same answers as a spherical earth.

I used an online calculator https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html (https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html) for the great circle distances and got 17790km and 3284km, so that's 21km and 4km difference respectively between Bing and the calculated values, or 0.1%.

I'd call that conclusive.


Again you are making the claim that, because this map has an interactive scale, the earth is round. I still disagree. There are flat states, countries, areas etc on every map yet the interactive scale still applies to these small areas. By your logic, the flattest state in the united states, Florida, is a sphere because it has an interactive scale.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on February 24, 2020, 07:09:13 PM

You do realize that Bing Maps is derived from a globe projection (Mercator) whether zoomed in or out? Yes?

Again, you're using an RE map as an FE model (that is clearly derived from a Globe) and not coming up with an FE model that could be made into an FE map.

You can stand there and say that about every single FE model presented to you. This website says it's based on a globe projection. Congratulations. I admit you're able to find something on the internet that says the ______________ FE model is based on a glob projection.  I concede defeat in this matter. You are able to do this with literally every FE model I've ever seen.

I would just use the Bing map API to build my own map and then make an "about" section and say it's based on a FE projection. Just because someone puts text on an HTML document and puts it on a URL does not make it any more or less true.

I think you're missing the point. It's not just "someone" who put text on the web stating that it's a globe projection using globe coordinates and distances, in the case of Bing, it's Microsoft who is the "someone". You know, the developers/owners of Bing Maps. I've cited the Microsoft Bing Maps developers site that states everything I've relayed. Why you still think the information is coming from some random person, idk. If you have a problem with the fact that Bing Maps uses a globe projection, globe coordinates, and distances you'd actually have to take that up directly with Microsoft.

Just because a map has an interactive scale does not mean that it's a map of the globe. If you zoom all the way it the planet is very clearly not depicted as a globe.

I had a further think about what you said and wondered if it might be possible to demonstrate that Bing is in fact a map of the globe rather than just some map with (for some reason) an interactive scale.

How about this: type in -75,-80 into Bing maps and you're placing a pin at a precise lat/long 75S,80W. Repeat this process to add 3 more pins at -75,+80, 0,-80 and 0,+80. You now have 4 pins on the map making up the corners of a rectangle, the top of the rectangle is a line along the equator and the bottom is a line of the same apparent length cutting across Antarctica. Now use the measuring tool to measure the lengths of these two lines as accurately as you can. I got 17811km and 3288km respectively. Now calculate the great circle distances you would expect to find on a spherical Earth and compare the results. If the distances match up then Bing maps is giving you the same answers as a spherical earth.

I used an online calculator https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html (https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html) for the great circle distances and got 17790km and 3284km, so that's 21km and 4km difference respectively between Bing and the calculated values, or 0.1%.

I'd call that conclusive.


Again you are making the claim that, because this map has an interactive scale, the earth is round. I still disagree. There are flat states, countries, areas etc on every map yet the interactive scale still applies to these small areas. By your logic, the flattest state in the united states, Florida, is a sphere because it has an interactive scale.

The case is not because the map has an interactive scale, the earth is round. The case is that, as robinofloxley demonstrated, even though using the interactive scale, zooming in in this case, the distances are based upon a globe. That doesn't defacto mean the earth is a globe, it just means that Microsoft is using a globe model for their map even when using the interactive scaling tool. Make sense?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 24, 2020, 11:03:02 PM
I think you're missing the point. It's not just "someone" who put text on the web stating that it's a globe projection using globe coordinates and distances, in the case of Bing, it's Microsoft who is the "someone". You know, the developers/owners of Bing Maps. I've cited the Microsoft Bing Maps developers site that states everything I've relayed. Why you still think the information is coming from some random person, idk. If you have a problem with the fact that Bing Maps uses a globe projection, globe coordinates, and distances you'd actually have to take that up directly with Microsoft.

Actually as someone who works with development I can assure you this is not the case. Microsoft is a company of about 148,000 people. How many of those 148,000 were involved on the text on the website you referenced? I will be very generous here and say it is maybe 20.  Now, of those 20 people, how many of them actually changed the text to what it is? Most likely one web developer.

As a matter of fact web development like this is so easy a layman could learn to do it with a few hours of youtube videos. I was able to change the HTML text on the website in about 15 seconds.

The difference here is that i'm not going to make my decisions based on the text on an HTML document.

Notice the text on the HTML document listed below has been changed. I really don't work for Microsoft and these kinds of changes are super easy.
(https://i.imgur.com/5U2IKde.jpg)






The case is not because the map has an interactive scale, the earth is round. The case is that, as robinofloxley demonstrated, even though using the interactive scale, zooming in in this case, the distances are based upon a globe. That doesn't defacto mean the earth is a globe, it just means that Microsoft is using a globe model for their map even when using the interactive scaling tool. Make sense?

Here is where we disagree. Because the distances on Bing maps match the distances that we have measured in real life, and it also has an interactive scale, does not mean the earth is round.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on February 24, 2020, 11:44:52 PM
I think you're missing the point. It's not just "someone" who put text on the web stating that it's a globe projection using globe coordinates and distances, in the case of Bing, it's Microsoft who is the "someone". You know, the developers/owners of Bing Maps. I've cited the Microsoft Bing Maps developers site that states everything I've relayed. Why you still think the information is coming from some random person, idk. If you have a problem with the fact that Bing Maps uses a globe projection, globe coordinates, and distances you'd actually have to take that up directly with Microsoft.

Actually as someone who works with development I can assure you this is not the case. Microsoft is a company of about 148,000 people. How many of those 148,000 were involved on the text on the website you referenced? I will be very generous here and say it is maybe 20.  Now, of those 20 people, how many of them actually changed the text to what it is? Most likely one web developer.

As a matter of fact web development like this is so easy a layman could learn to do it with a few hours of youtube videos. I was able to change the HTML text on the website in about 15 seconds.

The difference here is that i'm not going to make my decisions based on the text on an HTML document.

I'm not sure where to go with this. And I'm not sure where you are coming from. Yes, Microsoft is a large company. Yes, HTML markup/content is easy to change. Is it your claim that the person(s) responsible for the content regarding Bing Maps for developers using Bing Maps is writing erroneous information? Would you prefer a PDF?

Notice the text on the HTML document listed below has been changed. I really don't work for Microsoft and these kinds of changes are super easy.

Yes, you changed it, but I don't see your changes because you have no access to make changes. I don't see your point.

Maybe I'm under the faulty assumption that the Microsoft literature regarding their own Bing Maps is correct yet it is being altered by one-off employees for 'reasons'. I tend not to go there, but maybe you do.

The case is not because the map has an interactive scale, the earth is round. The case is that, as robinofloxley demonstrated, even though using the interactive scale, zooming in in this case, the distances are based upon a globe. That doesn't defacto mean the earth is a globe, it just means that Microsoft is using a globe model for their map even when using the interactive scaling tool. Make sense?

Here is where we disagree. Because the distances on Bing maps match the distances that we have measured in real life, and it also has an interactive scale, does not mean the earth is round.

As I stated earlier, the case is not because the map has an interactive scale, the earth is round. But if you examine robinofloxley's demonstration, even when zoomed in, Bing is still using globe distances. There's no denying that.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 25, 2020, 10:41:47 AM
Here is where we disagree. Because the distances on Bing maps match the distances that we have measured in real life, and it also has an interactive scale, does not mean the earth is round.

OK, you agree that distances on Bing maps match real life. In that case, let me try another approach. Let's for the sake of argument say that Bing maps is based on a flat earth. So basic rules of euclidean flat plane geometry apply.

(https://i.imgur.com/dYg2ICR.png)

I hope we agree that since both diagonals are the same length, as are the two sides and top/bottom, then we are talking about a rectangle and using Pythagoras from basic high school maths, sides abc form a right angle triangle and therefore a2 + b2 = c2

So now let's use the same technique from earlier to drop a pin at each corner of a rectangle on a Bing map. The pins are at (lat/long) (-45,+60), (-45,-60), (+45,+60) and (+45,-60). Now measure the distances. We should see the same result as before, a2 + b2 = c2. But we don't. Taking a to be 8398km and b to be 10010km should give a value for c of 13066km, but Bing tells us the distance is 15410km. A difference of 2344km, 18%.

There are two possibilities here. Pythagoras is broken or Pythagoras for some reason doesn't apply. And Pythagoras does not apply for non-eculidean geometry, i.e. this is not a flat plane. It doesn't prove the globe, but does show that whatever Bing are using as an underlying model for their distance calculations (and you've agreed these match reality), it isn't flat.

Personally I would go further. These same distance calculations almost perfectly match a spherical geometry with the earth's radius as given in many sources, so my money is on the underlying geometry being essentially spherical.

(https://i.imgur.com/rrEew9w.png)
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 25, 2020, 04:57:31 PM
OK, you agree that distances on Bing maps match real life. In that case, let me try another approach. Let's for the sake of argument say that Bing maps is based on a flat earth. So basic rules of euclidean flat plane geometry apply.


You can't compare a stagnant image with one scale to a moving interactive system with multiple scales. Of course they are different. They are different in every way.


I'm not sure where to go with this. And I'm not sure where you are coming from. Yes, Microsoft is a large company. Yes, HTML markup/content is easy to change. Is it your claim that the person(s) responsible for the content regarding Bing Maps for developers using Bing Maps is writing erroneous information? Would you prefer a PDF?

My point is that I would rather think for myself. Anyone can put anything into writing.  This entire forum is an exercise in free thinking. In addition I could present you any map of the earth and you could say something to the effect of "that does not count as a FE map because that map is based on a sphere map" and then give me a link to a website with text confirming your theory.

I've already conceded that you can do that with any map of the earth i present. We can just both agree that you will reject any FE map presented and move on.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 25, 2020, 06:14:17 PM
it's not just a link to any website with text telling us what to think, it's a massively used map of the globe represented in a projected format proven over and over again by millions of people. if you want to confirm it just take the picture of Bing's map and reproject it onto a globe and see the measured distances no longer warp at the poles like they do on the projected Bing map.

the world isn't just a globe because the bing map is a projection... the Bing map is a projection because the world is a globe. the difference is clear. if it's a globe earth map, it's not a flat earth map. In other news a pyramid can't be a cylinder either without stretching and distorting it.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 25, 2020, 07:32:12 PM
the world isn't just a globe because the bing map is a projection... the Bing map is a projection because the world is a globe. the difference is clear. if it's a globe earth map, it's not a flat earth map. In other news a pyramid can't be a cylinder either without stretching and distorting it.


I've already conceded that you can look at any map of the earth ever created and say that it's a globe map. Literally every FE model that has ever been presented someone just claims that it's not a FE model it's a RE model because it's based on a globe projection.




You can claim this is a globe map because the earth is a globe an it's based on a globe projection
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/cS9R8Bk1mL-Zqx3mE0YAxQgBhdo=/543x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/SURU323BFRHMBCKC3XSKIJHM5I.png)



Here's another one. This is another globe map because the earth is a globe and it's based on a globe projection
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8wRq3AgggbXphqRxapGWbZ-320-80.jpg)


I could do this all day long and you can sit there and say the earth is a globe, that map is based on a globe projection ad infinitum.

I would rather not point out that you can do this 29837592837592837598237592837 times just to have you do it again.
I would rather not concede defeat on this point 29837592837592837598237592837 times just to have you do it again.


Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 25, 2020, 11:32:14 PM

You can stand there and say that about every single FE model presented to you.


THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF MAKING THIS THREAD

Finally you see. Give me any map of the earth represented as flat, and I or others will find a discrepancy with it. So far in this thread, I demonstrated the low likelihood of the current widely accepted FE model. Now there’s this bing map theory that’s in the end stages of being crippled.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 26, 2020, 10:14:54 AM
OK, you agree that distances on Bing maps match real life. In that case, let me try another approach. Let's for the sake of argument say that Bing maps is based on a flat earth. So basic rules of euclidean flat plane geometry apply.


You can't compare a stagnant image with one scale to a moving interactive system with multiple scales. Of course they are different. They are different in every way.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me there. I used Bing maps because that's what you seem to trust. I put 4 pins on a Bing map simply by typing in the locations (lat/long) into the Bing search bar. Then I used Bing's "Measure distance" tool (which on Windows you get to via a right click) to get Bing to tell me the distances. All of this is within Bing, you can easily do it yourself to check the results. Honestly just try it yourself. Once you've set up a distance measure, you can zoom, pan, do whatever you like, Bing won't show you a different distance, it's the real distance between two real places.

What I've demonstrated to you is that you cannot lay these positions out on anything flat and make the distances work. What this means is that Bing's distance measurement tools cannot be using a flat geometry.

When you say "stagnant image" are you just objecting to a screenshot from Bing? How else am I supposed to illustrate it? I've told you exactly how to do this, if you don't trust my stagnant image, fine, have a go yourself and tell us what distances Bing tells you.

I'm not sure where to go with this. And I'm not sure where you are coming from. Yes, Microsoft is a large company. Yes, HTML markup/content is easy to change. Is it your claim that the person(s) responsible for the content regarding Bing Maps for developers using Bing Maps is writing erroneous information? Would you prefer a PDF?

My point is that I would rather think for myself. Anyone can put anything into writing.  This entire forum is an exercise in free thinking. In addition I could present you any map of the earth and you could say something to the effect of "that does not count as a FE map because that map is based on a sphere map" and then give me a link to a website with text confirming your theory.

I've already conceded that you can do that with any map of the earth i present. We can just both agree that you will reject any FE map presented and move on.

It seems strange to me that you're happy to trust Bing, which is a Microsoft owned product, but when it comes to the Microsoft technical documentation on Bing stack has pointed out to you, you just reject it on the basis that anybody could have put what they liked in it. It's inconceivable that Microsoft would allow any unauthorized employee or worse an outsider to make changes to one of their pages, they simply wouldn't have the security permissions to be able to do that. The alternative is that an authorized employee wrote this and nobody at Microsoft has noticed or been made aware of this, or if they have, they simply don't care. How credible is that?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 26, 2020, 05:29:16 PM

THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF MAKING THIS THREAD

Finally you see. Give me any map of the earth represented as flat, and I or others will find a discrepancy with it. So far in this thread, I demonstrated the low likelihood of the current widely accepted FE model.

I have yet to have anyone show me a discrepancy with big maps.

Now there’s this bing map theory that’s in the end stages of being crippled.

It's funny how this map is widely accepted by virtually everyone as a map of the earth. It's used to map the sunrise/sunset, it's used to track flights, it's used for global navigation etc. etc. etc.

Gonna be hard to cripple
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 26, 2020, 05:35:39 PM

THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF MAKING THIS THREAD

Finally you see. Give me any map of the earth represented as flat, and I or others will find a discrepancy with it. So far in this thread, I demonstrated the low likelihood of the current widely accepted FE model.

I have yet to have anyone show me a discrepancy with big maps.

Now there’s this bing map theory that’s in the end stages of being crippled.

It's funny how this map is widely accepted by virtually everyone as a map of the earth. It's used to map the sunrise/sunset, it's used to track flights, it's used for global navigation etc. etc. etc.

Gonna be hard to cripple
literally everyone is showing you the discrepancy with bing maps, if you accept that the Bing maps works perfectly then you basically accept the earth is a globe. It's the exact same map Google uses if you turn off globe view. Crazy that.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 26, 2020, 05:43:53 PM
You can't compare a stagnant image with one scale to a moving interactive system with multiple scales. Of course they are different. They are different in every way.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me there.

You're argument is that because a line is X units long and because X units represents a different distance on Bing maps based on an interactive scale it is evidence that the earth is a sphere. Or that Bing maps is based on a sphere.


Based on that logic the image below, because it has an interactive scale, is evidence that this hallway is a sphere or that the image below is based on a sphere
(https://i.imgur.com/9E2u90b.jpg)



What I've demonstrated to you is that you cannot lay these positions out on anything flat and make the distances work. What this means is that Bing's distance measurement tools cannot be using a flat geometry.

of course you can't The earth is not 2d. It's 3d.


When you say "stagnant image" are you just objecting to a screenshot from Bing?

A 2d drawing of triangles with three sides which are one unit long is not interactive. each side is one unit long. Putting that triangle on Bing maps is moot.

I've told you exactly how to do this, if you don't trust my stagnant image, fine, have a go yourself and tell us what distances Bing tells you.

I've been using bing maps, or maps which function very similarly to bing maps for the bettwer part of 15 years now and, with their interactive scale, they seem pretty accurate.


It seems strange to me that you're happy to trust Bing, which is a Microsoft owned product,

It's not that i'm happy to trust them. The general consensus here is that there is no map of the earth. That thought processes really does not sit well with me when i'm using a map of the earth almost every day. In thousands of years of technological progress we have not been able to make one freaking map??? Seriously?? To me this is something that is a big strike against these specific FE models. Here's a map, in which the earth is not specifically depicted as a sphere, (ad has the added bonus of being independently tested by millions and millions of users) why can't this be a map of the earth?

but when it comes to the Microsoft technical documentation on Bing stack has pointed out to you, you just reject it on the basis that anybody could have put what they liked in it. It's inconceivable that Microsoft would allow any unauthorized employee or worse an outsider to make changes to one of their pages, they simply wouldn't have the security permissions to be able to do that. The alternative is that an authorized employee wrote this and nobody at Microsoft has noticed or been made aware of this, or if they have, they simply don't care. How credible is that?

What do I need to do in order to move past this ad infinitum that is not a FE model that is a RE model because the website _____________ says it's a RE projection?  How can we possibly discuss a possible FE model when that just keeps getting regurgitated over and over and over.
The only thing that I can think of is to use the Bing API, build my own website, and in the documentation of the website say this is a projection of a non spherical earth. Would that satisfy you? Would you be able to look at that website and say, ok the website says it's not based on a globe projection?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on February 26, 2020, 07:03:26 PM
You can't compare a stagnant image with one scale to a moving interactive system with multiple scales. Of course they are different. They are different in every way.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me there.

You're argument is that because a line is X units long and because X units represents a different distance on Bing maps based on an interactive scale it is evidence that the earth is a sphere. Or that Bing maps is based on a sphere.

It has literally nothing to do with whether a tool has an 'interactive scale' or not. What robinofloxley has demonstrated several times now is that regardless of this 'interactive scale' business you're hung up on, the results returned from Bing are globe earth coordinates and distances. My answer: No, this does not prove that earth is a globe. Yes, it does prove that Bing Maps is based on the globe model.

Based on that logic the image below, because it has an interactive scale, is evidence that this hallway is a sphere or that the image below is based on a sphere
(https://i.imgur.com/9E2u90b.jpg)

No.

I've been using bing maps, or maps which function very similarly to bing maps for the bettwer part of 15 years now and, with their interactive scale, they seem pretty accurate.

If you've been happy with Bing accuracy for 15 years then you've been happy with the globe based distances and coordinates that Bing has used for 15 years.

It seems strange to me that you're happy to trust Bing, which is a Microsoft owned product,

It's not that i'm happy to trust them. The general consensus here is that there is no map of the earth. That thought processes really does not sit well with me when i'm using a map of the earth almost every day. In thousands of years of technological progress we have not been able to make one freaking map??? Seriously?? To me this is something that is a big strike against these specific FE models. Here's a map, in which the earth is not specifically depicted as a sphere, (ad has the added bonus of being independently tested by millions and millions of users) why can't this be a map of the earth?

It is a map of the earth that is derived from the globe model. The problem seems to be that no one has been able to come up with a map of the earth derived from a Flat Earth model. Simple as that.

but when it comes to the Microsoft technical documentation on Bing stack has pointed out to you, you just reject it on the basis that anybody could have put what they liked in it. It's inconceivable that Microsoft would allow any unauthorized employee or worse an outsider to make changes to one of their pages, they simply wouldn't have the security permissions to be able to do that. The alternative is that an authorized employee wrote this and nobody at Microsoft has noticed or been made aware of this, or if they have, they simply don't care. How credible is that?

What do I need to do in order to move past this ad infinitum that is not a FE model that is a RE model because the website _____________ says it's a RE projection?  How can we possibly discuss a possible FE model when that just keeps getting regurgitated over and over and over.
The only thing that I can think of is to use the Bing API, build my own website, and in the documentation of the website say this is a projection of a non spherical earth. Would that satisfy you? Would you be able to look at that website and say, ok the website says it's not based on a globe projection?

Why you're still railing against Microsoft documentation stating their map system is based on the globe model is beyond me. It's the API that's returning the Globe coordinates/distances, not just the documentation that says it does. robinofloxley already showed that to you. So if you created your own site around the BING API and wrote anything you wanted to about it, that doesn't change how the map engine works. Your "documentation" would just simply be incorrect.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: flatearthwizard on February 26, 2020, 11:13:37 PM
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.
This has been addressed numerous times.

These airlines offer such flights for purchase.

The thing is, if you buy such a ticket, it is:

A) a NON-REFUNDABLE PURCHASE; and,
B) You end up typically moved to a different flight with a stop over (one that conveniently matches the Azimuthal Equidistant Map).

For those rare non-stop flights that do occur, it would not be surprising to find that aerial refueling is taking place, something of which the passengers would be totally unaware.

im sorry what. this makes no sense
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 26, 2020, 11:19:07 PM
You can't compare a stagnant image with one scale to a moving interactive system with multiple scales. Of course they are different. They are different in every way.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me there.

You're argument is that because a line is X units long and because X units represents a different distance on Bing maps based on an interactive scale it is evidence that the earth is a sphere. Or that Bing maps is based on a sphere.


I'm not drawing a line on a map and measuring it myself, I'm simply taking multiple points on the map and then asking Bing to tell me the distances between those points. I neither know nor care how Bing is performing that calculation. However having collected all the distances, I find that the top and bottom of my shape, as defined by my 4 points, are the same length and the left and right side are the same length. If I assume the geometry is flat then the only possible shape that fits the bill is a parallelogram of some kind, however I also see that the diagonals are the same length too, which makes this a special form of parallelogram - a rectangle.

The only problem with this is that when I check the dimensions, I find that the two diagonals are 20% longer than they should be according to Pythagoras. The only possible conclusion I can draw is that my assumption is flawed and the geometry is not in fact flat.

I put the lines on the map to illustrate the point I was trying to make, but they really don't need to be there at all. What matters are the 4 points and the 6 distances Bing's built-in measuring tool gives me. Scaling zooming panning and an interactive scale aren't relevant. All that matters are the answers Bing gives me for the 6 distances involved.

I'm not stating as fact that the geometry is spherical, just that it cannot possibly be flat. I do however personally believe that it is spherical, simply because the results perfectly match a spherical geometry, but I'm just happy to leave it that it's certainly not flat.


Based on that logic the image below, because it has an interactive scale, is evidence that this hallway is a sphere or that the image below is based on a sphere
(https://i.imgur.com/9E2u90b.jpg)


Well the underlying model if you will behind the image is certainly not flat, it's clearly a corridor with height and width and length. If this were a computer generated model with the ability to move around, something like a scene from a game, then you'd be able to move through it.

If this were an interactive image with its own measuring tool built-in and I could measure anything I liked, then I could perhaps work out the geometry of the model. If all the measurements I asked for were entirely consistent with a sphere or a pyramid or a doughnut, then I'd have to concede that's what it was. An interactive scale doesn't make it any particular geometry, you'd have to match the measurements up to confirm what it was.


What I've demonstrated to you is that you cannot lay these positions out on anything flat and make the distances work. What this means is that Bing's distance measurement tools cannot be using a flat geometry.

of course you can't The earth is not 2d. It's 3d.


Woah! The earth isn't flat, it's 3d? So Bing maps underlying model isn't flat either? OK, I'm wondering what this discussion was all about then.


When you say "stagnant image" are you just objecting to a screenshot from Bing?

A 2d drawing of triangles with three sides which are one unit long is not interactive. each side is one unit long. Putting that triangle on Bing maps is moot.

I've told you exactly how to do this, if you don't trust my stagnant image, fine, have a go yourself and tell us what distances Bing tells you.

I've been using bing maps, or maps which function very similarly to bing maps for the bettwer part of 15 years now and, with their interactive scale, they seem pretty accurate.


It seems strange to me that you're happy to trust Bing, which is a Microsoft owned product,

It's not that i'm happy to trust them. The general consensus here is that there is no map of the earth. That thought processes really does not sit well with me when i'm using a map of the earth almost every day. In thousands of years of technological progress we have not been able to make one freaking map??? Seriously?? To me this is something that is a big strike against these specific FE models. Here's a map, in which the earth is not specifically depicted as a sphere, (ad has the added bonus of being independently tested by millions and millions of users) why can't this be a map of the earth?

but when it comes to the Microsoft technical documentation on Bing stack has pointed out to you, you just reject it on the basis that anybody could have put what they liked in it. It's inconceivable that Microsoft would allow any unauthorized employee or worse an outsider to make changes to one of their pages, they simply wouldn't have the security permissions to be able to do that. The alternative is that an authorized employee wrote this and nobody at Microsoft has noticed or been made aware of this, or if they have, they simply don't care. How credible is that?

What do I need to do in order to move past this ad infinitum that is not a FE model that is a RE model because the website _____________ says it's a RE projection?  How can we possibly discuss a possible FE model when that just keeps getting regurgitated over and over and over.
The only thing that I can think of is to use the Bing API, build my own website, and in the documentation of the website say this is a projection of a non spherical earth. Would that satisfy you? Would you be able to look at that website and say, ok the website says it's not based on a globe projection?

Well the problem with that idea is that you do not represent Microsoft (presumably) and your Website will not be owned, authored and administrated by Microsoft, so your "documentation" carries no authority whatsoever because you are not the author of the Bing API (again presumably).
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 27, 2020, 08:01:34 AM
Quote from: flatearthwizard
im sorry what. this makes no sense

I will break it down for you.

I indicated that any flat earth map has discrepancies that are revealed when measuring distances between two cities on the flat map model candidate and the distances we experience in real life, expecially the farther away from the equator a city is. For a few pages, we debated different aspects of how it could work (most arguments required a cabal to cover things up or something like that), and now we’re looking at different flat maps in particular the bing map, which is actually a globe map in disguise.

Does this make sense now
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 27, 2020, 10:46:48 AM
What I've demonstrated to you is that you cannot lay these positions out on anything flat and make the distances work. What this means is that Bing's distance measurement tools cannot be using a flat geometry.

of course you can't The earth is not 2d. It's 3d.

Can we back up a bit here, because I'm somewhat confused about your position on various matters. A few questions for you if you don't mind:
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 27, 2020, 04:17:20 PM
Can we back up a bit here, because I'm somewhat confused about your position on various matters. A few questions for you if you don't mind:
  • Do you believe Bing is based on a 2d flat plane eculidian geometry?
  • Do you accept that (euclidian geometry) if you construct a rectangle from 4 points and join each point to every other point via 6 lines, then the lengths of the diagonals can be calculated from the sides?
  • Do you accept that if the lengths of the diagonals don't match up with the calculated values, then the geometry cannot be flat?
  • Are you willing to accept the distances I've quoted which I read from a Bing map?
1. This is a trick question. I don't believe the bing distances are based on a 2d flat plane or eculidian geometry. I believe it is based on measured distances in our 3d world.
2. yes but only in a flat 2d scenario. These shapes which apply to a 2d space don't apply to bing maps which is based on a 3d space.
3. This depends on your definition of flat.
4. sure.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 27, 2020, 11:58:43 PM
Can we back up a bit here, because I'm somewhat confused about your position on various matters. A few questions for you if you don't mind:
  • Do you believe Bing is based on a 2d flat plane eculidian geometry?
  • Do you accept that (euclidian geometry) if you construct a rectangle from 4 points and join each point to every other point via 6 lines, then the lengths of the diagonals can be calculated from the sides?
  • Do you accept that if the lengths of the diagonals don't match up with the calculated values, then the geometry cannot be flat?
  • Are you willing to accept the distances I've quoted which I read from a Bing map?
1. This is a trick question. I don't believe the bing distances are based on a 2d flat plane or eculidian geometry. I believe it is based on measured distances in our 3d world.
2. yes but only in a flat 2d scenario. These shapes which apply to a 2d space don't apply to bing maps which is based on a 3d space.
3. This depends on your definition of flat.
4. sure.

No trick questions, I was genuinely confused, thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 28, 2020, 02:49:08 AM
I believe it is based on measured distances in our 3d world.

This depends on your definition of flat.

The confusion on your position is perpetuated. My best guess on your position is that the world is round but not curved up to 360 degrees? You also think the bing map's interactive scale is completely accurate, meaning when you put two cities in, it will give you an accurate distance between them regardless of either cities' long/latitudinal position?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 28, 2020, 11:26:41 AM
I believe it is based on measured distances in our 3d world.

This depends on your definition of flat.

The confusion on your position is perpetuated. My best guess on your position is that the world is round but not curved up to 360 degrees? You also think the bing map's interactive scale is completely accurate, meaning when you put two cities in, it will give you an accurate distance between them regardless of either cities' long/latitudinal position?

It seems a bit ironic that we have to come up with a definition of flat on a flat earth site.

I'd say my kitchen table is flat. It's wooden, so on a microscopic scale is bumpy but on a large enough scale, it's flat. I'd look at the earth the same way, ignore the minor bumps, ie mountains, valleys, tides etc. +/- 10 miles or so is insignificant to the shape for most purposes.

If the earth is flat on a large scale like my kitchen table, then it fits my definition of flat.

Not a very precise definition I know.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 28, 2020, 06:31:02 PM
The confusion on your position is perpetuated. My best guess on your position is that the world is round but not curved up to 360 degrees? You also think the bing map's interactive scale is completely accurate, meaning when you put two cities in, it will give you an accurate distance between them regardless of either cities' long/latitudinal position?

Do I believe 100% that the earth is not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? NO.
Do I believe 100% that the earth is a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? NO.

Do i believe that there is evidence which supports the idea that the earth is  not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? YES.
Do I believe that there is evidence which debunks claims that observations/measurements mean the earth is a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? YES
Do I believe that there are convincing logical arguments which explain why the earth can be flat and we can have the observations/measurements made? YES


I think there are far too many unanswered questions in the various FE models for me to be 100% convinced that the earth is not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid.  There are way too many models with too little consistency within the community which significantly weakens the movement.



It seems a bit ironic that we have to come up with a definition of flat on a flat earth site.


Well I've driven through San Francisco. I would not consider that place flat at all. It has lots of hills and it's in a 3d space.
 

Yet if i look at a map of the area it is represented as a flat, 2d image.The only way to accurately depict the 3d non flat distances and locations of that city on a 2d flat image is to do so with an interactive scale.




I'd say my kitchen table is flat. It's wooden, so on a microscopic scale is bumpy but on a large enough scale, it's flat. I'd look at the earth the same way, ignore the minor bumps, ie mountains, valleys, tides etc. +/- 10 miles or so is insignificant to the shape for most purposes.


These interactive maps can zoom in to the scale of less than a mile so ignoring 10 mile "bumps" is not very logical




If the earth is flat on a large scale like my kitchen table, then it fits my definition of flat.

Not a very precise definition I know.

One of the more common FE models types is a flat circle with the north pole in the center.

Within those models there are many different things such as:

1. A dome.If earth has a dome I would not consider it flat at a global scale. A dome is not flat in my opinion. Another person may disagree
2. A great ice wall. If earth has a great ice wall holding the oceans in then the earth is more shaped like a bowl. A bowl is not flat in my opinion. Another person may disagree.
3. A curved firmament which is part of the earth. It's my understanding it's similar to the dome listed en example one. A thing with a curved firmament thing is not flat in my opinion. Another person may disagree.
4. An edge with something unknown beyond. To me if you don't know what something is then you also don't know what shape it is. I would not consider an unknown shape to be flat. Another person may disagree.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on February 28, 2020, 09:36:03 PM

Well I've driven through San Francisco. I would not consider that place flat at all. It has lots of hills and it's in a 3d space.
 
Yet if i look at a map of the area it is represented as a flat, 2d image.The only way to accurately depict the 3d non flat distances and locations of that city on a 2d flat image is to do so with an interactive scale.

Or perhaps with a topo map, no interactive scale needed:

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DVBMe9auTnM/T3FUFDyWL0I/AAAAAAAAAOo/L2HG4-KAehU/s640/SF_TopoPoster_geoNames_2012_24x24.jpg)
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on February 28, 2020, 10:09:32 PM
Or perhaps with a topo map, no interactive scale needed:


The scale, because it is not interactive, is much less accurate. It does not account for altitude at all.


The image below represents someone traveling between point A and point B which is, according to the scale one mile.

The top trip I would agree that the person traveling on a flat one mile stretch of road between point a and point B which are one mile apart based on the scale.

The bottom trip represents someone who is going up and down many hills across the journey. Their odometer would show something like 3 or four miles. The stagnant non interactive scale could be VASTLY improved by making it interactive and building an algorithm that factors in the 3d terrain

(https://i.imgur.com/bFrp5eK.png)

Advancements have been made in cartography in the past 50-60 years. The most advanced maps are ones that are interactive and thus require an interactive scale.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on February 28, 2020, 11:12:48 PM
Or perhaps with a topo map, no interactive scale needed:


The scale, because it is not interactive, is much less accurate. It does not account for altitude at all.


Regardless of an interactive scale, the topo map provides the same accuracy the Bing map does. Using the topo map and its scale I measured 2 miles from 8th Ave between Noriega & Ortega basically East. The 2 mile scale stretched to around Dolores and 21st. As you probably know, between point A & B is Twin Peaks, the tallest hills in SF. I did the same measurement in Bing; interactively zoomed in and it measured 2 miles between those two same points as well.

(https://i.imgur.com/UHU2i9z.png)
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 29, 2020, 03:18:43 PM
Or perhaps with a topo map, no interactive scale needed:


The scale, because it is not interactive, is much less accurate. It does not account for altitude at all.


The image below represents someone traveling between point A and point B which is, according to the scale one mile.

The top trip I would agree that the person traveling on a flat one mile stretch of road between point a and point B which are one mile apart based on the scale.

The bottom trip represents someone who is going up and down many hills across the journey. Their odometer would show something like 3 or four miles. The stagnant non interactive scale could be VASTLY improved by making it interactive and building an algorithm that factors in the 3d terrain

(https://i.imgur.com/bFrp5eK.png)

Advancements have been made in cartography in the past 50-60 years. The most advanced maps are ones that are interactive and thus require an interactive scale.

I don't think Bing works in quite the way you think it does. Here are two locations for you, (-19.053843, -65.265419) and (-33.437220, -70.650020). According to Bing maps measuring tool these are 1688km apart. Google Earth comes up with a slightly different figure, 1681km, but let's not split hairs here. Google Earth does however allow you to see an elevation profile and calculates a longer distance based on the profile, in this case 1701km, so 20km extra is added.

Using a great circle route calculator (again  I used https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html (https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html)), the simple haversine formula based result which this gives (haversine is just an equation, it has no knowledge of terrain) is 1686km, only 2km different from Bing's figure.

The reason I picked these two locations is that you are basically travelling 1000 miles or so along the backbone of the Andes, so the elevation changes are extreme.

So comparing Bing's distance (1688km) and the haversine formula distance (1686km), leads me to believe that Bing is giving you an "as the crow flies" great circle distance measurement between the two points and it's simply not attempting to correct for elevation changes (unlike Google Earth when you specifically request an elevation profile).

(https://i.imgur.com/hftIKsP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Ri9Si8J.jpg)
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 01, 2020, 11:02:01 PM
The only thing that I can think of is to use the Bing API, build my own website, and in the documentation of the website say this is a projection of a non spherical earth. Would that satisfy you? Would you be able to look at that website and say, ok the website says it's not based on a globe projection?

The scale, because it is not interactive, is much less accurate. It does not account for altitude at all.

Your idea of using the Bing API got me thinking, so I took a look at it and discovered this rather interesting page https://www.bing.com/api/maps/sdk/mapcontrol/isdk/distancebetweentwolocations (https://www.bing.com/api/maps/sdk/mapcontrol/isdk/distancebetweentwolocations):

(https://i.imgur.com/b5fxrN0.png)

This is a developer's area where you can experiment with code for calculating distances in Bing. In this example, the code is using the API call Microsoft.SpatialMath.getDistanceTo(...) to determine the distance between two pushpins placed on a map. Under the hood, this is how you measure distances on a Bing map.

Since this is an interactive code example, it's easy enough to put the two pushpins in a different location and change the units to km, as I've done here:

(https://i.imgur.com/0DnxN2r.png)

I've used the same two locations I used earlier, and this is confirmed by the distance 1688km, identical to my earlier experiment with a Bing map, confirming that we're using the correct API call. Now let's take a look at the official Microsoft documentation for this API call https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/v8-web-control/modules/spatial-math-module/core-calculations (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/v8-web-control/modules/spatial-math-module/core-calculations)

getDistanceTo - "Calculate the distance between two locations on the surface of the earth using the Haversine formula. If highAccuracy value is set to true, the slower but more accurate Vincenty formula is used instead."

So there it is, Bing maps uses the Haversine formula for distance calculations. This formula is based on an assumed spherical earth and does not take into account elevation changes.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Jay Seneca on March 19, 2020, 03:16:43 PM
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.

I tried to do this last year just to see if I could buy a ticket from those exact 2 locations, Santiago to Sydney.  I also just tried again.  A ticket 1 way are about 1500$.  Every one stops in the USA.  The one that didn’t was a non-stop flight for $2500.  So I tried to buy one. I went through the steps and at the end the ticket went up to $9500.  I clicked accept. Then it sent me back to a flight that had a stop in Los Angeles.  I didn’t come across a non-stop flight today when I searched, but I was short in time. I’m not saying they aren’t any non-stop flights, but if they do have them the airlines sure don’t want the average Joe on them.

On a FE map, Santiago to Sydney with a stop in Los Angeles is a straight line. It doesn’t make much sense on a RE to go all away from Santiago to Northern Hemisphere and back down to Sydney.  If I’m not mistaken all 3 have a latitude of 33 with Los Angeles in the northern hemisphere. So that’s 132 degrees out of the way.  66 up and 66 back down.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Tumeni on March 19, 2020, 03:36:09 PM
It doesn’t make much sense on a RE to go all away from Santiago to Northern Hemisphere and back down to Sydney.

It does if you have sufficient customers who want to go between Santiago and LA, and/or LA and Sydney
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: AATW on March 19, 2020, 04:02:48 PM
This dude managed to book a direct flight from Sydney to Santiago fine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu6AApYgdRg

At one point he shows the flight route shown on the seat displays.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 20, 2020, 10:18:30 AM
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.

I tried to do this last year just to see if I could buy a ticket from those exact 2 locations, Santiago to Sydney.  I also just tried again.  A ticket 1 way are about 1500$.  Every one stops in the USA.  The one that didn’t was a non-stop flight for $2500.  So I tried to buy one. I went through the steps and at the end the ticket went up to $9500.  I clicked accept. Then it sent me back to a flight that had a stop in Los Angeles.  I didn’t come across a non-stop flight today when I searched, but I was short in time. I’m not saying they aren’t any non-stop flights, but if they do have them the airlines sure don’t want the average Joe on them.

On a FE map, Santiago to Sydney with a stop in Los Angeles is a straight line. It doesn’t make much sense on a RE to go all away from Santiago to Northern Hemisphere and back down to Sydney.  If I’m not mistaken all 3 have a latitude of 33 with Los Angeles in the northern hemisphere. So that’s 132 degrees out of the way.  66 up and 66 back down.

I went on quantas.com. Maybe you can try to buy one of these flights and let us know how you get on. I was actually pretty surprised, given the global COVID-19 pandemic, that I'd be offered anything at all..

(https://i.imgur.com/JGRyMzW.png)
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Jay Seneca on March 21, 2020, 07:25:16 AM
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.

I tried to do this last year just to see if I could buy a ticket from those exact 2 locations, Santiago to Sydney.  I also just tried again.  A ticket 1 way are about 1500$.  Every one stops in the USA.  The one that didn’t was a non-stop flight for $2500.  So I tried to buy one. I went through the steps and at the end the ticket went up to $9500.  I clicked accept. Then it sent me back to a flight that had a stop in Los Angeles.  I didn’t come across a non-stop flight today when I searched, but I was short in time. I’m not saying they aren’t any non-stop flights, but if they do have them the airlines sure don’t want the average Joe on them.

On a FE map, Santiago to Sydney with a stop in Los Angeles is a straight line. It doesn’t make much sense on a RE to go all away from Santiago to Northern Hemisphere and back down to Sydney.  If I’m not mistaken all 3 have a latitude of 33 with Los Angeles in the northern hemisphere. So that’s 132 degrees out of the way.  66 up and 66 back down.

I went on quantas.com. Maybe you can try to buy one of these flights and let us know how you get on. I was actually pretty surprised, given the global COVID-19 pandemic, that I'd be offered anything at all..

(https://i.imgur.com/JGRyMzW.png)

Wow. You leave Sydney at 10am and 12 hours later you get to Santiago at 8:55am the same day you actually get  a extra hour when u land .
Going the other way you lose 29 hours.  I’ll do the math on that tomorrow and see if it all adds up. 
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Jay Seneca on March 21, 2020, 07:38:31 AM
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.

I tried to do this last year just to see if I could buy a ticket from those exact 2 locations, Santiago to Sydney.  I also just tried again.  A ticket 1 way are about 1500$.  Every one stops in the USA.  The one that didn’t was a non-stop flight for $2500.  So I tried to buy one. I went through the steps and at the end the ticket went up to $9500.  I clicked accept. Then it sent me back to a flight that had a stop in Los Angeles.  I didn’t come across a non-stop flight today when I searched, but I was short in time. I’m not saying they aren’t any non-stop flights, but if they do have them the airlines sure don’t want the average Joe on them.

On a FE map, Santiago to Sydney with a stop in Los Angeles is a straight line. It doesn’t make much sense on a RE to go all away from Santiago to Northern Hemisphere and back down to Sydney.  If I’m not mistaken all 3 have a latitude of 33 with Los Angeles in the northern hemisphere. So that’s 132 degrees out of the way.  66 up and 66 back down.

I went on quantas.com. Maybe you can try to buy one of these flights and let us know how you get on. I was actually pretty surprised, given the global COVID-19 pandemic, that I'd be offered anything at all..

(https://i.imgur.com/JGRyMzW.png)

I think the non stop over the Pacific is the important one. It’s 4 times zones closer than over Africa, but they always seem to go the long route. Which leaves the question. How big is the Pacific Ocean?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Tumeni on March 21, 2020, 10:08:24 AM
Wow. You leave Sydney at 10am and 12 hours later you get to Santiago at 8:55am the same day you actually get  a extra hour when u land .
Going the other way you lose 29 hours.  I’ll do the math on that tomorrow and see if it all adds up.

Why would it not add up? I've not looked at the figures, but ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Date_Line#Circumnavigating_the_globe
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Jay Seneca on March 21, 2020, 11:45:58 AM
Wow. You leave Sydney at 10am and 12 hours later you get to Santiago at 8:55am the same day you actually get  a extra hour when u land .
Going the other way you lose 29 hours.  I’ll do the math on that tomorrow and see if it all adds up.

Why would it not add up? I've not looked at the figures, but ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Date_Line#Circumnavigating_the_globe

For one your traveling 13 hours over 10 time zones and end up over a hour earlier than when you left. Just by looking at it you should be 3 hours later than the time you left. 
10:00 + 13hrs= 23:00
23:00- 10 time zones = 13:00

Unless I’m looking at it wrong
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 21, 2020, 11:53:52 AM
Wow. You leave Sydney at 10am and 12 hours later you get to Santiago at 8:55am the same day you actually get  a extra hour when u land .
Going the other way you lose 29 hours.  I’ll do the math on that tomorrow and see if it all adds up.

[Edit] got the times wrong first go..

Sydney is 14 hours ahead of Santiago, so that'd be a 13 hour flight minus the 14 hour difference on the way out and 15 hour flight plus 14 hours on the way back. Winds are predominantly east to west down there so you'd expect the outbound to be shorter than the return. Average flight time is 14 hours, direct distance is 11340km so average ground speed is 810km/h which is certainly in the right ball park.

I think the non stop over the Pacific is the important one. It’s 4 times zones closer than over Africa, but they always seem to go the long route. Which leaves the question. How big is the Pacific Ocean?

Not with you there, both the outbound and the return are direct flights so would be more or less the same route.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Jay Seneca on March 21, 2020, 11:58:56 AM
My bad. I counted going across the pacific when i should have counted going across Africa. It’s 14 hours behind. I believe that adds up.
That’s moving fast and isn’t that going against the jet stream.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 21, 2020, 12:11:37 PM
My bad. I counted going across the pacific when i should have counted going across Africa. It’s 14 hours behind. I believe that adds up.
That’s moving fast and isn’t that going against the jet stream.
870km/h outbound, 756km/h on the way back for an average 810km/h overall. A quick google suggests the jet stream average is between 129-225km/h but it does vary a lot. Also bear in mind that an aeroplane doesn't always follow the shortest route. Depending on wind etc., the most economical route may be a slightly longer one. Also an aeroplane takes time to accelerate and climb to cruising speed and altitude, so as long as the figures end up in the right ballpark, there's no reason to doubt them.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Jay Seneca on March 21, 2020, 01:28:04 PM
My bad. I counted going across the pacific when i should have counted going across Africa. It’s 14 hours behind. I believe that adds up.
That’s moving fast and isn’t that going against the jet stream.
870km/h outbound, 756km/h on the way back for an average 810km/h overall. A quick google suggests the jet stream average is between 129-225km/h but it does vary a lot. Also bear in mind that an aeroplane doesn't always follow the shortest route. Depending on wind etc., the most economical route may be a slightly longer one. Also an aeroplane takes time to accelerate and climb to cruising speed and altitude, so as long as the figures end up in the right ballpark, there's no reason to doubt them.

“Extended over-water operations” means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Tumeni on March 21, 2020, 01:41:09 PM
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 21, 2020, 02:16:06 PM
“Extended over-water operations” means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well I believe this is a 4 engined 747 so if anything can operate outside that limitation, that'd be a good one to choose. Certainly there are aircraft allowed to operate outside these limits, otherwise Hawaii would be a tricky place to get to, wouldn't it, no matter whether the earth is flat or a globe.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. I was responding to your post where you said you'd struggled to find any non-stop flights between these destinations. I thought you were just questioning the existence of this as a scheduled route. It turns out that you can book direct with Quantas who are the people who operate the route, sometimes themselves and sometimes through a partner airline. Going direct to Quantas makes it easy to find these flights.

Now we seem to be drifting off into other issues such as how fast the jetstream is or what the cruising speed of the aircraft is or whether the quoted times make sense and now it's "extended over-water operations".

I thought at first you were proposing to buy a ticket, but struggled to find one, so I assumed you'd be excited by the prospect of actually finding a site where you could do that. Apparently not.

Look, the route appears to exist, they use a sensible aircraft to fly it, you can apparently buy tickets, the stated times of departure and arrival and average ground speeds are all in the right ballpark and you've even been provided with a video showing the take off and landing and the route being followed on a seat-back screen. How much more do you want?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on March 21, 2020, 10:51:54 PM
Also LATAM (Chilean State Airline) fly Santiago-Melbourne (7000 miles on a RE model) 3 times per week, Flight Numbers LA804/LA805.  Its not difficult to find.  Flight times Chile-bound last week were 12 hrs 7 min, 11 hrs 53 min and 12 hrs 10 min (FlightRadar24).  That gives airspeeds of around 580 mph, reasonable for a Boeing 787. 

No stops in LA, no stops at Area 51, just Santiago to Melbourne across the Arctic Circle.  Flight times Australia-bound around 520 mph (due to prevailing winds. 

And ETOPS aircraft have to remain 50 miles from land? Seriously?  Ask the population of Iceland.  The regulation is currently 4-hrs flying time at single engine cruise speed, which is madness from a safety point of view, but gives almost no restriction to routing.   

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 21, 2020, 11:45:52 PM
Well it seems that the Quantas QF323 flight operated by LATAM under the flight number LA802 that I picked out earlier left Sydney at 10:30am, 1/2 hour later than planned, but arrived in Santiago just fine. The purple track is the actual flightpath and the dashed red is the theoretical zero wind shortest/best (great circle) route.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/la802#243dd93e (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/la802#243dd93e)

Note that the times are given in UTC so add +11 hours for Australian Eastern Daylight Time (i.e. local time in Sydney).

(https://i.imgur.com/1rPvM6M.png)
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Jay Seneca on March 22, 2020, 09:51:42 PM
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....
I would send pictures but every time I try  it always tells me its to much data. But Im quoting something from Cornell Law School that’s from some Aviation book.  I think the reason is because airplanes use long range land antennas as there source for guidance.  Hence if you get to for from land and they’ll lose the plane on the radar and the pilot would not be able to rely on its GPS for its location. There’s a term for it I can’t remember it off the top of my head.   
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on March 22, 2020, 11:06:09 PM
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....
I would send pictures but every time I try  it always tells me its to much data. But Im quoting something from Cornell Law School that’s from some Aviation book.  I think the reason is because airplanes use long range land antennas as there source for guidance.  Hence if you get to for from land and they’ll lose the plane on the radar and the pilot would not be able to rely on its GPS for its location. There’s a term for it I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

My guess is this:

14 CFR § 91.509 - Survival equipment for overwater operations.
(a) No person may take off an airplane for a flight over water more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shore unless that airplane is equipped with a life preserver or an approved flotation means for each occupant of the airplane.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.509

As explained by others, there are rules governing flights going great distances over remote regions, land or sea. Essentially, flights need to be ETOPS (Extended Operations) certified. Meaning sufficient safety gear on board for passenger/crew safety if the plane has to ditch.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Jay Seneca on March 23, 2020, 01:09:18 AM
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....
I would send pictures but every time I try  it always tells me its to much data. But Im quoting something from Cornell Law School that’s from some Aviation book.  I think the reason is because airplanes use long range land antennas as there source for guidance.  Hence if you get to for from land and they’ll lose the plane on the radar and the pilot would not be able to rely on its GPS for its location. There’s a term for it I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

My guess is this:

14 CFR § 91.509 - Survival equipment for overwater operations.
(a) No person may take off an airplane for a flight over water more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shore unless that airplane is equipped with a life preserver or an approved flotation means for each occupant of the airplane.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.509

As explained by others, there are rules governing flights going great distances over remote regions, land or sea. Essentially, flights need to be ETOPS (Extended Operations) certified. Meaning sufficient safety gear on board for passenger/crew safety if the plane has to ditch.

This is not the exact one I’m talking about but I’m short on time and I think this is close to what I’m talking about.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.351
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: WolverinePlays on March 23, 2020, 01:10:48 AM
Yes they are real, because you see yourself boarding a plane do you not? They don’t go “off” the earth 😂, because you simply cannot go off the earth with gravity lol.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: WolverinePlays on March 23, 2020, 01:11:55 AM
How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.
This has been addressed numerous times.

These airlines offer such flights for purchase.

The thing is, if you buy such a ticket, it is:

A) a NON-REFUNDABLE PURCHASE; and,
B) You end up typically moved to a different flight with a stop over (one that conveniently matches the Azimuthal Equidistant Map).

For those rare non-stop flights that do occur, it would not be surprising to find that aerial refueling is taking place, something of which the passengers would be totally unaware.
He said a nonstop plane ticket
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 23, 2020, 10:20:58 AM
“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?


means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....
I would send pictures but every time I try  it always tells me its to much data. But Im quoting something from Cornell Law School that’s from some Aviation book.  I think the reason is because airplanes use long range land antennas as there source for guidance.  Hence if you get to for from land and they’ll lose the plane on the radar and the pilot would not be able to rely on its GPS for its location. There’s a term for it I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

My guess is this:

14 CFR § 91.509 - Survival equipment for overwater operations.
(a) No person may take off an airplane for a flight over water more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shore unless that airplane is equipped with a life preserver or an approved flotation means for each occupant of the airplane.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.509

As explained by others, there are rules governing flights going great distances over remote regions, land or sea. Essentially, flights need to be ETOPS (Extended Operations) certified. Meaning sufficient safety gear on board for passenger/crew safety if the plane has to ditch.

This is not the exact one I’m talking about but I’m short on time and I think this is close to what I’m talking about.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.351

So if I can summarize. In order for these flights to be legal, they must comply with CFR § 91.509 to allow them to fly more then 50nm from land and additionally comply with CFR § 121.351 to allow "extended over-water operations", which means they need:
These aircraft are all equipped with life jackets, life rafts, flares and portable radios, covering 1) & 2).

They are equipped with satellite communications and HF radios, which takes care of 3).

They are equipped with ring laser based inertial navigation systems and GPS/GNSS which takes care of 4).

Basically good to go.

But lets keep going. There are two aircraft types being used. Quantas QF27/QF28 use the Boeing 747-400 and the LATAM operated QF323/QF324 use the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner.

The Dreamliner is ETOPS-330 certified. What does that mean? It means it must at all times be no more than 330 minutes (5.5 hours) from a suitable diversion airfield in the event of an emergency. Now clearly since this is a 12+ hour flight, this is tricky to comply with, but there are options. For the first segment of the flight they can either return to Australia or divert to New Zealand (probably Christchurch) and for the last segment they just carry on to Santiago. There is a point in the flight however where they are too far in to reach Christchurch, but still more than 5.5 hours flying time from Santiago. For that segment, possibly Tahiti is the alternate, which may explain why the route taken appears to be somewhat further north than strictly necessary. So long as they can remain no more than 5.5 hours away from one of these airfields, they are legal.

The 747-400 is under less stringent rules since it is an older 4 engined aircraft. The ETOPS rules were originally intended for twin engined aircraft, but are also now being applied to newer 4 engined ones as well.

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 25, 2020, 05:47:28 PM
Not sure if anyone is still following this thread, but earlier I posted flight options for a return Sydney <-> Santiago. The outbound took place 4 days ago. The return flight, Quantas QF28, a Boeing 747-400 has just begun, you can track it if you want for the next 12 hours or so. Lots of options, but I went with https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/VHOEE (https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/VHOEE) because it gives you lots of interesting information including all the waypoints on the planned route.

So far we have evidence that:
To be honest, if this were a flight from London to New York, this would be more than enough evidence to convince anyone, but obviously it's a problem for the flat earth, so denial and disbelief seem to be the default settings. Anyway here's where the aircraft is at the moment...

(https://i.imgur.com/MEr1V4d.png)
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on April 01, 2020, 12:48:59 AM
I’m probably going to get a “warning” for this post but...

Just an observation to make: FErs were unable to refute the argument that supports the earth is round in this thread. We have established that:
1) All accurate maps online are either a)controlled by the conspiracy or b) use round earth geometrics
2) you can buy plane tickets that would be way too far for for a normal jet (747) to fly, so either a) the cabal is lying about the planes stats or the nature of the flight, easily proven otherwise if you took the flight, or b) the distance reported to you from the flight company is accurate.

These points have been discussed here, and no good argument was presented in favor of the flat One would rather “not know” than to side with the most likely explanation that the earth is round, maps online are accurate (to a degree discussed in this thread), and that plane tickets ARE real and the nature of these long flights and the planes themselves are accurately described by the airliners and plane manufacturers.

I’m going to give a bone to the FE community though by saying that the quantity of seemingly knowledgeable flat earthers on this forum is low, and the amount of effort they sometimes put into their posts is high, so I’d understand if this thread isn’t a priority over their wife and kids, however questions still remain to be answered and so far it’s not looking to good for FET here.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 01, 2020, 09:17:29 AM
I’m probably going to get a “warning” for this post but...

Just an observation to make: FErs were unable to refute the argument that supports the earth is round in this thread. We have established that:
1) All accurate maps online are either a)controlled by the conspiracy or b) use round earth geometrics
2) you can buy plane tickets that would be way too far for for a normal jet (747) to fly, so either a) the cabal is lying about the planes stats or the nature of the flight, easily proven otherwise if you took the flight, or b) the distance reported to you from the flight company is accurate.

These points have been discussed here, and no good argument was presented in favor of the flat One would rather “not know” than to side with the most likely explanation that the earth is round, maps online are accurate (to a degree discussed in this thread), and that plane tickets ARE real and the nature of these long flights and the planes themselves are accurately described by the airliners and plane manufacturers.

I’m going to give a bone to the FE community though by saying that the quantity of seemingly knowledgeable flat earthers on this forum is low, and the amount of effort they sometimes put into their posts is high, so I’d understand if this thread isn’t a priority over their wife and kids, however questions still remain to be answered and so far it’s not looking to good for FET here.

I couldn't agree more. I originally got involved in this thread talking about distances on Bing maps. After a lot of back and forth discussion, I finished with a post where I showed the line of code calling the Bing API to calculate a distance, showed the official Bing documentation for this code, where it tells you they use the globe based Haversine formula. In my view, that's beyond reasonable doubt - Bing maps under the hood is clearly based on a Globe model. Since then, silence, tubleweed, nothing, nada, no response.

Next we got onto the Sydney - Santiago flights...

Jay Seneca: "I tried to buy a flight, but I can't find any"
Me: "Qantas.com"
Jay Seneca: "I haven't checked, but the flight times look wrong"
Me: "I've checked for you, here are the times, they are all fine"
Jay Seneca: "You can't fly more than 50nm from land according to the rules which I saw somewhere, but can't lay my hands on anymore"
Me: "1) How would you get to Hawaii then? 2) Here are the rules, here are the aircraft, here's the equipment they carry, they meet the rules, the flights are legal"
Me: "Oh look, I tracked the 2 flights I picked out, outbound and return, here are all the details"

Silence, dead silence.

I get that people have lives and it's unreasonable to expect responses all the time, but I've seen this before. Once the scales start to tip irretrievably in the direction of the RE in a discussion, it dies silently.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 02, 2020, 02:54:44 AM
Next we got onto the Sydney - Santiago flights...

Jay Seneca: "I tried to buy a flight, but I can't find any"
Me: "Qantas.com"
Jay Seneca: "I haven't checked, but the flight times look wrong"
Me: "I've checked for you, here are the times, they are all fine"
Jay Seneca: "You can't fly more than 50nm from land according to the rules which I saw somewhere, but can't lay my hands on anymore"
Me: "1) How would you get to Hawaii then? 2) Here are the rules, here are the aircraft, here's the equipment they carry, they meet the rules, the flights are legal"
Me: "Oh look, I tracked the 2 flights I picked out, outbound and return, here are all the details"

Silence, dead silence.

I get that people have lives and it's unreasonable to expect responses all the time, but I've seen this before. Once the scales start to tip irretrievably in the direction of the RE in a discussion, it dies silently.


The issue is that there have been a good 20 or so rebuttals to the claim that these southern hemisphere flights disprove FE model __________________. They are all already documented on this thread. It's not silence, it's more there are dozens of rebuttals other than "those flights are fake" or "those flights don't exist"

HERE:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15877.msg204803#msg204803


I couldn't agree more. I originally got involved in this thread talking about distances on Bing maps. After a lot of back and forth discussion, I finished with a post where I showed the line of code calling the Bing API to calculate a distance, showed the official Bing documentation for this code, where it tells you they use the globe based Haversine formula. In my view, that's beyond reasonable doubt - Bing maps under the hood is clearly based on a Globe model. Since then, silence, tubleweed, nothing, nada, no response.

I already gave my rebuttal about that. I'll give it again.

1. Anyone can put ANYTHING on a HTML document. Just because something exists on an HTML document does not make it true.

Since that didn't satisfy you here's more:

2. Without access to the source code from the Bing API there is no way to confirm or deny the claims made in an HTML document.
3. I only ever completed Calc2. I don't know enough about spacial geometry to know what formulas may, or may not, be used in these distance calculations and how they may, or may not, relate to a sphere/spheroid/oblate spheroid being projected onto a 2d surface.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 02, 2020, 05:11:32 AM
Next we got onto the Sydney - Santiago flights...

Jay Seneca: "I tried to buy a flight, but I can't find any"
Me: "Qantas.com"
Jay Seneca: "I haven't checked, but the flight times look wrong"
Me: "I've checked for you, here are the times, they are all fine"
Jay Seneca: "You can't fly more than 50nm from land according to the rules which I saw somewhere, but can't lay my hands on anymore"
Me: "1) How would you get to Hawaii then? 2) Here are the rules, here are the aircraft, here's the equipment they carry, they meet the rules, the flights are legal"
Me: "Oh look, I tracked the 2 flights I picked out, outbound and return, here are all the details"

Silence, dead silence.

I get that people have lives and it's unreasonable to expect responses all the time, but I've seen this before. Once the scales start to tip irretrievably in the direction of the RE in a discussion, it dies silently.


The issue is that there have been a good 20 or so rebuttals to the claim that these southern hemisphere flights disprove FE model __________________. They are all already documented on this thread. It's not silence, it's more there are dozens of rebuttals other than "those flights are fake" or "those flights don't exist"

HERE:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15877.msg204803#msg204803


I couldn't agree more. I originally got involved in this thread talking about distances on Bing maps. After a lot of back and forth discussion, I finished with a post where I showed the line of code calling the Bing API to calculate a distance, showed the official Bing documentation for this code, where it tells you they use the globe based Haversine formula. In my view, that's beyond reasonable doubt - Bing maps under the hood is clearly based on a Globe model. Since then, silence, tubleweed, nothing, nada, no response.

I already gave my rebuttal about that. I'll give it again.

1. Anyone can put ANYTHING on a HTML document. Just because something exists on an HTML document does not make it true.

Since that didn't satisfy you here's more:

2. Without access to the source code from the Bing API there is no way to confirm or deny the claims made in an HTML document.
3. I only ever completed Calc2. I don't know enough about spacial geometry to know what formulas may, or may not, be used in these distance calculations and how they may, or may not, relate to a sphere/spheroid/oblate spheroid being projected onto a 2d surface.

Regarding #2, it's Microsoft's HTML doc, you know, the creators and maintainers of Bing Maps, published on the Microsoft site, for coders to interface with it. What more do you need? If they published their entire source code in HTML, would you have the same argument. Or does it have to be a TXT file, PDF, stone tablet? I mean really, can we be adults about this. Microsoft states how Bing Maps is rendered and that isn't good enough? Seriously? You're making up things that don't need to be made up.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 02, 2020, 07:17:25 AM

I already gave my rebuttal about that. I'll give it again.

1. Anyone can put ANYTHING on a HTML document. Just because something exists on an HTML document does not make it true.

Since that didn't satisfy you here's more:

2. Without access to the source code from the Bing API there is no way to confirm or deny the claims made in an HTML document.
3. I only ever completed Calc2. I don't know enough about spacial geometry to know what formulas may, or may not, be used in these distance calculations and how they may, or may not, relate to a sphere/spheroid/oblate spheroid being projected onto a 2d surface.

Regarding #2, it's Microsoft's HTML doc, you know, the creators and maintainers of Bing Maps, published on the Microsoft site, for coders to interface with it.

This does not change the fact that without the source code from the Bing API there is no way to confirm or deny the claims made in an HTML document. This also does not change the fact that anyone can put anything on an HTML document.


What more do you need?

If I had the source code from the Bing API, along with training on the code from the engineering team that wrote it, along with a masters in math (or someone else who has a masters in math) who could help with the complex math involved with:

Surface area of an oblate spheroid and planar 3D geometry when projected onto a 2d surface
Surface area of a spheroid and planar 3D geometry when projected onto a 2d surface
Surface area of a sphere and planar 3D geometry when projected onto a 2d surface

If they published their entire source code in HTML, would you have the same argument. Or does it have to be a TXT file, PDF, stone tablet?

If I got access to their source code then I would just need to test it and hang out with someone who has a masters in math to determine if the claims made on an HTML document is accurate or not.


I mean really, can we be adults about this. Microsoft states how Bing Maps is rendered and that isn't good enough?
I prefer to find things out for myself than blindly accepting the words of others as fact.


Seriously? You're making up things that don't need to be made up.

Don't know what I made up. Care to elaborate on exactly what I made up.

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: GreatATuin on April 02, 2020, 10:14:07 AM
If I got access to their source code then I would just need to test it and hang out with someone who has a masters in math to determine if the claims made on an HTML document is accurate or not.

You probably can't do that with Bing - Bing is closed source, it's unlikely Microsoft will ever give you their code. But you can do that with Openstreetmap. The data and source code (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Getting_The_Source) of OSM are public. You can even run your own server (https://www.linuxbabe.com/ubuntu/openstreetmap-tile-server-ubuntu-18-04-osm). It would take a lot of time and effort, especially if you want to compile everything yourself from source code and not just download the binaries, but it can be done. You can see for yourself every line of code and every bit of data.

OSM and Bing both use a variant of the Mercator projection, which means their map will look reasonably similar.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 02, 2020, 11:30:52 AM
Next we got onto the Sydney - Santiago flights...

Jay Seneca: "I tried to buy a flight, but I can't find any"
Me: "Qantas.com"
Jay Seneca: "I haven't checked, but the flight times look wrong"
Me: "I've checked for you, here are the times, they are all fine"
Jay Seneca: "You can't fly more than 50nm from land according to the rules which I saw somewhere, but can't lay my hands on anymore"
Me: "1) How would you get to Hawaii then? 2) Here are the rules, here are the aircraft, here's the equipment they carry, they meet the rules, the flights are legal"
Me: "Oh look, I tracked the 2 flights I picked out, outbound and return, here are all the details"

Silence, dead silence.

I get that people have lives and it's unreasonable to expect responses all the time, but I've seen this before. Once the scales start to tip irretrievably in the direction of the RE in a discussion, it dies silently.


The issue is that there have been a good 20 or so rebuttals to the claim that these southern hemisphere flights disprove FE model __________________. They are all already documented on this thread. It's not silence, it's more there are dozens of rebuttals other than "those flights are fake" or "those flights don't exist"

HERE:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15877.msg204803#msg204803

Setting aside for the moment that most of these rebuttals are of the form:

Tom Bishop: Yes it is
Everyone else: No it isn't

You are attempting a rebuttal of a point I'm not making. Nowhere in this thread have I tried to claim these flights prove or disprove anything. That's an argument for another day. In order to debate what these flights may prove or disprove, first we have to agree that they exist. That's all I'm doing here, providing evidence to counter the claim that they don't exist, or if they did then they would be illegal or the flight times don't make sense or that you can never find any tickets to buy.

So, out of interest, do you believe these flights exist? Do you doubt the evidence I've presented, if so, what part and why?

I couldn't agree more. I originally got involved in this thread talking about distances on Bing maps. After a lot of back and forth discussion, I finished with a post where I showed the line of code calling the Bing API to calculate a distance, showed the official Bing documentation for this code, where it tells you they use the globe based Haversine formula. In my view, that's beyond reasonable doubt - Bing maps under the hood is clearly based on a Globe model. Since then, silence, tubleweed, nothing, nada, no response.

I already gave my rebuttal about that. I'll give it again.

1. Anyone can put ANYTHING on a HTML document. Just because something exists on an HTML document does not make it true.
Of course anyone can put anything on an HTML page, I can do that myself. What I can't do (because I'm not a world class hacker) is bust through the security on Microsoft's servers to change one of their own pages. And let's suppose that I was lying and I am in fact a world class hacker and I did go in and change Microsoft's documentation. How come nobody notices it's changed and is now completely incorrect? Does nobody care? Please explain how that could happen.


Since that didn't satisfy you here's more:

2. Without access to the source code from the Bing API there is no way to confirm or deny the claims made in an HTML document.

Well how about this: Implement your own version of the spherical haversine formula in code according to the published algorithm. Generate a large number of random locations (say 1 million). Compare the distances given by your own version of haversine with the results from the Bing API distance calculation function. If all of the results are within a whisker of the same value (say 0.01%) then would you accept that Bing is (as the documentation claims) using the haversine formula?


3. I only ever completed Calc2. I don't know enough about spacial geometry to know what formulas may, or may not, be used in these distance calculations and how they may, or may not, relate to a sphere/spheroid/oblate spheroid being projected onto a 2d surface.

Well that's fine. A step at a time. All I'm trying to persuade you at this point is that Bing use the haversine formula. The documentation says they do, a handful of results checked so far happen to support that idea. I'm suggesting that you could extend that and verify that a million distance calculations from Bing would also agree with an independently implemented haversine function. If that would convince you that the Microsoft documentation is correct insofar as Bing using haversine, then the discussion can move forward and we can go on to discuss what that might or might not mean for the flat earth.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: GreatATuin on April 02, 2020, 01:25:07 PM
If I got access to their source code then I would just need to test it and hang out with someone who has a masters in math to determine if the claims made on an HTML document is accurate or not.

You probably can't do that with Bing - Bing is closed source, it's unlikely Microsoft will ever give you their code. But you can do that with Openstreetmap. OSM and Bing both use a variant of the Mercator projection, which means their map will look reasonably similar. The data and source code (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Getting_The_Source) of OSM are public. You can even run your own server (https://www.linuxbabe.com/ubuntu/openstreetmap-tile-server-ubuntu-18-04-osm). It would take a lot of time and effort, especially if you want to compile everything yourself from source code and not just download the binaries, but it can be done. You can see for yourself every line of code and every bit of data.

Will you ever do that? I guess not. But it's definitely possible.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 03, 2020, 12:39:01 AM
Seriously? You're making up things that don't need to be made up.

Don't know what I made up. Care to elaborate on exactly what I made up.

Yes, what you made up is an invalidation of pretty much every post where someone cites an authoritative source. Based solely on the fact that HTML is editable. Your logic seems to be:

- HTML documentation from the authoritative maker/maintainer of a piece of software is not authoritative because of "the fact that anyone can put anything on an HTML document."
- Therefore, unless I am on the software product team and sit with someone and walk through the source code it remains unclear whether the authoritative HTML documentation is correct or not

Seriously? That means that if anyone cites anything from an authoritative source for their stance/argument/whatever and it happens to be in HTML you immediately reject it unless you are there to witness it?  Really? Do you apply this rigidity to all of your interactions with software, appliances, vehicles, the earth, etc?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 03, 2020, 02:17:34 AM

Yes, what you made up is an invalidation of pretty much every post where someone cites an authoritative source. Based solely on the fact that HTML is editable. Your logic seems to be:

- HTML documentation from the authoritative maker/maintainer of a piece of software is not authoritative because of "the fact that anyone can put anything on an HTML document."
- Therefore, unless I am on the software product team and sit with someone and walk through the source code it remains unclear whether the authoritative HTML documentation is correct or not

Seriously? That means that if anyone cites anything from an authoritative source for their stance/argument/whatever and it happens to be in HTML you immediately reject it unless you are there to witness it?  Really? Do you apply this rigidity to all of your interactions with software, appliances, vehicles, the earth, etc?

Questioning things that appear on an HTML document <> making things up. They are two totally different things.

- HTML documentation from the authoritative maker/maintainer of a piece of software is not authoritative because of "the fact that anyone can put anything on an HTML document."
- Therefore, unless I am on the software product team and sit with someone and walk through the source code it remains unclear whether the authoritative HTML documentation is correct or not

No My logic is simply this: Don't BLINDLY believe everything that you read on the internet without even questioning it's validity.


Seriously? That means that if anyone cites anything from an authoritative source for their stance/argument/whatever and it happens to be in HTML you immediately reject it unless you are there to witness it? 


No. But an HTML document published by an unknown person with an unknown background is NOT an authoritative source in my opinion. You can disagree but i'm still not making things up.


Really? Do you apply this rigidity to all of your interactions with software, appliances, vehicles, the earth, etc?

Nope. Just to things on the internet which may or may not be factually accurate with no sources cited whatsoever.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 03, 2020, 08:56:17 AM
Seriously? You're making up things that don't need to be made up.

Don't know what I made up. Care to elaborate on exactly what I made up.

Yes, what you made up is an invalidation of pretty much every post where someone cites an authoritative source. Based solely on the fact that HTML is editable. Your logic seems to be:

- HTML documentation from the authoritative maker/maintainer of a piece of software is not authoritative because of "the fact that anyone can put anything on an HTML document."
- Therefore, unless I am on the software product team and sit with someone and walk through the source code it remains unclear whether the authoritative HTML documentation is correct or not

Seriously? That means that if anyone cites anything from an authoritative source for their stance/argument/whatever and it happens to be in HTML you immediately reject it unless you are there to witness it?  Really? Do you apply this rigidity to all of your interactions with software, appliances, vehicles, the earth, etc?

Unfortunately we are stuck at this point because iamcpc won't let go of this point, even though the rest of us think it's (to put it politely) invalid reasoning.

I'm attempting a slightly different tack, let's go ahead and prove that at least one very important part of the documentation is accurate. The Bing API calculates distance between two points using the getDistanceTo method in the SpatialMath module. The documentation for this says:

Quote
Calculate the distance between two locations on the surface of the earth using the Haversine formula...

And Wikipedia says the Haversine formula:

Quote
...determines the great-circle distance between two points on a sphere given their longitudes and latitudes.

So in my view, if we can demonstrate that this specific line of the Bing API documentation is correct, then the consequence is that Bing maps does use a spherical model.

Ideally we'd look at the Bing API source code, but that's not going to be possible, however I think we can use the API itself to demonstrate the correctness of the claim.

Choose a large number of random pairs of locations (latitude and longitude), e.g. 1 million. Use the Bing API to calculate the distances between each pair. Repeat the calculations using some implementation of the Haversine formula (for which we do have the source code) and my contention is that the two sets of results will agree to a very high accuracy (e.g. < 0.01% difference).

In my view that would prove the documentation correct and demonstrate that this Bing API call is indeed using the Haversine formula.

If you told me you could predict the throw of a dice and then correctly predicted 1 million throws in a row, I'd have to concede that you were telling the truth.

Whether or not iamcpc would accept this as a reasonable test, I don't know.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 03, 2020, 05:45:56 PM
Really? Do you apply this rigidity to all of your interactions with software, appliances, vehicles, the earth, etc?

Nope. Just to things on the internet which may or may not be factually accurate with no sources cited whatsoever.

With no sources cited whatsoever? The information is published by Microsoft, the creator, owner, and maintainer of BING Maps. Microsoft is the source. How do you not get that? Do you need Bill Gates to hand write you a personal letter to attest to the fact that Microsoft is the source of its own products and how they work?

In any case, I did a little experiment taken from what robinofloxley said. He stated:

The Bing API calculates distance between two points using the getDistanceTo method in the SpatialMath module. The documentation for this says:

Quote
Calculate the distance between two locations on the surface of the earth using the Haversine formula...

And Wikipedia says the Haversine formula:

Quote
...determines the great-circle distance between two points on a sphere given their longitudes and latitudes.


So I punched in SFO (San Francisco International Airport) to HKG (Hong Kong International Airport) into a Great Circle Mapper tool on the web. Here is the result:

(https://i.imgur.com/X9iZjPS.png)
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-HKG

The Haversine great circle Globe distance is 6,927 mi

I then went to Bing Maps and measured the same, SFO to HKG, and got this:

(https://i.imgur.com/7BYCdgu.png)

And guess what, same exact distance, 6,927 mi

What more proof do you need than this and Microsoft's own documentation that Bing Maps is using Globe calculations?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 04, 2020, 08:33:19 AM

I then went to Bing Maps and measured the same, SFO to HKG, and got this:



And guess what, same exact distance, 6,927 mi

Because that is the distance between those points regardless of if the earth is a sphere, spheroid, oblate spheroid, or any other shape.

What more proof do you need than this and Microsoft's own documentation that Bing Maps is using Globe calculations?

I've already explained what I would need in order to believe something that a random person I've never met before typed on an HTML document.



With no sources cited whatsoever? The information is published by Microsoft, the creator, owner, and maintainer of BING Maps. Microsoft is the source. How do you not get that? Do you need Bill Gates to hand write you a personal letter to attest to the fact that Microsoft is the source of its own products and how they work?


Have you ever worked at a company that has more than, i dunno, like 200 employees? I have. There are things put on HTML documents CONSTANTLY that like 95% of the company is totally unaware of.

According to this HTML document listed below, which may or may not be accurate, Microsoft has 144 THOUSAND employees. Those 144 THOUSAND employees makes up Microsoft. Do you honestly believe that it took 144 THOUSAND people to make the website with the documentation about Bing maps?

That website was likely made by a web developer or maybe even two. Hell i'll be generous and say 4. That means 99.997% of Microsoft had NOTHING to do with that website.



https://www.statista.com/statistics/273475/number-of-employees-at-the-microsoft-corporation-since-2005/
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 04, 2020, 10:04:34 AM

I then went to Bing Maps and measured the same, SFO to HKG, and got this:



And guess what, same exact distance, 6,927 mi

Because that is the distance between those points regardless of if the earth is a sphere, spheroid, oblate spheroid, or any other shape.

Well no because that's impossible. The distances calculated by the Haversine formula match a sphere and no other shape. Imagine a desktop globe with the latitude and longitude lines covered by string, so you have a string bag fitting snugly over the surface. Take the globe away and try and fit this string bag perfectly to any other shape, especially something flat. It is not possible, it will always distort, end of story.

So if your Bing distances are always 100% in agreement with a Haversine distance for any two locations then the underlying shape used by Bing cannot be anything other than a sphere.

On a flat surface, if you have three points connected by straight lines of the same length then there is only one possible shape it can be - an equilateral triangle and all the angles will be 60 degrees. Measure enough lengths/distances of something and you can absolutely determine the underlying shape.

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it sounds like a duck and crucially all the measurements fit a duck. It's not a donkey.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on April 04, 2020, 10:10:12 AM
Your logic on this is completely wrong iamcpc. It doesn't matter if one or two thousand people were put on the Bing project, people check each others work. Your statement is rediculous. And not only that, even if it was edited tomorrow to say something crazy like the earth is actually flat, people can see the edit history and see what idiot put false information on their website. Stuff like this doesn't go unchecked and employees are held accountable for their actions. Microsoft would much rather check their work than lose face over easy to find misinformation on their own website.

When it comes down to it, people can get fired or even sued if they try to put false info out there representing Microsoft. Hell I've worked for a Microsoft company and under no circumstance was I ever going to put an easteregg in my work because I'd likely lose my job and possibly get fined/sued depending on what it is. It was even in the contract. I'm curious as to the places you've worked iamcpc, to go thinking anyone can do anything and have the world see it but not your boss.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 04, 2020, 04:49:47 PM
The distances calculated by the Haversine formula match a sphere and no other shape.

That is where part of the problem is. According to the RE model the earth is NOT a sphere. It is a spheroid or an oblate spheroid.
 If those overseas distances truly are accurate that it is VERY strong evidence which suggest:

1. The earth is NOT the shape that is claimed.
2. Someone made a mistake somewhere


So if your Bing distances are always 100% in agreement with a Haversine distance for any two locations then the underlying shape used by Bing cannot be anything other than a sphere.

Someone would need a pretty big sample size to start to believe that it's 100%. Even if it was 100% it's just more evidence that the earth is not the shape that we were told it was.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 04, 2020, 04:56:22 PM
Your logic on this is completely wrong iamcpc. It doesn't matter if one or two thousand people were put on the Bing project, people check each others work.


Your statement is rediculous.
This statement is ridiculous. Not only is it misspelled but it provides no productive input whatsoever and it's borderline insulting.


And not only that, even if it was edited tomorrow to say something crazy like the earth is actually flat, people can see the edit history and see what idiot put false information on their website.

Please show me where I can go to see the edit history.


Stuff like this doesn't go unchecked and employees are held accountable for their actions. Microsoft would much rather check their work than lose face over easy to find misinformation on their own website.

There are two retorts to this:

1. People still make mistakes. Books and newspapers go through editing many times and still are published with mistakes, errors, incorrect information or typos.  Just because something was checked does not mean that it is correct or accurate.
2. I worked for a decently large company with like 30,000 people. The CEO wanted documentation put onto a website which was incorrect. That order went like this:

-The CEO told a SR Vice President.
-The SR Vice President told my boss, the Vice President
-The Vice President told me to put incorrect documentation on the website

Here's how the conversation went:

Boss: "The CEO wants you to put incorrect documentation on a website:
Me: "Even though that documentation is incorrect/inaccurate?"
Boss: "Yep"
Me: "no problem! I'll get it done today"

It's abundantly clear that you never worked in web design or development because you would have had to do something which you knew was incorrect or inaccurate because your boss told you to. Out of thousands and thousands and thousands of people who worked for the company only a few people were aware of this.



Hell I've worked for a Microsoft company and under no circumstance was I ever going to put an easteregg in my work because I'd likely lose my job and possibly get fined/sued depending on what it is.

You sure as hell would have put an Easter egg if the CEO told you to.

I'm curious as to the places you've worked iamcpc, to go thinking anyone can do anything and have the world see it but not your boss.

This is not an isolated incident. It happens MANY MANY TIMES. Even for the company I work for now build this interactive graph for this client showing revenue trends. Here's the conversation:


Boss: "Build this interactive graph for this client showing these revenue numbers"
Me: "It's done but FYI those revenue numbers are incorrect and should not be published to the client"
Boss: "It's ok that they are not accurate. Publish them anyway"
Me: "no problem! I'll get it done today"
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: phyllo on April 04, 2020, 05:12:09 PM
The distances calculated by the Haversine formula match a sphere and no other shape.

That is where part of the problem is. According to the RE model the earth is NOT a sphere. It is a spheroid or an oblate spheroid.
 If those overseas distances truly are accurate that it is VERY strong evidence which suggest:

1. The earth is NOT the shape that is claimed.
2. Someone made a mistake somewhere


So if your Bing distances are always 100% in agreement with a Haversine distance for any two locations then the underlying shape used by Bing cannot be anything other than a sphere.

Someone would need a pretty big sample size to start to believe that it's 100%. Even if it was 100% it's just more evidence that the earth is not the shape that we were told it was.

iampc:  You continually harp on this "sphere, spheroid, oblate spheroid" issue but the difference between the equatorial axis and the polar axis of the earth in RET is less than approximately 50 km.  This is less than one half of one percent.  For most calculations like the distance between Hong Kong and San Francisco the calculations will come out roughly the same regardless of whether you use a perfect sphere as your model or a spheroid.

In most conversations it's reasonable to call the earth a sphere in RET, even if we know it's not a perfect sphere.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 04, 2020, 05:19:24 PM
The distances calculated by the Haversine formula match a sphere and no other shape.

That is where part of the problem is. According to the RE model the earth is NOT a sphere. It is a spheroid or an oblate spheroid.
 If those overseas distances truly are accurate that it is VERY strong evidence which suggest:

1. The earth is NOT the shape that is claimed.
2. Someone made a mistake somewhere


Nope this is not where the problem is at all. We're not arguing the true shape of the earth here, we're arguing the underlying model behind Bing. The Bing documentation emphatically does not claim to use a spheroid as their underlying model, they claim to use a sphere with a 6378137m radius, because it is accurate enough and it means they can then use the spherical Haversine formula which is very much simpler and hence faster in operation. If you want a slower, more accurate model, you can use Vincenty's formulae (there are two of them), which does use a spheroidal model. If you want to, you can tell the Bing API to use Vincenty, but it's not the default, Haversine is.

Nobody has made a mistake, it's all in the documentation. I know you don't trust the documentation, but I do. You can't call it a mistake if it's properly documented to work that way.


So if your Bing distances are always 100% in agreement with a Haversine distance for any two locations then the underlying shape used by Bing cannot be anything other than a sphere.

Someone would need a pretty big sample size to start to believe that it's 100%. Even if it was 100% it's just more evidence that the earth is not the shape that we were told it was.

Well I've already suggested that we can write a bit of code to check distances from Bing against an independant implementation of Haversine and do this for a sample size of 1 million random pairs of locations. Is that not a big enough sample size for you?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 04, 2020, 06:55:04 PM

Nobody has made a mistake, it's all in the documentation.

How do you know? If you're just making things up I could very easily claim that someone did make a mistake. Here you're making a claim without one shred of evidence.


Well I've already suggested that we can write a bit of code to check distances from Bing against an independant implementation of Haversine and do this for a sample size of 1 million random pairs of locations. Is that not a big enough sample size for you?

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: JSS on April 04, 2020, 06:56:55 PM
Someone would need a pretty big sample size to start to believe that it's 100%. Even if it was 100% it's just more evidence that the earth is not the shape that we were told it was.

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

You can't measure anything with 100% accuracy in the real world, nothing.

But nobody returns a glass sphere to the hobby store because they measured it with high precision laser scanner and found it's only 99.9999% spherical. No sane person would say they were lied to because it's not a PERFECT sphere, demand a refund and then sue for false advertising.

Nothing in reality is a perfect sphere, it's impossible. You can't even make one, no matter how hard you try. Even with super advanced technology that can build an object atom by atom, it will never be a perfect sphere, ever. I hate to repeat myself, but you can't ever make a perfect sphere, or a perfect cube, or a perfectly straight line.

That doesn't mean we can't measure things.  Doesn't mean we can't use measurements if we measure enough to get the uncertainty down.

Maps tell me the nearest gas station to my house is 3,451 feet away.  Of course that's not exact, it might be a few feet more or less, or inches, or fractions of an inch. But nobody is going to say I'm lying if they measure and find it's actually half an inch further away. Because if you're driving there, an inch doesn't make a difference.

The world is a complicated object, and gets more complex to measure the smaller scale you go. Welcome to reality.

Hope that clears up your confusion.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 04, 2020, 07:48:07 PM

I then went to Bing Maps and measured the same, SFO to HKG, and got this:



And guess what, same exact distance, 6,927 mi

Because that is the distance between those points regardless of if the earth is a sphere, spheroid, oblate spheroid, or any other shape.

What more proof do you need than this and Microsoft's own documentation that Bing Maps is using Globe calculations?

I've already explained what I would need in order to believe something that a random person I've never met before typed on an HTML document.



With no sources cited whatsoever? The information is published by Microsoft, the creator, owner, and maintainer of BING Maps. Microsoft is the source. How do you not get that? Do you need Bill Gates to hand write you a personal letter to attest to the fact that Microsoft is the source of its own products and how they work?


Have you ever worked at a company that has more than, i dunno, like 200 employees? I have. There are things put on HTML documents CONSTANTLY that like 95% of the company is totally unaware of.

According to this HTML document listed below, which may or may not be accurate, Microsoft has 144 THOUSAND employees. Those 144 THOUSAND employees makes up Microsoft. Do you honestly believe that it took 144 THOUSAND people to make the website with the documentation about Bing maps?

That website was likely made by a web developer or maybe even two. Hell i'll be generous and say 4. That means 99.997% of Microsoft had NOTHING to do with that website.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273475/number-of-employees-at-the-microsoft-corporation-since-2005/

Why are you single-handedly invalidating every citation anyone has ever referenced? According to you, any reference made to any documentation from a source is suspect because there are potentially rogue authors and the format it is in is editable. Do you know on what side of crazy that sort of logic is?

The source documentation shows a Haversine calculation. In comparison to other tools using a Haversine calculation, Bing's calculations are identical. At this point you are simply trolling.

Why don't you call the Microsoft help desk and ask them to walk you through the code implementation if you are so suspect of their own documentations authority on their own product. Let us know what you find out.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on April 04, 2020, 07:53:43 PM

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

I don’t understand why we’re still discussing the validity of bing when we have an open source map to reference. Use it to validate bing. It doesn’t matter who or how Microsoft wrote their map codes, as long as they are correct. You can verify accuracy using an open source code map so you can see the formula for yourself. I’m not going to do this for you because a)FET is your crusade and b)I am a mechanical engineer, NOT a web developer. I think until you bring results from this, anything you say more about Bing/Microsoft is anecdotal. So far your words have been a lot of anecdotal and not a lot of the so called “evidence” that flat earthers claim to value higher than RE plebs.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on April 04, 2020, 08:03:44 PM
Quote
This statement is ridiculous. Not only is it misspelled but it provides no productive input whatsoever and it's borderline insulting.
Oh apologies for accidentally spelling a word wrong. This has never happend in the history of the internet for sure. I will now perform Seppuku for bringing dishonor to the interwebs. Regardless your statement is still ridiculous and attempts at shaming my spelling mistakes is not a good argument in this debate.

Quote
You sure as hell would have put an Easter egg if the CEO told you to.
Yes of course, and it sure as hell would get found by the general public, just like how misinformation would in documentation for a product that everyone uses. My point still stands, it's a massively used product, people read the documentation all the time, people tend to want to point out errors to make themselves feel better just like how you tried to do with my spelling, only to accidentally prove my point. And lets be clear, small errors in spelling, grammar or punctuation is absolutely not even on the same level as distorting a disk into a spheroid by accident without anyone noticing... If I go buy a hockey puck, I don't expect it to accidentally be shaped like a football and no one along the manufacturing process all the way to the shop employees notice the puck being absolutely not a puck.

If you think the documentation is wrong, go find the evidence and present it to microsoft, they'll be glad to fix the error if there is one. Until you do though, saying "anything can be edited" is about as silly a reason as saying "people can write lies on paper, therefore all paper documentation is false until proven otherwise"

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 04, 2020, 08:14:28 PM
it sure as hell would get found by the general public, just like how misinformation would in documentation for a product that everyone uses.

Does KFC really have 11 herbs and spices? Maybe the truth is they really have 12 herbs and spices. You will never know even though it's a product that everyone uses. The number of people who use a product is moot. I put incorrect and invalid information on a website at the request of my CEO that was used by thousands and thousands of people.


If you think the documentation is wrong, go find the evidence and present it to microsoft, they'll be glad to fix the error if there is one. Until you do though, saying "anything can be edited" is about as silly a reason as saying "people can write lies on paper, therefore all paper documentation is false until proven otherwise"

It's not that I think the documentation is wrong. I don't know that the documentation is right. Microsoft would never release their source code and let the truth out.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 04, 2020, 09:53:53 PM
The distances calculated by the Haversine formula match a sphere and no other shape.

That is where part of the problem is. According to the RE model the earth is NOT a sphere. It is a spheroid or an oblate spheroid.
 If those overseas distances truly are accurate that it is VERY strong evidence which suggest:

1. The earth is NOT the shape that is claimed.
2. Someone made a mistake somewhere


You are asserting that the distances are accurate. I'm saying they are accurate enough. There's a difference. The earth is not a perfect sphere. It's not a perfect spheroid. It's not a perfect anything. Approximating the earth to a spheroid gives great accuracy. Approximating the earth to a sphere is less accurate, but perfectly good enough for most purposes in most parts of the world. The great advantage of modelling it as a sphere is that the calculations involved for calculating distances or generating projections are greatly simplified, which makes it ideal for an interactive presentation such as Google Maps or Bing Maps where the user expects a snappy response.

Saying Bing maps use a sphere for convenience doesn't mean we've got the shape of the earth wrong or someone made a mistake.


Nobody has made a mistake, it's all in the documentation.

How do you know? If you're just making things up I could very easily claim that someone did make a mistake. Here you're making a claim without one shred of evidence.

The Bing documentation https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system) is the evidence:
Quote
To simplify the calculations, we use the spherical form of this projection, not the ellipsoidal form.

Quote
The spherical projection causes approximately 0.33% scale distortion in the Y direction, which is not visually noticeable.

Of course you can cast doubt on the documentation if you want, but whether you like it or not, it is clearly evidence that whilst they acknowledge using a spherical model leads to more distortion than would be the case with an ellipsoidal model, it doesn't matter, it's accurate enough.

Well I've already suggested that we can write a bit of code to check distances from Bing against an independant implementation of Haversine and do this for a sample size of 1 million random pairs of locations. Is that not a big enough sample size for you?

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

No, there are two separate but related issues here, 1) what is the best approximation for the true shape of the earth? 2) what model does Bing maps employ?

The focus here in this thread has been Bing maps, why? Because you insist that Bing maps are accurate. Well other than a warm fuzzy feeling that this is the case, where is your evidence for this?

The problem is that despite a mountain of evidence, you just don't want to concede that under the hood, your beloved Bing maps uses a sphere as a model. The documentation says it does and every distance measurement anyone has performed conforms exactly with what you would expect from a simple spherical model with a 6378137m radius.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Groit on April 04, 2020, 10:12:25 PM
Someone would need a pretty big sample size to start to believe that it's 100%. Even if it was 100% it's just more evidence that the earth is not the shape that we were told it was.

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

You can't measure anything with 100% accuracy in the real world, nothing.

But nobody returns a glass sphere to the hobby store because they measured it with high precision laser scanner and found it's only 99.9999% spherical. No sane person would say they were lied to because it's not a PERFECT sphere, demand a refund and then sue for false advertising.

Nothing in reality is a perfect sphere, it's impossible. You can't even make one, no matter how hard you try. Even with super advanced technology that can build an object atom by atom, it will never be a perfect sphere, ever. I hate to repeat myself, but you can't ever make a perfect sphere, or a perfect cube, or a perfectly straight line.

Well said, and very true. I would just like to add that although the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, it's actually more spherical than a billiard ball.

http://www.curiouser.co.uk/facts/smooth_earth.htm

I think the most spherical object we know of in the universe is a 'neutron star', but they're not perfect.
Mathematics doesn't allow for perfect spheres due to pi being an irrational decimal number which goes to infinity, the more decimal places you use in calculations then the closer you get to, but will never reach perfection. 
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 05, 2020, 01:56:34 AM
it sure as hell would get found by the general public, just like how misinformation would in documentation for a product that everyone uses.

Does KFC really have 11 herbs and spices? Maybe the truth is they really have 12 herbs and spices. You will never know even though it's a product that everyone uses. The number of people who use a product is moot. I put incorrect and invalid information on a website at the request of my CEO that was used by thousands and thousands of people.

The Colonel's secret recipe has nothing to do with an authoritative source documenting how developers need to interface with their API's and what those API calls do. Your analogy is moot and just downright silly at this point.

If you think the documentation is wrong, go find the evidence and present it to microsoft, they'll be glad to fix the error if there is one. Until you do though, saying "anything can be edited" is about as silly a reason as saying "people can write lies on paper, therefore all paper documentation is false until proven otherwise"

It's not that I think the documentation is wrong. I don't know that the documentation is right. Microsoft would never release their source code and let the truth out.

You have no evidence that the documentation is wrong and you've been shown through demonstration that it is right. Demonstrate how the product is not performing the calculation functions as described. As it stands your argument has zero footing.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 05, 2020, 02:17:21 AM
Does KFC really have 11 herbs and spices? Maybe the truth is they really have 12 herbs and spices. You will never know even though it's a product that everyone uses. The number of people who use a product is moot. I put incorrect and invalid information on a website at the request of my CEO that was used by thousands and thousands of people.

The Colonel's secret recipe has nothing to do with an authoritative source documenting how developers need to interface with their API's and what those API calls do. Your analogy is moot and just downright silly at this point.

We can just agree to disagree.
I think that a claim made, in the name of a company, on an HTML document is comparable to a claim made, in the name of a company, on an HTML document


I think that not  blindly accepting what others say on the internet is healthy. Otherwise I would think that the news people are lizard aliens.




You have no evidence that the documentation is wrong

I never said I had evidence that the documentation is wrong. I just said that I don't have any evidence which supports that it is correct.

and you've been shown through demonstration that it is right.

No one has sat down with me and demonstrated the source code of the API and how it relates to advances planar geometry.


Demonstrate how the product is not performing the calculation functions as described.

Without access to the information i've provided multiple times i'm unable to do what you have asked



As it stands your argument has zero footing.

My argument is simply don't blindly trust everything that someone says on the internet. I don't see how that previous sentence has zero footing.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 05, 2020, 02:43:44 AM
Does KFC really have 11 herbs and spices? Maybe the truth is they really have 12 herbs and spices. You will never know even though it's a product that everyone uses. The number of people who use a product is moot. I put incorrect and invalid information on a website at the request of my CEO that was used by thousands and thousands of people.

The Colonel's secret recipe has nothing to do with an authoritative source documenting how developers need to interface with their API's and what those API calls do. Your analogy is moot and just downright silly at this point.

We can just agree to disagree.
I think that a claim made, in the name of a company, on an HTML document is comparable to a claim made, in the name of a company, on an HTML document


I think that not  blindly accepting what others say on the internet is healthy. Otherwise I would think that the news people are lizard aliens.




You have no evidence that the documentation is wrong

I never said I had evidence that the documentation is wrong. I just said that I don't have any evidence which supports that it is correct.

and you've been shown through demonstration that it is right.

No one has sat down with me and demonstrated the source code of the API and how it relates to advances planar geometry.


Demonstrate how the product is not performing the calculation functions as described.

Without access to the information i've provided multiple times i'm unable to do what you have asked



As it stands your argument has zero footing.

My argument is simply don't blindly trust everything that someone says on the internet. I don't see how that previous sentence has zero footing.

It's been demonstrated to you with examples that the Microsoft documentation about the Microsoft product is correct. It's referred to as evidence and corroboration.

You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence to the contrary - Only a simple "Don't believe everything you read..." mantra. Which, like I stated before, applies to every bit of evidence through citation that has ever been presented, pretty much anywhere. You must be in turbo trolling mode because it's the lamest, no effort argument I've encountered in I can't remember when.

I'm afraid that you're just going to have to live with the fact that your preferred Map site is based upon a spherical earth.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 05, 2020, 07:24:12 AM
It's been demonstrated to you with examples that the Microsoft documentation about the Microsoft product is correct. It's referred to as evidence and corroboration.

I have yet to see the Bing source code and have someone walk me through it.


You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence to the contrary
Bingo! If I had evidence that it was wrong then I would think it was wrong.


- Only a simple "Don't believe everything you read..." mantra. Which, like I stated before, applies to every bit of evidence through citation that has ever been presented, pretty much anywhere.
You must be in turbo trolling mode because it's the lamest, no effort argument I've encountered in I can't remember when.



You think that the claims made on the Bing HTML document are correct.
I don't know if the claims made on the Bing HTML document are correct.

 I stated my position and people have been asking me questions about my position. I answer them then I get called a troll.

People:Why don't you think that the information on the Bing HTML document is correct?
Me: I've worked in web design. I know how easy it is to put incorrect or inaccurate information on an HTML document.

People: But it's from Bing. It must be correct!.
Me: Just because it's from Bing does not mean that it's correct. I've published things to HTML documents online, at the direction of my CEO, which I knew were incorrect or inaccurate. I don't know if that's happening here.

People:That's ridiculous. People can get fired/sued if they try to put false info out there.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Me: I've published things to HTML documents online, at the direction of my CEO, which I knew were incorrect or inaccurate without getting fired or sued so I know for a fact that is not right.

People: What evidence would help you decide that the Bing claims are correct instead of being unsure?
Me: Access to the source codes with someone to walk me through it to understand the code and a person with a masters in math to help me understand the math.

People: It's on the Bing website you should believe it.
Me:  I've published things to HTML documents online, at the direction of my CEO, which I knew were incorrect or inaccurate. I don't know if that's happening here. Because of my own personal experiences doing web development I prefer to take things I read online with a grain of salt.

People: You must be in turbo trolling mode because it's the lamest, no effort argument
Me:I didn't know it was arguing. I thought I was answering questions about my position. If you think my conversation on this topic is lame and effortless then, by all means, stop participating in this lame and effortless debate.







Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: GreatATuin on April 05, 2020, 09:36:42 AM

So I punched in SFO (San Francisco International Airport) to HKG (Hong Kong International Airport) into a Great Circle Mapper tool on the web. Here is the result:

(https://i.imgur.com/X9iZjPS.png)
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-HKG

The Haversine great circle Globe distance is 6,927 mi

I then went to Bing Maps and measured the same, SFO to HKG, and got this:

(https://i.imgur.com/7BYCdgu.png)

And guess what, same exact distance, 6,927 mi

What more proof do you need than this and Microsoft's own documentation that Bing Maps is using Globe calculations?

Just for the sake of precision - gcmap uses Vincenty, not Haversine (http://www.gcmap.com/faq/gccalc#vincenty ). Which makes me think Bing actually enables the "highAccuracy" flag and switches to Vincenty under certain circumstances (for long distance calculations?). https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html does use Haversine and finds a slightly smaller value (the difference is less than 0.2%).

This doesn't change the point, both are based on a more-or-less spherical models and give results that don't differ that much, but given the level of nitpicking seen on this thread...
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: GreatATuin on April 05, 2020, 09:42:21 AM
Quote

Well I've already suggested that we can write a bit of code to check distances from Bing against an independant implementation of Haversine and do this for a sample size of 1 million random pairs of locations. Is that not a big enough sample size for you?

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

It has been explained to you many times. The sphere is an approximation. The oblate spheroid is a better approximation. Any model is an approximation. Only the real thing is not an approximation, but it's not very convenient to measure large distances on the real Earth, it's not very practical to hold a rope between San Francisco and Hong-Kong and measure it, so we just use models. The sphere approximation is good enough to calculate distances within an acceptable margin of error.

You don't trust the API documentation? Fine. You can calculate yourself the distance between any two coordinates using the Haversine or Vincenty formula, and check if Bing gives the same result.

Haversine : https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html

Vincenty's : https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong-vincenty.html

The source code is included, and even implementations in other languages. If you find any pair of coordinates for which Bing indicates a distance that differ significantly, you'll prove Bing doesn't use these formulas.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 05, 2020, 10:39:06 AM
Quote

Well I've already suggested that we can write a bit of code to check distances from Bing against an independant implementation of Haversine and do this for a sample size of 1 million random pairs of locations. Is that not a big enough sample size for you?

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

It has been explained to you many times. The sphere is an approximation. The oblate spheroid is a better approximation. Any model is an approximation. Only the real thing is not an approximation, but it's not very convenient to measure large distances on the real Earth, it's not very practical to hold a rope between San Francisco and Hong-Kong and measure it, so we just use models. The sphere approximation is good enough to calculate distances within an acceptable margin of error.

You don't trust the API documentation? Fine. You can calculate yourself the distance between any two coordinates using the Haversine or Vincenty formula, and check if Bing gives the same result.

Haversine : https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html

Vincenty's : https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong-vincenty.html

The source code is included, and even implementations in other languages. If you find any pair of coordinates for which Bing indicates a distance that differ significantly, you'll prove Bing doesn't use these formulas.

Well let's see if we can take this idea from GreatATuin and run with it...

It's been demonstrated to you with examples that the Microsoft documentation about the Microsoft product is correct. It's referred to as evidence and corroboration.

I have yet to see the Bing source code and have someone walk me through it.

You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence to the contrary
Bingo! If I had evidence that it was wrong then I would think it was wrong.

You can't prove software to be correct for anything other than trivial examples. What matters is not what the software looks like, but what it does and whether it meets its specification. To verify this in the real world you write automated tests. That is the strategy used whether you are working with open or closed source software. If you want to use it and you need to know it's correct, you test it.

You ask for evidence, but when it comes to Bing, you repeatedly claim it is accurate because it is based on real world distances, yet you provide no evidence for this whatsoever. Your standard for evidence is entirely biased towards your own beliefs.

Three times now I've proposed the following methodology to verify the accuracy of the Bing API with its documentation. Three times you've failed to respond, so lets try again...

Choose a large number of random pairs of locations (latitude and longitude), e.g. 1 million. Use the Bing API to calculate the distances between each pair. Repeat the calculations using some implementation of the Haversine formula (for which we do have the source code) and my contention is that the two sets of results will agree to a very high accuracy (e.g. < 0.01% difference).

So if your Bing distances are always 100% in agreement with a Haversine distance for any two locations then the underlying shape used by Bing cannot be anything other than a sphere.

Someone would need a pretty big sample size to start to believe that it's 100%.

There you go, you want a pretty big sample size. I'm offering a million and I ask you again, one more time, is one million enough for you?

I have read the Bing documentation and I believe it and I'm therefore so supremely confident in what Microsoft are telling me that I'm now offering to write the code for you to perform this test. One million random pairs of locations. I'll use the code for Haversine that GreatATuin linked to. I'll post all the code, instructions on how to use it and the results. Feel free to examine the code as much as you like, ask reasonable questions and I'll try and answer them. But at the end of the day I'm only doing this if you agree that it's a valid test and would settle the issue once and for all. What do you say?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 05, 2020, 12:39:23 PM
There you go, you want a pretty big sample size. I'm offering a million and I ask you again, one more time, is one million enough for you?

I have read the Bing documentation and I believe it and I'm therefore so supremely confident in what Microsoft are telling me that I'm now offering to write the code for you to perform this test. One million random pairs of locations. I'll use the code for Haversine that GreatATuin linked to. I'll post all the code, instructions on how to use it and the results. Feel free to examine the code as much as you like, ask reasonable questions and I'll try and answer them. But at the end of the day I'm only doing this if you agree that it's a valid test and would settle the issue once and for all. What do you say?

Settle what issue exactly? If the Bing API has a high chance of using the Haversine formula (or something very similar to it) for calculating distances? Sure.

Although it's very clear that Bing maps has multiple different distance algorithms it uses.The distances that i have been able to independently corroborate don't appear to be using the same equations as the two point things.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 05, 2020, 01:50:38 PM
There you go, you want a pretty big sample size. I'm offering a million and I ask you again, one more time, is one million enough for you?

I have read the Bing documentation and I believe it and I'm therefore so supremely confident in what Microsoft are telling me that I'm now offering to write the code for you to perform this test. One million random pairs of locations. I'll use the code for Haversine that GreatATuin linked to. I'll post all the code, instructions on how to use it and the results. Feel free to examine the code as much as you like, ask reasonable questions and I'll try and answer them. But at the end of the day I'm only doing this if you agree that it's a valid test and would settle the issue once and for all. What do you say?

Settle what issue exactly? If the Bing API has a high chance of using the Haversine formula (or something very similar to it) for calculating distances? Sure.

Although it's very clear that Bing maps has multiple different distance algorithms it uses.The distances that i have been able to independently corroborate don't appear to be using the same equations as the two point things.

OK, so you're now willing to at least entertain the idea that the Bing API internally uses the Haversine formula (or something similar), so no need to attempt demonstrate this to you any more.

Is it very clear that Bing maps uses multiple different distance algorithms? How do you reach that conclusion? What are these alternative algorithms? Why would you need them? You've said many times that you consider Bing maps to be accurate, so what's your position now, is it always accurate, usually accurate, sometimes accurate?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 05, 2020, 06:14:03 PM
OK, so you're now willing to at least entertain the idea that the Bing API internally uses the Haversine formula (or something similar)

I've always been willing to entertain the truth. Unfortunately, in this situation, I don't know the truth.

so no need to attempt demonstrate this to you any more.

I thought your goal was trying to change my opinion from:

"I don't know if the information on the HTML document about Bing Maps is correct or not."
to
"I think the information on the HTML document about Bing maps is correct"

Is it very clear that Bing maps uses multiple different distance algorithms? How do you reach that conclusion? What are these alternative algorithms? Why would you need them?
There is the longitude and latitude red pin distance calculator. (I have not corroborated those distances)
There is a driving distance algorithm (I have used the odometer on my car to corroborate this one)
There is a walking distance algorithm(I have used various map walking trackers and the odometer on my car to corroborate this one)


You've said many times that you consider Bing maps to be accurate, so what's your position now, is it always accurate, usually accurate, sometimes accurate?

The driving distances, based on the extensive driving that I've done, appear to be mostly accurate.
The walking distances, based on the small localized area that I walk, appear to be mostly accurate.
The mass transit distances I've never tested.
The red pin distances I've never done any testing on and I have no idea if they are, or are not, accurate or how they are calculated.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 06, 2020, 09:40:28 AM
You've said many times that you consider Bing maps to be accurate, so what's your position now, is it always accurate, usually accurate, sometimes accurate?

The driving distances, based on the extensive driving that I've done, appear to be mostly accurate.
The walking distances, based on the small localized area that I walk, appear to be mostly accurate.
The mass transit distances I've never tested.
The red pin distances I've never done any testing on and I have no idea if they are, or are not, accurate or how they are calculated.

I take it from this that you now have doubts about the accuracy of the "red pin" distances, on the basis that you've not personally tested them. This makes the whole exercise of trying to persuade you of the underlying method (Haversine) rather pointless if you aren't going to believe the results it gives you are accurate. In fact you now seem to believe only driving and walking distances are to be trusted. This does not fit with your earlier statements on the accuracy of Bing maps distances...

https://www.bing.com/maps represents the earth as a flat plane and has an interactive scale and I believe is an accurate map which supports the distances and measurements corroborated by measured flight/shipping/travel distances and times and is also supported by modern cartography.

Here you mention flights and shipping. As far as I am aware you can't drive or walk across oceans, yet here you claim these distances are correct in Bing.

You've been shown many examples of these "red pin" distances before in this thread, as far back as page 3, yet this is the first time you've cast doubt on their accuracy.


I then went to Bing Maps and measured the same, SFO to HKG, and got this:

And guess what, same exact distance, 6,927 mi

Because that is the distance between those points regardless of if the earth is a sphere, spheroid, oblate spheroid, or any other shape.

Here stack has showed you a "red pin" distance. You've not challenged the accuracy, you seem quite happy to accept it is correct and that it simply "is the distance between those points". Have you changed your mind?

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 07, 2020, 03:22:22 PM
I take it from this that you now have doubts about the accuracy of the "red pin" distances, on the basis that you've not personally tested them. This makes the whole exercise of trying to persuade you of the underlying method (Haversine) rather pointless if you aren't going to believe the results it gives you are accurate. In fact you now seem to believe only driving and walking distances are to be trusted. This does not fit with your earlier statements on the accuracy of Bing maps distances...

When I made my previous statement I was unaware of this red pin distance. Furthermore I have not witnessed or experience anything to determine the accuracy of the red pin distance.

This blog says that the distance is calculated using the Bing Maps Route API. There is no way for me to corroborate if this is correct or not.
https://blogs.bing.com/maps/2017-10/bing-maps-distance-matrix-api-launches-today


Here you mention flights and shipping. As far as I am aware you can't drive or walk across oceans, yet here you claim these distances are correct in Bing.

You've been shown many examples of these "red pin" distances before in this thread, as far back as page 3, yet this is the first time you've cast doubt on their accuracy.

The distances between California and Japan are verified by the thousands and millions of people who travel between those two places every year. The distance between California and Japan is not the same thing as the calculated distance between red dot A and red dot B using an unknown distance calculation formula.



Here stack has showed you a "red pin" distance. You've not challenged the accuracy, you seem quite happy to accept it is correct and that it simply "is the distance between those points". Have you changed your mind?

I'm not challenging the distances because I have no reason to think they are incorrect. I also have no reason to KNOW they are correct. Furthermore I have not witnessed or experience anything to determine the accuracy of the red pin distance.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 07, 2020, 09:39:58 PM
Here you mention flights and shipping. As far as I am aware you can't drive or walk across oceans, yet here you claim these distances are correct in Bing.

You've been shown many examples of these "red pin" distances before in this thread, as far back as page 3, yet this is the first time you've cast doubt on their accuracy.

The distances between California and Japan are verified by the thousands and millions of people who travel between those two places every year. The distance between California and Japan is not the same thing as the calculated distance between red dot A and red dot B using an unknown distance calculation formula.

But, essentially, it is the same calculated distance following a great circle. Here's a flight from SF to Tokyo on March 31st. Note the great circle dashed line versus the actual flight path. Flight distance, including taxiing and such was 8305 km or 5160 miles.

(https://i.imgur.com/hO0kA1C.png)

Compare that to the "red pin" A to B measurement, SF to Tokyo, on Bing Maps. 8325 km or 5173 miles. A difference of 13 miles.

(https://i.imgur.com/KcqtWFL.png)

If it were a straight line distance, aka Rhumb line, following the latitude and not the great circle, the distance in Bing should be reported as 8738 km or 5429 miles, a difference of 256 miles:

(https://i.imgur.com/fNh3nSj.png)

So you see, this "unknown distance calculation" you refer to is not unknown. It's a great circle globe measurement in Bing.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 08, 2020, 09:38:46 AM
Here you mention flights and shipping. As far as I am aware you can't drive or walk across oceans, yet here you claim these distances are correct in Bing.

You've been shown many examples of these "red pin" distances before in this thread, as far back as page 3, yet this is the first time you've cast doubt on their accuracy.

The distances between California and Japan are verified by the thousands and millions of people who travel between those two places every year. The distance between California and Japan is not the same thing as the calculated distance between red dot A and red dot B using an unknown distance calculation formula.

You are happy with the distances between California and Japan, so if I asked you what is the distance between say San Francisco airport (SFO) and Tokyo airport (HND), what is this figure? Where did your information come from? Why do you trust this source? If for some reason you can't give me that specific figure, then give me an alternative trustworthy figure (plus source) for any two places in California and Japan.

Follow up question, can you explain how you check that distance on Bing maps? i.e. can you talk me through how I would do that. Obviously I could use the "red pin" method, but you have some doubts about that, so how else can this be done?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 08, 2020, 11:43:20 PM
You are happy with the distances between California and Japan, so if I asked you what is the distance between say San Francisco airport (SFO) and Tokyo airport (HND), what is this figure? Where did your information come from? Why do you trust this source? If for some reason you can't give me that specific figure, then give me an alternative trustworthy figure (plus source) for any two places in California and Japan.

Follow up question, can you explain how you check that distance on Bing maps? i.e. can you talk me through how I would do that. Obviously I could use the "red pin" method, but you have some doubts about that, so how else can this be done?

You can fly nonstop from LA to Tokyo in like 10-11 hours. 

If you know what type of plane you are on you can estimate the top speed of the plane with information online.
In addition I know a couple of people who work on planes who have corroborated the speed information about the planes found online.
In addition each plane is equipped with something that can measure speed.
If you are in a large passenger plane and not allowed into the cockpit to see the speedometer you can ask a flight attendant what your cruising speed is.

You take your miles per hour speed estimate and multiply the number of hours spent flying to come up with a distance estimate.

You can do the same for shipping times although I've never taken a ship to Japan. I trust that hundreds of thousands of people who have done international shipping have done this.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 09, 2020, 10:06:06 AM
You are happy with the distances between California and Japan, so if I asked you what is the distance between say San Francisco airport (SFO) and Tokyo airport (HND), what is this figure? Where did your information come from? Why do you trust this source? If for some reason you can't give me that specific figure, then give me an alternative trustworthy figure (plus source) for any two places in California and Japan.

Follow up question, can you explain how you check that distance on Bing maps? i.e. can you talk me through how I would do that. Obviously I could use the "red pin" method, but you have some doubts about that, so how else can this be done?

You can fly nonstop from LA to Tokyo in like 10-11 hours. 

If you know what type of plane you are on you can estimate the top speed of the plane with information online.
In addition I know a couple of people who work on planes who have corroborated the speed information about the planes found online.
In addition each plane is equipped with something that can measure speed.
If you are in a large passenger plane and not allowed into the cockpit to see the speedometer you can ask a flight attendant what your cruising speed is.

You take your miles per hour speed estimate and multiply the number of hours spent flying to come up with a distance estimate.

You can do the same for shipping times although I've never taken a ship to Japan. I trust that hundreds of thousands of people who have done international shipping have done this.

I take my hat off to you. You've built an entire belief system based on a staggeringly varied set of criteria for your standards of evidence.

You won't believe a shred of evidence from the official Bing documentation because anybody could have written or changed it, whereas in reality it is likely that only a few dozen people in the world will have the necessary security permissions to permit that and they will all be subject to scrutiny from their peers and line managers, so the likelihood that this documentation is anything other than what Microsoft intend it to to be is non-existent. Which leaves you with two possibilities, either it is correct or Microsoft are deliberately lying to you for "reasons".

By that standard, you can't ever believe anything anyone has ever written anywhere because anyone could have written it or changed it.

But when it comes to the distance from LA to Tokyo, you can just get the necessary information to work it out online or from a couple of people you know or you just ask a flight attendant (so where do they get their information from?). This is your standard of evidence gathering now is it?

You claim a non-stop flight time between 10 and 11 hours between the two airports. I just checked flightradar24 and quickly found a couple of examples, one was just over 11 hours, the other 9 hours 15. They both use a Boeing 777 which has a cruise speed in the range mach 0.84-0.89. Now cruise speed varies with altitude and temperature and ATC may assign a common speed for separation in busy periods, so the aircraft might not be able to fly the speed they ideally want, but lets work some approximate figures out.

Cruising at 40,000 feet, mach 0.84 equates to 554mph and with a 9 hour 15 flight time, that gives a distance of ‭5,125 miles.

Cruising at 30,000 feet, mach 0.86 equates to 583pmh and with an 11 hour flight time, that gives a distance of 6,413 miles.

So that's 5,769 miles +/- 644 miles, i.e. +/- 11%

Plus or minus eleven percent! That's a level of accuracy you're comfortable with? The answer is certainly correct, the actual distance is 5487 miles, so well inside the range just calculated.

Now lets have a look at Bing maps. You've used this for 15 years, never knew it had a distance measuring tool ("red pin"). Took me all of 5 minutes to discover that and I'm not a Bing user.

You start off saying you trust Bing maps, now you've backtracked somewhat and you trust just the driving and walking distances. Out of interest, how do you measure walking distances, surely not with a GPS device? But Bing maps covers the whole world, most of which is covered in water, so what you are really saying is you trust Bing maps for the 30% of the earth which is dry land, but only the bits which have marked roads or tracks you can measure.

You claim without offering any evidence whatsoever that Bing maps distances (i.e. the ones you trust) are based on real world distances which include taking elevation into account. Where do you get this from?

I can't speak for Bing, since it is closed source, however in OpenStreetMap, roads are defined via paths joining nodes, so A to B to C etc. and the nodes are defined in terms of their latitude and longitude. Elevation is not defined although you could theoretically get elevation data from other sources. Various people have asked how these route distances are calculated and the consensus seems to be that using Haversine or Vincenty between pairs of nodes and totalling these values along a route is quite satisfactory as elevation changes make little difference. I haven't checked the code to see if this is actually how it's done and I'm not going to bother doing so.

My guess is that Bing may well use Haversine in just this way for their driving and walking distances. But unlike you, I'm not prepared to just come up with an idea and take it on board without investigation, so lets have a look. How about for starters we find a really nice long and very straight road and compare the driving/walking distance with the "red pin" distance. How about this one: https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=c39ac59f-9e2f-4ba1-b226-09a9c1384f66&cp=24.764682~50.511889&lvl=9&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 (https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=c39ac59f-9e2f-4ba1-b226-09a9c1384f66&cp=24.764682~50.511889&lvl=9&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027). Bing says it's a 256km drive across Saudi Arabia. The "red pin" distance is ... 256km. Exactly the same.

OK, so far, but this road has no significant elevation changes, so how about https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=6651a272-f4ac-4f9b-8874-70ff9bcacbc0&cp=37.752553~-122.41805&lvl=15&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 (https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=6651a272-f4ac-4f9b-8874-70ff9bcacbc0&cp=37.752553~-122.41805&lvl=15&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027). A 10.6km walk up and down the hills of your old favourite, San Francisco. Plenty of elevation changes there. Guess what, the "red pin" distance is ... 10.6km.

Of course none of this proves anything about how Bing actually goes about calculating driving or walking distances, but it certainly suggests that simply using the "red pin" method to calculate each segment of a path is giving the same answers.

And we've already established to everyone's satisfaction apart from yours that "red pin" is Haversine and Haversine is based solely on spherical trigonometry.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 09, 2020, 03:44:01 PM
I take my hat off to you. You've built an entire belief system based on a staggeringly varied set of criteria for your standards of evidence.

Do you not believe that the distance between LA and Tokyo is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000-6000 miles? If you do then it sounds like you've built an entire belief system based on a staggeringly varied set of criteria for your standards of evidence.

You won't believe a shred of evidence from the official Bing documentation

Yes I would. If their website said their calculation was based on a formula and someone set up a set of data points, say 100,  which were based on the formula and compared those to 100 red pin measurements from Bing and all of them matched then I would believe that the red pin distances were based on the formula.

If Bing shared their source code and documentation about it then I believe the claims made by the Bing website.


If you Bing says the sky is yellow that is not evidence that the sky is yellow.

A claim made by a website on the internet <> evidence

because anybody could have written or changed it, whereas in reality it is likely that only a few dozen people in the world will have the necessary security permissions to permit that and they will all be subject to scrutiny from their peers and line managers, so the likelihood that this documentation is anything other than what Microsoft intend it to to be is non-existent.

I've already stated, multiple times, that I've developed websites at the request of the CEO which contained incorrect information. You don't seem to understand that this DOES happen.


By that standard, you can't ever believe anything anyone has ever written anywhere because anyone could have written it or changed it.

Like in school I'm reading these books and the teacher is demonstrating how the claims in the book are accurate. They are giving specific examples, drawing diagrams, and effectively DEMONSTRATING that what is in the book is at least somewhat accurate. Even so there are many documented cases where stuff makes it into the text books and gets taught by teachers which is 100% a LIE like w/ Germany and the holocaust. Or in North Korea where they teach, in textbooks, that children are kidnapped and forced into slavery by Americans.

But when it comes to the distance from LA to Tokyo, you can just get the necessary information to work it out online or from a couple of people you know or you just ask a flight attendant (so where do they get their information from?). This is your standard of evidence gathering now is it?
They get their information from a Pilot who gets his information from the speedometer. Based on this I believe the distance between Tokyo and LA is between 5000 and 6000 miles. Do you disagree?

You claim a non-stop flight time between 10 and 11 hours between the two airports. I just checked flightradar24 and quickly found a couple of examples, one was just over 11 hours, the other 9 hours 15. They both use a Boeing 777 which has a cruise speed in the range mach 0.84-0.89. Now cruise speed varies with altitude and temperature and ATC may assign a common speed for separation in busy periods, so the aircraft might not be able to fly the speed they ideally want, but lets work some approximate figures out.

Cruising at 40,000 feet, mach 0.84 equates to 554mph and with a 9 hour 15 flight time, that gives a distance of ‭5,125 miles.

Cruising at 30,000 feet, mach 0.86 equates to 583pmh and with an 11 hour flight time, that gives a distance of 6,413 miles.

So that's 5,769 miles +/- 644 miles, i.e. +/- 11%

Plus or minus eleven percent! That's a level of accuracy you're comfortable with? The answer is certainly correct, the actual distance is 5487 miles, so well inside the range just calculated.

On those flights did the Captain announce the cruising speed or are you just making one up? If the captain did not announce a cruising speed did you ask the flight attendant what the cruising speed was or are you just making it up?

Now lets have a look at Bing maps. You've used this for 15 years, never knew it had a distance measuring tool ("red pin"). Took me all of 5 minutes to discover that and I'm not a Bing user.

If you're not a Bing user then how are you using Bing to measure red pin distances?


You start off saying you trust Bing maps, now you've backtracked somewhat and you trust just the driving and walking distances. Out of interest, how do you measure walking distances, surely not with a GPS device?

There are many different ways. You can use a rolling measuring tape, GPS, you could walk along a road where you can use an odometer, you can use a bicycle odometer.

 But Bing maps covers the whole world, most of which is covered in water, so what you are really saying is you trust Bing maps for the 30% of the earth which is dry land, but only the bits which have marked roads or tracks you can measure.

You claim without offering any evidence whatsoever that Bing maps distances (i.e. the ones you trust) are based on real world distances which include taking elevation into account. Where do you get this from?

From comparing predicted driving distances to my odometer when driving up and down steep hills in San Francisco multiple times.


Of course none of this proves anything about how Bing actually goes about calculating driving or walking distances, but it certainly suggests that simply using the "red pin" method to calculate each segment of a path is giving the same answers.


And we've already established to everyone's satisfaction apart from yours that "red pin" is Haversine and Haversine is based solely on spherical trigonometry.

Show me one shred of evidence other than "This website says it so it must be true". Please keep in mind that I've personally developed websites at the request of the CEO which contained incorrect information. You don't seem to understand that this DOES happen.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 09, 2020, 06:29:08 PM
I take my hat off to you. You've built an entire belief system based on a staggeringly varied set of criteria for your standards of evidence.

Do you not believe that the distance between LA and Tokyo is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000-6000 miles? If you do then it sounds like you've built an entire belief system based on a staggeringly varied set of criteria for your standards of evidence.

You won't believe a shred of evidence from the official Bing documentation

Yes I would. If their website said their calculation was based on a formula and someone set up a set of data points, say 100,  which were based on the formula and compared those to 100 red pin measurements from Bing and all of them matched then I would believe that the red pin distances were based on the formula.

Well isn't this the very thing I offered to do to convince you the documentation was accurate? I've already offered to write a test using 1 million data points, comparing Bing "red pin" with an independent implementation of Haversine. If I do that and the results support the documentation, will you then "believe that the red pin distances were based on the formula"? I'm still willing to do this if you want, but I don't want to waste my time if it doesn't get us anywhere.

If Bing shared their source code and documentation about it then I believe the claims made by the Bing website.


If you Bing says the sky is yellow that is not evidence that the sky is yellow.

A claim made by a website on the internet <> evidence

because anybody could have written or changed it, whereas in reality it is likely that only a few dozen people in the world will have the necessary security permissions to permit that and they will all be subject to scrutiny from their peers and line managers, so the likelihood that this documentation is anything other than what Microsoft intend it to to be is non-existent.

I've already stated, multiple times, that I've developed websites at the request of the CEO which contained incorrect information. You don't seem to understand that this DOES happen.

Sure, but in your example, your CEO told you to write something, you did, so the change was authorised all up the line. Of course a senior manager at Microsoft could do the same and in fact I can't see any other way this could happen. If the change was unauthorised, it would eventually be fixed and someone would be disciplined.

But I'm asking myself, how likely is this? Just as in a court of law, I want to weigh the evidence and see. In this particular case they might just as well have said "getDistanceTo - Calculate the distance between two locations on the surface of the earth". Why would they even need to mention Haversine at all if it wasn't correct, that just creates a problem which didn't need to exist and then they have to put a gagging order on the dev team and bring in a senior manager to enforce it and hope nobody ever blows the whistle on this. It's a bit of obscure technical documentation that's only of use to a developer, why the completely unnecessary deception?

Sure what you've outlined is possible. But I don't think you've introduced reasonable doubt here, in my view, it's just not likely. Not in my eyes.


By that standard, you can't ever believe anything anyone has ever written anywhere because anyone could have written it or changed it.

Like in school I'm reading these books and the teacher is demonstrating how the claims in the book are accurate. They are giving specific examples, drawing diagrams, and effectively DEMONSTRATING that what is in the book is at least somewhat accurate. Even so there are many documented cases where stuff makes it into the text books and gets taught by teachers which is 100% a LIE like w/ Germany and the holocaust. Or in North Korea where they teach, in textbooks, that children are kidnapped and forced into slavery by Americans.

But when it comes to the distance from LA to Tokyo, you can just get the necessary information to work it out online or from a couple of people you know or you just ask a flight attendant (so where do they get their information from?). This is your standard of evidence gathering now is it?
They get their information from a Pilot who gets his information from the speedometer. Based on this I believe the distance between Tokyo and LA is between 5000 and 6000 miles. Do you disagree?

Well how do you know they get the information from a Pilot. How do you know the pilot is giving correct information? What makes a pilot trustworthy? How do you know the ASI is giving an accurate speed? There's a whole chain of trust in there that you don't seem at all interested in questioning, yet in other areas you distrust what to everyone else seems rock solid evidence.

Yes I do believe the distance is between 5000 and 6000 miles but that answer is so vague it's barely helpful at all. I'm perfectly happy with 5487 miles because I've every confidence this is correct to within a few miles. If I want to know a distance, I don't expect the answer to the nearest 1000 miles, I expect much greater precision than that.


You claim a non-stop flight time between 10 and 11 hours between the two airports. I just checked flightradar24 and quickly found a couple of examples, one was just over 11 hours, the other 9 hours 15. They both use a Boeing 777 which has a cruise speed in the range mach 0.84-0.89. Now cruise speed varies with altitude and temperature and ATC may assign a common speed for separation in busy periods, so the aircraft might not be able to fly the speed they ideally want, but lets work some approximate figures out.

Cruising at 40,000 feet, mach 0.84 equates to 554mph and with a 9 hour 15 flight time, that gives a distance of ‭5,125 miles.

Cruising at 30,000 feet, mach 0.86 equates to 583pmh and with an 11 hour flight time, that gives a distance of 6,413 miles.

So that's 5,769 miles +/- 644 miles, i.e. +/- 11%

Plus or minus eleven percent! That's a level of accuracy you're comfortable with? The answer is certainly correct, the actual distance is 5487 miles, so well inside the range just calculated.

On those flights did the Captain announce the cruising speed or are you just making one up? If the captain did not announce a cruising speed did you ask the flight attendant what the cruising speed was or are you just making it up?

I'm using the range of cruising speeds quoted for this type of aircraft. I have no personal experience of that route.

Now lets have a look at Bing maps. You've used this for 15 years, never knew it had a distance measuring tool ("red pin"). Took me all of 5 minutes to discover that and I'm not a Bing user.

If you're not a Bing user then how are you using Bing to measure red pin distances?

Apologies, I should have been clearer. I'm not normally a Bing user, I've only recently started using Bing in order to address these Bing related topics.



You start off saying you trust Bing maps, now you've backtracked somewhat and you trust just the driving and walking distances. Out of interest, how do you measure walking distances, surely not with a GPS device?

There are many different ways. You can use a rolling measuring tape, GPS, you could walk along a road where you can use an odometer, you can use a bicycle odometer.

I was under the impression you had made measurements whilst walking and based your trust in Bing maps walking distances on measurements you took. Sure you can use all sorts of methods, which ones did you use is my question?


But Bing maps covers the whole world, most of which is covered in water, so what you are really saying is you trust Bing maps for the 30% of the earth which is dry land, but only the bits which have marked roads or tracks you can measure.

You claim without offering any evidence whatsoever that Bing maps distances (i.e. the ones you trust) are based on real world distances which include taking elevation into account. Where do you get this from?

From comparing predicted driving distances to my odometer when driving up and down steep hills in San Francisco multiple times.


But you've no idea whether elevation changes make any significant difference, you just think it does and you're not providing any evidence. I don't believe it does.




Of course none of this proves anything about how Bing actually goes about calculating driving or walking distances, but it certainly suggests that simply using the "red pin" method to calculate each segment of a path is giving the same answers.

And we've already established to everyone's satisfaction apart from yours that "red pin" is Haversine and Haversine is based solely on spherical trigonometry.

Show me one shred of evidence other than "This website says it so it must be true". Please keep in mind that I've personally developed websites at the request of the CEO which contained incorrect information. You don't seem to understand that this DOES happen.

Well now we're back to my offer to demonstrate 1 million comparison calculations (see my earlier comment).
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 09, 2020, 08:42:43 PM
Well isn't this the very thing I offered to do to convince you the documentation was accurate? I've already offered to write a test using 1 million data points, comparing Bing "red pin" with an independent implementation of Haversine. If I do that and the results support the documentation, will you then "believe that the red pin distances were based on the formula"? I'm still willing to do this if you want, but I don't want to waste my time if it doesn't get us anywhere.

If you had 1000 data points in which the results matches 1000 times out of 1000 the haversine formula then I would think that the bing map red pin distance calculator was based off of the Haversine formula



Sure, but in your example, your CEO told you to write something, you did, so the change was authorised all up the line. Of course a senior manager at Microsoft could do the same and in fact I can't see any other way this could happen. If the change was unauthorised, it would eventually be fixed and someone would be disciplined.

Authorized <> correct. Just because something was authorized does not make it true, accurate, or correct. It's very clear you never worked in web design because you would know that it's more common than you think it is.




Well how do you know they get the information from a Pilot. How do you know the pilot is giving correct information? What makes a pilot trustworthy? How do you know the ASI is giving an accurate speed? There's a whole chain of trust in there that you don't seem at all interested in questioning, yet in other areas you distrust what to everyone else seems rock solid evidence.

You take multiple samples. You track multiple flights. If everything all points to about the same number then you can formulate that you are most likely correct.

Yes I do believe the distance is between 5000 and 6000 miles

I take my hat off to you. You've built an entire belief system based on a staggeringly varied set of criteria for your standards of evidence





I'm using the range of cruising speeds quoted for this type of aircraft. I have no personal experience of that route.

Then I strongly suggest you get more accurate numbers instead of just making some up or estimating them.  There might be flight tracking websites. You might be able to call the airline and ask what the average cruise speed is.

Now lets have a look at Bing maps. You've used this for 15 years, never knew it had a distance measuring tool ("red pin"). Took me all of 5 minutes to discover that and I'm not a Bing user.

If you're not a Bing user then how are you using Bing to measure red pin distances?

Apologies, I should have been clearer. I'm not normally a Bing user, I've only recently started using Bing in order to address these Bing related topics.



I was under the impression you had made measurements whilst walking and based your trust in Bing maps walking distances on measurements you took. Sure you can use all sorts of methods, which ones did you use is my question?

I have used a use a rolling measuring tape, GPS, I've driven a route that I've walked along the street and used my Car odometer, I've used wearable fitness trackers, and for a while I wore a pedometer which also tracked distance.



But you've no idea whether elevation changes make any significant difference, you just think it does and you're not providing any evidence. I don't believe it does.

If i'm changing in elevation my odometer is tracking that change in elevation too.






Well now we're back to my offer to demonstrate 1 million comparison calculations (see my earlier comment).

I have yet to see even a sample size of one let alone 1 million.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 09, 2020, 11:03:56 PM
Sure, but in your example, your CEO told you to write something, you did, so the change was authorised all up the line. Of course a senior manager at Microsoft could do the same and in fact I can't see any other way this could happen. If the change was unauthorised, it would eventually be fixed and someone would be disciplined.

Authorized <> correct. Just because something was authorized does not make it true, accurate, or correct. It's very clear you never worked in web design because you would know that it's more common than you think it is.

I have worked extensively in web design and your posit is more of a personal ethical one rather than evidence of human behavior at large. I was Director of Product Development at a small start-up a few years back. My CEO wanted traffic numbers for a board meeting a press release. We were seeking round C funding as the runway was getting short. I gave him the traffic numbers and he asked me to "gussie" them up. The operative word was 'up'. I refused because that would be just out and out lying and people might make some serious life altering financial decisions based upon falsified data. He relented and we went with the correct numbers I had. That's the ethics of the scenario and I trust that more of humanity follow that path rather than doing something nefarious just because someone senior asked them to.

As to the larger question at hand, your need to see the source code and have someone walk you through it in order to believe that the documentation is correct, literally applies to every citation anyone ever has about anything. That seems extreme, unfounded, and unfortunate.

Well now we're back to my offer to demonstrate 1 million comparison calculations (see my earlier comment).

I have yet to see even a sample size of one let alone 1 million.

Have you not been reading this thread? I and others have given you multiple "samples" all of which show that Bing Maps uses spherical trig in it's distance calculations just like their documentation states.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 09, 2020, 11:29:30 PM
I have worked extensively in web design and your posit is more of a personal ethical one rather than evidence of human behavior at large. I was Director of Product Development at a small start-up a few years back. My CEO wanted traffic numbers for a board meeting a press release. We were seeking round C funding as the runway was getting short. I gave him the traffic numbers and he asked me to "gussie" them up. The operative word was 'up'. I refused because that would be just out and out lying and people might make some serious life altering financial decisions based upon falsified data. He relented and we went with the correct numbers I had. That's the ethics of the scenario and I trust that more of humanity follow that path rather than doing something nefarious just because someone senior asked them to.

Then you know, first hand, how incorrect or inaccurate things can make it to a website.




As to the larger question at hand, your need to see the source code and have someone walk you through it in order to believe that the documentation is correct, literally applies to every citation anyone ever has about anything. That seems extreme, unfounded, and unfortunate.

Just like it seems extreme unfounded and unfortunate to believe everything that you read on the internet. I prefer to take things I read online with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 10, 2020, 12:28:32 AM
I have worked extensively in web design and your posit is more of a personal ethical one rather than evidence of human behavior at large. I was Director of Product Development at a small start-up a few years back. My CEO wanted traffic numbers for a board meeting a press release. We were seeking round C funding as the runway was getting short. I gave him the traffic numbers and he asked me to "gussie" them up. The operative word was 'up'. I refused because that would be just out and out lying and people might make some serious life altering financial decisions based upon falsified data. He relented and we went with the correct numbers I had. That's the ethics of the scenario and I trust that more of humanity follow that path rather than doing something nefarious just because someone senior asked them to.

Then you know, first hand, how incorrect or inaccurate things can make it to a website.

Yes, I know how they could, especially at a funding starved start-up trying to make their numbers look good. But again, in my scenario, I refused to lie and I trust most people would too. You have obviously not worked at a large company and been responsible for web content as that is a completely different animal. I was a Dir of Prod Development for the web (one of a dozen or so) for a a fortune 250 company for several years. When my team produced any sort of documentation, whether simple help menus to full on dev 'how-to's' when interfacing with our data, API's and product, whether the documentation was customer facing or internal, it all had to go through many, many vetting stages. Internally on my team to make sure the documentation was accurate, well written and understandable. Then off to Legal and compliance for their review to make sure nothing was open to a mis-interpretation/liability. Even Marketing would have to "blue line" (provide approval) to make sure we were 'on Brand'. Nothing was ever published that didn't pass all of these barriers - All of which is standard practice at any large firm. Whether it be an Adobe, a Fidelity or a Microsoft. It's not the wild west like a little start-up may be. I find your argument that someone at Microsoft could go rogue and publish something that was patently false laughable. And then you'd have to summon up some sort of motive. Why would they make a false claim that they use spherical trig in their calculations when they actually don't? That makes zero sense.

As to the larger question at hand, your need to see the source code and have someone walk you through it in order to believe that the documentation is correct, literally applies to every citation anyone ever has about anything. That seems extreme, unfounded, and unfortunate.

Just like it seems extreme unfounded and unfortunate to believe everything that you read on the internet. I prefer to take things I read online with a grain of salt.

No one is saying you should believe everything on the internet. That would be absurd. But using logic, as humans, we can determine the veracity of a lot of things based upon source, reputation, and motivation. Microsoft (or anyone at Miscrosoft) has zero motive to claim that when you interface with their product the output is based upon X calculation/algorithm when that is a straight up false statement. If it were false, then the output would not be correct. And as we've shown you in several samples which you continually fail to acknowledge the output from Bing Maps is exactly what would be expected as stated in their documentation. Why you can't wrap your head around the evidence is very confusing.

Why don't you do a little leg work and create some samples to see for yourself?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on April 10, 2020, 01:15:33 AM
When it comes down to it, it's kind of a basic skill to figure out what is a credible source of information on the internet. Microsoft is a credible source of information. The company has a reputation to uphold and I doubt that some slackjaw moron is in charge telling employees at microsoft to lie on the documentation and if that were the case it would have been leaked. I trust Microsoft more than I'd trust random people on the internet (especially this corner of the internet). So iamcpc, microsoft is saying one thing and you are saying they could be lying, I trust them over you in this situation for sure. Not only that, Bing maps matches other maps on the internet, including open source maps. All of which are stated to be a map of a globe earth. That you worked in some company you wont name had a ceo that tried to make you lie is anecdotal at best (if you aren't lying about it that is). I have worked in a microsoft company, granted it was a game dev company so not related to Bing maps, but their procedures company wide are strict and the hierarchy isn't flat. Everything is peer reviewed and approved by multiple layers in the hiarchy and a lot of people are involved. It would have circulated pretty fast that the map was all a lie and actually based on a flat earth, it would 100% have been leaked by now.

Basically what I'm saying is if every map developer out there that people use every day is claiming it's a globe and you are claiming otherwise, who do you think we're going to side with? I'm siding with the people who know what they're doing, they've proven themselves, they have documentation to back up real world uses for their services. You have nothing to backup any claim of a lie so maybe move on and try to come up with a new argument.

As a side note talking of microsofts maps and game development, they've kind of merged the two in Microsofts Flight Simulator 2020. I'd be interested for flat earthers to play that game when it comes out. :D
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 10, 2020, 07:24:38 AM
You have obviously not worked at a large company and been responsible for web content as that is a completely different animal. I was a Dir of Prod Development for the web (one of a dozen or so) for a a fortune 250 company for several years. When my team produced any sort of documentation, whether simple help menus to full on dev 'how-to's' when interfacing with our data, API's and product, whether the documentation was customer facing or internal, it all had to go through many, many vetting stages. Internally on my team to make sure the documentation was accurate, well written and understandable. Then off to Legal and compliance for their review to make sure nothing was open to a mis-interpretation/liability. Even Marketing would have to "blue line" (provide approval) to make sure we were 'on Brand'. Nothing was ever published that didn't pass all of these barriers - All of which is standard practice at any large firm. Whether it be an Adobe, a Fidelity or a Microsoft. It's not the wild west like a little start-up may be. I find your argument that someone at Microsoft could go rogue and publish something that was patently false laughable. And then you'd have to summon up some sort of motive. Why would they make a false claim that they use spherical trig in their calculations when they actually don't? That makes zero sense.


Are you serious? You just said this:

My CEO wanted traffic numbers for a board meeting a press release. We were seeking round C funding as the runway was getting short. I gave him the traffic numbers and he asked me to "gussie" them up.

I don't know what company you worked for but in every company I worked for if the CEO told you to do something, and it was not a felony, you did it. If the CEO says jump you say "How high". If you can't understand how, after having something like this happen to you, someone else might say "yes boss" i'm very sorry.


Why don't you do a little leg work and create some samples to see for yourself?

Because what formula is, or is not, used to estimate the distances between two red dots on an online map is not high on my list of things to work on.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 10, 2020, 10:53:24 AM
Much earlier in this discussion I proposed a methodology to attempt to confirm the use of Haversine in the getDistanceTo API method, verifying the claim made in the documentation. I asked you whether you (iamcpc) thought the methodology I proposed was sound and whether you would accept the results. You declined to comment.

Since then, I've returned to this point again and again, finally offering to write the code to do this myself. All I asked in return is that if you find no fault with the method, then you accept the results.

I was hoping you'd say something on the lines of "OK, the method looks sound, if I can't fault the code, I'll accept the results". But no, you've just avoided engaging with this suggestion.

A more cynical person than myself might think that you're unwilling to risk painting yourself into a corner you cannot find a way to escape from.

However despite the offer you've never taken me up on, you continue to insist nobody has shown you any corroboration...

Yes I would [believe the documentation]. If their website said their calculation was based on a formula and someone set up a set of data points, say 100,  which were based on the formula and compared those to 100 red pin measurements from Bing and all of them matched then I would believe that the red pin distances were based on the formula.

Now this 100 data point test seems remarkably similar to the 1 million data point test I've been proposing all along.

If you had 1000 data points in which the results matches 1000 times out of 1000 the haversine formula then I would think that the bing map red pin distance calculator was based off of the Haversine formula

OK so you've upped the requirement from 100 to 1000, that's OK. But again this is the very test I've been proposing all along.

At this point, all I can do is write the code and demonstrate it. I'm sure you'll find some way to claim you never agreed this was a fair test, so it doesn't count, but I'll go ahead anyway.

Just to be clear:
I've included the code as an attachment. Here's how you run it.


In the "printout" window you should see something like this:

Comparison between 1000000 locations
Min variation 0.0mm
Max variation 5.0mm
Avg variation 2.5mm
Min variation(%) 0.0
Max variation(%) 0.00019
Avg variation(%) 2.5e-8
Min dist 2km
Max dist 20035km
Avg dist 10016km

Min/max/avg variation is the smallest/largest/average discrepancy between a Bing distance and an independent Haversine distance. As you can see, the biggest discrepancy found in 1 million comparisons was 5mm.

Min/max/avg variation(%) is the smallest/largest/average percentage discrepancy, i.e. the discrepancy as a percentage of the distance measured. As you can see the biggest was 0.00019%, so 100x smaller than my proposed 0.01% threshold.

Min/max/avg distances are the smallest/largest/average distance in km between the randomly generated pairs of locations.

I encourage you to try this for yourself and examine the code. Obviously since the locations are randomly generated, each time you run, you should expect to get slightly different results, but the overall picture is the same, no more than a 5mm discrepancy between distance of up to 20,000km. There is no doubt. Bing uses Haversine.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 10, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
  • With the "TypeScript" tab selected and highlighted in green, delete the existing script code and paste in the code I've given you.

You have given me no code.

I encourage you to try this for yourself and examine the code.

I can't. You have not given me any code.


Obviously since the locations are randomly generated, each time you run, you should expect to get slightly different results, but the overall picture is the same, no more than a 5mm discrepancy between distance of up to 20,000km. There is no doubt. Bing uses Haversine.

Are you serious?

It's like saying this online hypotenuse calculator uses the Pythagorean Theorem. If you plug in A and B then the C only has one answer. One very precise answer. Only one.  If you plug in a hundred billion sets of data into this calculator they will match the EXACT distance down to the one spetillionth of a nanometer 100% of the time. Regardless of the distance.


It's like plugging the number 3 and 4 into this thing and having it spit out 24.9999995 Well then that's irrefutable PROOF that this thing is not using the Pythagorean Theorem because if you put the numbers 3 and 4 into the Pythagorean theorem the answer for the hypotenuse is 25 not 25.0000005 not 24.999998.


I think that it's clear that Bing maps is using something pretty similar to the Haversine formula but pretty similar is not the same just like if you plugged 3 and 4 into a  Pythagorean Theorem api and got the number 24.9999995 then it's using something similar to the Pythagorean Theorem but NOT the Pythagorean Theorem
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 10, 2020, 05:09:51 PM
  • With the "TypeScript" tab selected and highlighted in green, delete the existing script code and paste in the code I've given you.

You have given me no code.

I encourage you to try this for yourself and examine the code.

I can't. You have not given me any code.


If you are logged in, you should see this at the top of my post (to be clear, my previous post, not this one):

(https://i.imgur.com/ae5RR5e.png)

That paperclip icon is supposed to indicate that there is an attachment to the message. Then at the bottom of my message, you should see..

(https://i.imgur.com/zoZ7sNy.png)

And if you click on the "Haversine.txt" it should allow you to download the attachment. It's a simple text file containing the code. If you still can't see it, say so and I'll just post the code into the message, it's not that long.

Obviously since the locations are randomly generated, each time you run, you should expect to get slightly different results, but the overall picture is the same, no more than a 5mm discrepancy between distance of up to 20,000km. There is no doubt. Bing uses Haversine.

Are you serious?

It's like saying this online hypotenuse calculator uses the Pythagorean Theorem. If you plug in A and B then the C only has one answer. One very precise answer. Only one.  If you plug in a hundred billion sets of data into this calculator they will match the EXACT distance down to the one spetillionth of a nanometer 100% of the time. Regardless of the distance.


All real numbers (as opposed to whole number integers) in computers are inexact because these numbers are stored in memory locations of a fixed number of bits, so if you have an inexact number such as √2 you can only hold a finite number of digits. Numbers like √2 and pi are irrational and the number of digits stretch out to infinity. No computer can hold an infinite number of digits. If you think about it, you've probably heard in the news from time to time that someone has broken the previous record for calculating the most digits of pi. It's taken them a lot of time on a supercomputer to do this, so no, your average home computer doesn't have an exact value for pi or √2.

The more you manipulate these numbers, the more the errors accumulate.

You can see this in either a real or an online calculator. Start with 2 and keep taking the square root again and again, say 20 times. Then apply x2 20 times and see if you get back to 2. If calculations were exact, you absolutely would, you could do it thousands of times and you'd still get 2. But they aren't exact.

The implementations of Haversine in Bing and the independent one I'm comparing it with are not going to be line for line identical, they have been written by different people, so it is inevitable that they will both accumulate errors, but not identical errors, hence the results won't match 100%. Personally if two people measured a line of 20,000km and they came up with answers 5mm apart I would be pretty impressed.

And just to take your example of the hypotenuse calculator, what exactly is C going to be if A=1 and B=1? Actually I'll let you off if you give me the first 100 million digits of the answer. According to WikiPedia the current best answer to this question is from a guy called Ron Watkins who has worked it out to 10 trillion digits, so I'm really letting you off lightly you know.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 10, 2020, 07:04:42 PM
You have obviously not worked at a large company and been responsible for web content as that is a completely different animal. I was a Dir of Prod Development for the web (one of a dozen or so) for a a fortune 250 company for several years. When my team produced any sort of documentation, whether simple help menus to full on dev 'how-to's' when interfacing with our data, API's and product, whether the documentation was customer facing or internal, it all had to go through many, many vetting stages. Internally on my team to make sure the documentation was accurate, well written and understandable. Then off to Legal and compliance for their review to make sure nothing was open to a mis-interpretation/liability. Even Marketing would have to "blue line" (provide approval) to make sure we were 'on Brand'. Nothing was ever published that didn't pass all of these barriers - All of which is standard practice at any large firm. Whether it be an Adobe, a Fidelity or a Microsoft. It's not the wild west like a little start-up may be. I find your argument that someone at Microsoft could go rogue and publish something that was patently false laughable. And then you'd have to summon up some sort of motive. Why would they make a false claim that they use spherical trig in their calculations when they actually don't? That makes zero sense.


Are you serious? You just said this:

My CEO wanted traffic numbers for a board meeting a press release. We were seeking round C funding as the runway was getting short. I gave him the traffic numbers and he asked me to "gussie" them up.

I don't know what company you worked for but in every company I worked for if the CEO told you to do something, and it was not a felony, you did it. If the CEO says jump you say "How high". If you can't understand how, after having something like this happen to you, someone else might say "yes boss" i'm very sorry.

The absurdity here is that you have made up a whole "What if..." scenario based upon zero evidence. For one, just because you did something unethical when asked to do so by your CEO you believe that others would do the same. For two, this entire scenario you've conjured up is ridiculous. Your argument is, what if Steve Balmer was hovering over the Bing Maps technical writer's cube and saying, "Ok, there, when you're describing the GetDistance API put something in there about using a Haversine calculation, I know it doesn't, but do it anyway because I said so..." That is a completely manufactured scenario based upon not just zero evidence, but zero motive. Like I said, absurd.

Why don't you do a little leg work and create some samples to see for yourself?

Because what formula is, or is not, used to estimate the distances between two red dots on an online map is not high on my list of things to work on.

Well, you've been given plenty of evidence/samples as to how the distance is calculated using spherical trig and you have provided zero evidence as to how it doesn't. Therefore, the only endpoint is that Bing Maps works the way the Bing Maps people say it works. So that is just that.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 11, 2020, 07:59:12 PM
And just to take your example of the hypotenuse calculator, what exactly is C going to be if A=1 and B=1? Actually I'll let you off if you give me the first 100 million digits of the answer. According to WikiPedia the current best answer to this question is from a guy called Ron Watkins who has worked it out to 10 trillion digits, so I'm really letting you off lightly you know.

 If the hypotenuse calculator used distances of over a billion millimeters  the answers would match down to the millimeter. In this situation they do not match when measuring distances of significantly less than a billion millimeters. How you are unable to understand that this is math and when putting variables into a formula there is only ONE possible correct answer. The answer is correct or incorrect.

If variables are plugged into formula A and the answer is 1 and then plugged into formula B and the answer is 1.000005 then they are NOT the same formula. Period. Case closed.


The absurdity here is that you have made up a whole "What if..." scenario based upon zero evidence. For one, just because you did something unethical when asked to do so by your CEO you believe that others would do the same.

I've been developer conferences and spoken with other people who have also knowingly published incorrect information to websites.

For two, this entire scenario you've conjured up is ridiculous. Your argument is, what if Steve Balmer was hovering over the Bing Maps technical writer's cube and saying, "Ok, there, when you're describing the GetDistance API put something in there about using a Haversine calculation, I know it doesn't, but do it anyway because I said so..."

No. My scenario is that the VP(or CEO or Director)  over the web developer team said: "Put this block of text on the website" and the web development team said "sure. No problem". 


That is a completely manufactured scenario based upon not just zero evidence, but zero motive. Like I said, absurd.

Seriously? There are websites out there claiming that the news is read by lizard people. I say yeah don't trust everything that you read on the internet and find out for yourself. I've professionally put inaccurate information on a website before.

You're response, is actually defending these claims having done no research on them whatsoever, even after experimental evidence has been presented which shows that the distances from website A's haversine formula calculator don't match the Bing website "haversine" formula calculator.





Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: GreatATuin on April 11, 2020, 08:16:01 PM
And just to take your example of the hypotenuse calculator, what exactly is C going to be if A=1 and B=1? Actually I'll let you off if you give me the first 100 million digits of the answer. According to WikiPedia the current best answer to this question is from a guy called Ron Watkins who has worked it out to 10 trillion digits, so I'm really letting you off lightly you know.

 If the hypotenuse calculator used distances of over a billion millimeters  the answers would match down to the millimeter. In this situation they do not match when measuring distances of significantly less than a billion millimeters. How you are unable to understand that this is math and when putting variables into a formula there is only ONE possible correct answer. The answer is correct or incorrect.

If variables are plugged into formula A and the answer is 1 and then plugged into formula B and the answer is 1.000005 then they are NOT the same formula. Period. Case closed.

Do you have any idea how floating point calculations work? Are you really nitpicking to the point you're arguing it's not the same formula, but a totally different formula that somehow gets the same results within a 0.0002% margin of error?

Surely you can't be serious? Would such a small difference change anything to the underlying model, and to the point that Bing uses calculations based on a spherical Earth?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 11, 2020, 09:04:48 PM
And just to take your example of the hypotenuse calculator, what exactly is C going to be if A=1 and B=1? Actually I'll let you off if you give me the first 100 million digits of the answer. According to WikiPedia the current best answer to this question is from a guy called Ron Watkins who has worked it out to 10 trillion digits, so I'm really letting you off lightly you know.

 If the hypotenuse calculator used distances of over a billion millimeters  the answers would match down to the millimeter. In this situation they do not match when measuring distances of significantly less than a billion millimeters. How you are unable to understand that this is math and when putting variables into a formula there is only ONE possible correct answer. The answer is correct or incorrect.

If variables are plugged into formula A and the answer is 1 and then plugged into formula B and the answer is 1.000005 then they are NOT the same formula. Period. Case closed.


Well lets use millimeters then. A=1,000,000mm, B=1,000,000mm, what is the exact value of C?

Bear in mind that 1,000,000mm is exactly 1km, so this is exactly the same question as asking A=1km, B=1km, what is C?

I don't care what answer you write down for this, your answer is wrong. If you write down an answer to the nearest billionth of a nanometer, I can always add one extra decimal to that to make the answer more accurate. Give me 1 trillion decimal places and I can make the answer more accurate. So if you point me to any hypotenuse calculator in existence, whatever answer it gives, I can give you a more accurate one. That's the issue with this particular problem, the actual answer has an infinite number of decimal places, there is no such thing as ONE possible correct answer in your example. There is a theoretical answer and that's obviously in this case √2km, but since you can't ever write that down as a number, neither can you get a calculator or computer to compute it either.

And if you insist on using a billion millimeters, well I'll just invent a new unit, the kilo-kilometre (kkm) and then the problem is just A=1kkm, B=1kkm, what is C?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 11, 2020, 10:45:14 PM
The absurdity here is that you have made up a whole "What if..." scenario based upon zero evidence. For one, just because you did something unethical when asked to do so by your CEO you believe that others would do the same.

I've been developer conferences and spoken with other people who have also knowingly published incorrect information to websites.

For two, this entire scenario you've conjured up is ridiculous. Your argument is, what if Steve Balmer was hovering over the Bing Maps technical writer's cube and saying, "Ok, there, when you're describing the GetDistance API put something in there about using a Haversine calculation, I know it doesn't, but do it anyway because I said so..."

No. My scenario is that the VP(or CEO or Director)  over the web developer team said: "Put this block of text on the website" and the web development team said "sure. No problem". 

Again, absurd. Why? What's the motive? Do you believe that everything you've ever read in a book, in a manual, on the web, on a street sign, is subject to the same level of skepticism you're applying here to Microsoft's own documentation about its own product? Absurd.

That is a completely manufactured scenario based upon not just zero evidence, but zero motive. Like I said, absurd.

Seriously? There are websites out there claiming that the news is read by lizard people. I say yeah don't trust everything that you read on the internet and find out for yourself. I've professionally put inaccurate information on a website before.

Just because there are websites, newspapers, magazines, books, etc., that claim there are Lizard people you somehow extrapolate that notion in some equal manner to Microsoft documentation about its own product? Absurd.

Professionally putting inaccurate information out to the public is by no means professional. You possess a certain moral flexibility that I do not. I hardly see your lack of ethics as any argument over the rest of humanity even if you found some like minded individuals at a conference. It's not an argument for anything, just a statement about yourself and your integrity.

You're response, is actually defending these claims having done no research on them whatsoever, even after experimental evidence has been presented which shows that the distances from website A's haversine formula calculator don't match the Bing website "haversine" formula calculator.

You're the one who has done no research. I already gave you the Hong Kong to SFO research I did and Bing matched other spherical trig centric map sites to the exact mile. So I don't know what you're going on about.

Just face the facts and all evidence (of which you have provided none) that Bing Maps uses spherical trig in it's distance calulations. Case closed.

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 12, 2020, 02:28:24 AM

Well lets use millimeters then. A=1,000,000mm, B=1,000,000mm, what is the exact value of C?

I'm not asking for the EXACT value of C i'm asking for the correct answer down to the millimeter. Which your information has CLEARLY demonstrated that the calculations are not the same providing VERY clear evidence that the claims made on the Bing website are not 100% accurate. Or they are vague intentionally.










Again, absurd. Why? What's the motive? Do you believe that everything you've ever read in a book, in a manual, on the web, on a street sign, is subject to the same level of skepticism you're applying here to Microsoft's own documentation about its own product? Absurd.

You really can't say these claims are absurd when, per your claims, this happened to you in real life. I could say that your claims are absurd but that happened to me too.  This is an example of how you are wrong.



Just because there are websites, newspapers, magazines, books, etc., that claim there are Lizard people you somehow extrapolate that notion in some equal manner to Microsoft documentation about its own product? Absurd.

Have you not seen the comparisons? They are not the same. They are different. Yet you still make these claims. This is another example of how you are wrong.

Professionally putting inaccurate information out to the public is by no means professional. You possess a certain moral flexibility that I do not. I hardly see your lack of ethics as any argument over the rest of humanity even if you found some like minded individuals at a conference. It's not an argument for anything, just a statement about yourself and your integrity.

Hmm. Professional:
engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.
I got paid to put incorrect information on a website as part of my main paid occupation rather than as a pastime therefore I did it professionally.
A third example of how you are wrong.



Just face the facts and all evidence (of which you have provided none) that Bing Maps uses spherical trig in it's distance calulations. Case closed.

Then tell me why the numbers don't match from another website who claims to use the same formula?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 12, 2020, 06:37:02 AM

Again, absurd. Why? What's the motive? Do you believe that everything you've ever read in a book, in a manual, on the web, on a street sign, is subject to the same level of skepticism you're applying here to Microsoft's own documentation about its own product? Absurd.

You really can't say these claims are absurd when, per your claims, this happened to you in real life. I could say that your claims are absurd but that happened to me too.  This is an example of how you are wrong.

Absolutely it's absurd. You're taking a scenario that happened to you and some others and have extrapolated it across to everyone who has ever published anything. That is absurd

Just because there are websites, newspapers, magazines, books, etc., that claim there are Lizard people you somehow extrapolate that notion in some equal manner to Microsoft documentation about its own product? Absurd.

Have you not seen the comparisons? They are not the same. They are different. Yet you still make these claims. This is another example of how you are wrong.

How is it any different? Can someone not put something false in a book, newspaper, magazine, or road sign when their superior tells them too? Is the web the only media vulnerable to the propagation of falsehoods? Of course not. But by your standards anything and everything published through any media platform is subject to the possibility that a superior made a subordinate publish a lie. In doing so, I can't imagine you ever leaving your house as you could never trust anything. You can't take the bus anywhere because the manufacturer's technical manual is suspect; a superior might have made a writer lie about, maybe, how often the brakes should be serviced. Or plane's technical specs/manuals. or a cars, etc. That documentation may be in HTML. Oh lordy me, not HTML!

Your argument is absolutely absurd.


Professionally putting inaccurate information out to the public is by no means professional. You possess a certain moral flexibility that I do not. I hardly see your lack of ethics as any argument over the rest of humanity even if you found some like minded individuals at a conference. It's not an argument for anything, just a statement about yourself and your integrity.

Hmm. Professional:
engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.
I got paid to put incorrect information on a website as part of my main paid occupation rather than as a pastime therefore I did it professionally.
A third example of how you are wrong.

Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession

I don't think you conformed to the ethical standards of a profession at all. Quite the contrary. You broke the ethical bounds, I did not. You acted unethically, not professionally, by perpetuating/publishing a lie.


Just face the facts and all evidence (of which you have provided none) that Bing Maps uses spherical trig in it's distance calulations. Case closed.

Then tell me why the numbers don't match from another website who claims to use the same formula?

In my Hong Kong to SFO example, I compared Bing's haversine GetDistance API return to another sites distance calc which uses a similar but slightly more accurate Vincenty's formulae, both spherical trig, and came up with the exact same mileage.

Like I said before, just face the facts and all evidence (of which you have provided none) that Bing Maps uses spherical trig in it's distance calulations. Case closed.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 12, 2020, 07:53:08 AM

Well lets use millimeters then. A=1,000,000mm, B=1,000,000mm, what is the exact value of C?

I'm not asking for the EXACT value of C i'm asking for the correct answer down to the millimeter. Which your information has CLEARLY demonstrated that the calculations are not the same providing VERY clear evidence that the claims made on the Bing website are not 100% accurate. Or they are vague intentionally.

Oh you are not asking for the exact value? You just need it to the nearest millimetre and then you'll be happy. 5mm is too much, but to the nearest 1mm is OK.

Well then it's your lucky day. It occurred to me that one possibility is that Bing is just simply reporting the answer with fewer decimal places than the independent version of Haversine, which would lead to a discrepancy between the answers. So I went back to the code and experimented, changing the number of decimal places to try and get closer to whatever Bing are using. And I hit paydirt!

Take the code I gave you (you do have it now don't you, I see someone has downloaded it successfully, hopefully it was you) and replace line 74 with:

Code: [Select]
updateStats(Math.round(d1 * 100000.0) / 100000.0, d2);  // Update stats for the two distances calculated
These are the results I get with that modification in place:

Comparison between 1000000 locations
Min variation 0.0mm
Max variation 0.0000036mm
Avg variation 4.0e-7mm
Min variation(%) 0.0
Max variation(%) 2.2e-14
Avg variation(%) 3.9e-15
Min dist 7km
Max dist 20026km
Avg dist 10021km

As you see, the max variation over a test of a million comparisons has gone down from 5mm to 0.0000036mm or 3.6 nanometers if you prefer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said you wanted it down to the nearest 1mm, so you should be happy with 3.6 nanometers.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 12, 2020, 03:13:29 PM
It occurred to me following my last post that the results given by the independent implementation of Haversine and Bing are so very close that perhaps there was an extra step I could take to eliminate the difference altogether. I had another look at the rounding idea and realised that I'd converted a result to km and then rounded it, so out of interest, I tried this the other way around, i.e. round first and then convert to km.

Now the results look like this:

Comparison between 1000000 locations
Min variation 0.0mm
Max variation 0.0mm
Avg variation 0.0mm
Min variation(%) 0.0
Max variation(%) 0.0
Avg variation(%) 0.0
Min dist 4km
Max dist 20029km
Avg dist 10014km

So no further excuses, this version of Haversine correlates 100% with the results from Bing over a million random pairs of distances.

Code is included as an attachment to this post as before. Instructions to run as per my earlier post.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 13, 2020, 03:55:52 PM
It occurred to me following my last post that the results given by the independent implementation of Haversine and Bing are so very close that perhaps there was an extra step I could take to eliminate the difference altogether. I had another look at the rounding idea and realised that I'd converted a result to km and then rounded it, so out of interest, I tried this the other way around, i.e. round first and then convert to km.


Code is included as an attachment to this post as before. Instructions to run as per my earlier post.


I'm not getting any results. I got the website, I put the code in, i hit the play button and nothing happens. I'm only trying to do 100 locations. It just says "Page Unresponsive". What browser are you using to do this?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 13, 2020, 04:07:52 PM
It occurred to me following my last post that the results given by the independent implementation of Haversine and Bing are so very close that perhaps there was an extra step I could take to eliminate the difference altogether. I had another look at the rounding idea and realised that I'd converted a result to km and then rounded it, so out of interest, I tried this the other way around, i.e. round first and then convert to km.


Code is included as an attachment to this post as before. Instructions to run as per my earlier post.

I'm not getting any results. I got the website, I put the code in, i hit the play button and nothing happens. I'm only trying to do 100 locations. It just says "Page Unresponsive". What browser are you using to do this?

Chrome on Windows 10.

Also just tried it in Edge and Internet Explorer 11. Works on all 3 for me.

Did you just change nlocations in settings (to 100) or anything else?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: JSS on April 13, 2020, 04:54:04 PM
I'm not getting any results. I got the website, I put the code in, i hit the play button and nothing happens. I'm only trying to do 100 locations. It just says "Page Unresponsive". What browser are you using to do this?
Chrome on Windows 10.

Also just tried it in Edge and Internet Explorer 11. Works on all 3 for me.

Did you just change nlocations in settings (to 100) or anything else?

I just tried it and set it to 100 and got this:

Comparison between 100 locations
Min variation 0.0mm
Max variation 0.0mm
Avg variation 0.0mm
Min variation(%) 0.0
Max variation(%) 0.0
Avg variation(%) 0.0
Min dist 756km
Max dist 18819km
Avg dist 10346km

Seems to be working fine for me.  Chrome on Windows 10.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 13, 2020, 09:19:43 PM
Seems to be working fine for me.  Chrome on Windows 10.

It looks like it's because I made some changes to the minimum and maximum distances. I wanted to try a few distances that were between 8 and 10 KM or a few that were between .1 and .4 KM. It ran for 10 minutes trying to do one comparison with a min distance of .4 and a max distance of .4. Very strange that this thing is unable to do smaller distances.


I feel like, if we are going to compare distances, the smallest distance should be something less than 756 KM. Why is it that we are unable to do 100 samples of 0-1 KM and 100 samples of 2-10 KM etc.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 13, 2020, 09:50:13 PM
Seems to be working fine for me.  Chrome on Windows 10.

It looks like it's because I made some changes to the minimum and maximum distances. I wanted to try a few distances that were between 8 and 10 KM or a few that were between .1 and .4 KM. It ran for 10 minutes trying to do one comparison with a min distance of .4 and a max distance of .4. Very strange that this thing is unable to do smaller distances.


I feel like, if we are going to compare distances, the smallest distance should be something less than 756 KM. Why is it that we are unable to do 100 samples of 0-1 KM and 100 samples of 2-10 KM etc.

Ah, OK that makes sense. The way it works is that it generates a completely random pair of locations, which could be any distance apart, then works out the distance between them. If this distance falls outside the min/max distance setting then it is discarded and it just generates another pair and tries again and again until it gets a good pair. This is simple to implement, but wasteful. If your distance range is set to 0 - 20,000km, then every pair will be within range so you'll generate (say) 1000 pairs and all 1000 are valid. Halve that range and you'll have to generate twice as many pairs to get 1000 useful ones etc. etc. The smaller the range, the worse it gets.

If you are trying to use a range of say 2 - 10km, then you're probably generating thousands or maybe even millions of out of range ones just to get one in range. I did wonder about making the pair generation a bit more intelligent, but wanted to keep the code simple and easy to understand.

I'll have a think about this and come up with an improved version.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: JSS on April 13, 2020, 10:03:56 PM
It ran for 10 minutes trying to do one comparison with a min distance of .4 and a max distance of .4. Very strange that this thing is unable to do smaller distances.

If you were asking for distances between .4 and .4 then it would never find any as there are 0 numbers between them.

If you meant .1 and .4 then it will take a LONG time to run due to how random numbers are being used.  It's not strange at all, I can see the code myself and that's completely expected for those values.

Hmm, that's an interesting problem, how to get two sets of numbers within a specific distance of each other on a sphere. I'll be curious to see what robinofloxley comes up with. I can't think of any quick ways that don't use a bunch of extra math which would be confusing. The code as it stands is pretty minimal and easy to understand.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 13, 2020, 11:14:12 PM
I ran it for 100 pairs at 0 to 10 km. It took a really, really long time to run. But when it completed, the results are as predicted (Chrome 80, Mac 10.15.3):

(https://i.imgur.com/3B8tIGG.png)
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 14, 2020, 04:53:33 AM
I ran it for 100 pairs at 0 to 10 km. It took a really, really long time to run. But when it completed, the results are as predicted (Chrome 80, Mac 10.15.3):

the issue that I have here is that the only way you were able to make them match was by rounding the number. The issue with that is that there could be one distance which is 1.1 KM away from another distance. When you round to the nearest kilometer we are unable to see those kinds of differences as demonstrated before when the numbers were different and you were not rounding.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 14, 2020, 03:32:34 PM
Well inevitably the code is a bit more complex, so I'll explain what I've done.

I have a new function to generate a dependent pair of random locations. The start location is entirely random as before, generated in the same way.

Then I generate a vector in the form of a pair of numbers, a bearing and a distance. The bearing is just a random angle between 0 and 360. The distance is a random number between the min and max settings. If the max is set too high, then I just use 1/2 way around the world, i.e. around 20,000km instead to prevent any nasty overflows.

Then I add the vector to the start location to give me a destination a suitable distance away. This means all my generated pairs of locations are sensibly separated and I'm not having to throw anything away.

To make things a bit more flexible, the settings object now allows you to choose to use the old or new method for pair generation and whether or not you want any rounding. Without rounding, expect to see variations of up to 5mm or so. To change features, just comment out the one you don't want (add a // to comment) and uncomment the one you do want. I think you'll understand what I mean if you look at the code. So for example, use dontRound to avoid rounding and round2dp to round to 2 decimal places.

Web site to use is as before, https://www.bing.com/api/maps/sdk/mapcontrol/isdk/layerevents#TS (https://www.bing.com/api/maps/sdk/mapcontrol/isdk/layerevents#TS)

The code for Haversine and the code to allow me to add the vector come from https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html (https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html)
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 14, 2020, 03:54:28 PM
I ran it for 100 pairs at 0 to 10 km. It took a really, really long time to run. But when it completed, the results are as predicted (Chrome 80, Mac 10.15.3):

the issue that I have here is that the only way you were able to make them match was by rounding the number. The issue with that is that there could be one distance which is 1.1 KM away from another distance. When you round to the nearest kilometer we are unable to see those kinds of differences as demonstrated before when the numbers were different and you were not rounding.

When I looked at the values I was getting back from Bing, it looked to me like they had been rounded to the nearest cm, which IMHO is a reasonable thing for them to do. If you accept just for the sake of argument that they are using Haversine, that means they are using a perfect sphere as an approximation for an imperfectly shaped earth, so calculating distances to tiny fractions of a millimetre is a bit pointless. If I'm right, then to match the code I'm using with the Bing code, I need to do the same as they do.

If Bing are either not rounding at all or rounding to something else, such as the nearest mm or nearest metre then if I round my results (not Bing's, I'm not touching Bing's results at all) when I shouldn't or get the rounding wrong, I'll see a mismatch. On the other hand if my to-the-nearest-cm results match exactly with the unadulterated results from Bing, then I'm doing it right.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 20, 2020, 09:38:22 AM
A while back in this thread I said:

I originally got involved in this thread talking about distances on Bing maps. After a lot of back and forth discussion, I finished with a post where I showed the line of code calling the Bing API to calculate a distance, showed the official Bing documentation for this code, where it tells you they use the globe based Haversine formula. In my view, that's beyond reasonable doubt - Bing maps under the hood is clearly based on a Globe model. Since then, silence, tubleweed, nothing, nada, no response.

I get that people have lives and it's unreasonable to expect responses all the time, but I've seen this before. Once the scales start to tip irretrievably in the direction of the RE in a discussion, it dies silently.

That prompted a revival of the thread which was then very active right up until I posted a modified version of a piece of code which addressed all of the criticisms of the earlier versions. Specifically, this new code:

Allows you to specify very small distances to measure.
Allows you to specify a very large number of tests to perform and completes in a reasonable time.
Gives precisely identical results to the Bing API.

Just a reminder, here are the results for 200 million tests between 0.1 and 0.4km:

Comparison between 200000000 locations
Min variation 0.0mm
Max variation 0.0mm
Avg variation 0.0mm
Min variation(%) 0.0
Max variation(%) 0.0
Avg variation(%) 0.0
Min dist 0.10001km
Max dist 0.39999km
Avg dist 0.25km

i.e. Bing maps API distance calculations correlate 100% with an independently developed Haversine formula having compared distances between 200 million random pairs of locations.

So the jury have come back in...

On the charge of Bing documentation having been accused of being accurate when they assert they use the spherical Haversine formula for distance calculations - guilty as charged due to overwhelming evidence. Bing uses Haversine for distances.

On the charge of Bing maps distances having been accused of being "based on measured distances in our 3d world" (i.e. incorporating elevation changes) - case dismissed as the prosecution failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.

And now we're back to silence, tumbleweed, nothing, nada, no response.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 20, 2020, 04:29:12 PM

Comparison between 200000000 locations
Min variation 0.0mm
Max variation 0.0mm
Avg variation 0.0mm
Min variation(%) 0.0
Max variation(%) 0.0
Avg variation(%) 0.0
Min dist 0.10001km
Max dist 0.39999km
Avg dist 0.25km

i.e. Bing maps API distance calculations correlate 100% with an independently developed Haversine formula having compared distances between 200 million random pairs of locations.

So the jury have come back in...

On the charge of Bing documentation having been accused of being accurate when they assert they use the spherical Haversine formula for distance calculations - guilty as charged due to overwhelming evidence. Bing uses Haversine for distances.

On the charge of Bing maps distances having been accused of being "based on measured distances in our 3d world" (i.e. incorporating elevation changes) - case dismissed as the prosecution failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.

And now we're back to silence, tumbleweed, nothing, nada, no response.

There is still this issue of rounding which is very unclear to me. Is the variance on these short distances 0 because they are rounded down to the nearest KM which is 0 KM? If so then this is overwhelming evidence that the Bing API is not based on the haversine formula because the haversine formula does not include any rounding.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: JSS on April 20, 2020, 04:47:28 PM
There is still this issue of rounding which is very unclear to me. Is the variance on these short distances 0 because they are rounded down to the nearest KM which is 0 KM? If so then this is overwhelming evidence that the Bing API is not based on the haversine formula because the haversine formula does not include any rounding.

The answer is that Bing uses the haversine formula and then rounds down. You can see they round down using the measurement tools, they always show exactly one decimal place of accuracy. It will show 2.4km, not 2.412834756384976529385465362783664578234km.

The script that was posted does this, and matches EXACTLY the results Bing does.

I'd say getting the exact results over two hundred million calculations is pretty solid evidence the methods are the same.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 20, 2020, 04:52:41 PM

Comparison between 200000000 locations
Min variation 0.0mm
Max variation 0.0mm
Avg variation 0.0mm
Min variation(%) 0.0
Max variation(%) 0.0
Avg variation(%) 0.0
Min dist 0.10001km
Max dist 0.39999km
Avg dist 0.25km

i.e. Bing maps API distance calculations correlate 100% with an independently developed Haversine formula having compared distances between 200 million random pairs of locations.

So the jury have come back in...

On the charge of Bing documentation having been accused of being accurate when they assert they use the spherical Haversine formula for distance calculations - guilty as charged due to overwhelming evidence. Bing uses Haversine for distances.

On the charge of Bing maps distances having been accused of being "based on measured distances in our 3d world" (i.e. incorporating elevation changes) - case dismissed as the prosecution failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.

And now we're back to silence, tumbleweed, nothing, nada, no response.

There is still this issue of rounding which is very unclear to me. Is the variance on these short distances 0 because they are rounded down to the nearest KM which is 0 KM? If so then this is overwhelming evidence that the Bing API is not based on the haversine formula because the haversine formula does not include any rounding.

The implementation of haversine I am using is internally working in metres. The values it calculates are first rounded to 2 decimal places, i.e. to the nearest cm. Then the value is converted to km and returned.

The reason for rounding at all is simply that when I looked at the values Bing was returning, they appeared to have been rounded. I experimented with different roundings of my own and when I tried to the nearest cm rounding, suddenly all my results matched with Bings.

If I had rounded to the nearest 10cm or the nearest 0.1cm then the results would not match.

It's a similar to me asking you what is 1/6 as a decimal. If you give me the answer 0.17 rather then 0.167 or 0.1667, then I'm going to guess that you're giving me the answer rounded up to the nearest 2 decimal places, so if I then ask what is 2/3, I'm guessing you will be consistent and tell me 0.67 rather than 0.667 or anything else.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 21, 2020, 09:02:55 AM
...because the haversine formula does not include any rounding.

I realise I didn't address this point.

Just to refresh the memory, here's what the Bing documentation has to say (my emphasis)...

Quote
Calculate the distance between two locations on the surface of the earth using the Haversine formula.

In other words, their getDistanceTo method isn't directly an implementation of Haversine, it is a method which uses an implementation of Haversine. It clearly does other things as well. For example you can ask it to return the distance in a number of different units: feet, kilometres, metres, miles, nautical miles or yards. It also rounds to the nearest cm. Just to be clear, haversine neither rounds nor converts, but the getDistanceTo function, which uses it, does both.

My code didn't reflect that crucial difference and actually violates a principle of software design - single responsibility. My distance calculation function was doing two distinct jobs, directly calculating a haversine distance and then post-processing this result to give a rounded value in km. This is not what the Bing documentation says should happen, I should have a separate function which uses a pure implementation of haversine to get a result and then post-process the result.

So I've changed the code. Now I have a pure implementation of haversine (onlyHaversine) which does no conversion or rounding - just as you say it should - and a separate distanceUsingHaversine function which is the analogue of Bings getDistanceTo. The distanceUsingHaversine function now uses haversine (onlyHaversine), it does not implement haversine.

Functionally the code is identical. All I've done is split my original function in two and moved the code across so both functions now have a single job to do (the single responsibility principle).

One last thing. If you switch off the rounding, the max variation you see is exactly 5mm. What does that tell you? Well if Bing does round to the nearest cm, then that means values such as 1.50 cm get rounded up to 2, which is a 5mm difference. You can never get more than a 5mm variation when rounding to the nearest cm and if you have enough random numbers, you are bound to see a 5mm variation. The presence of a 5mm max variation actually tells you what rounding strategy they are using. I didn't spot this myself at first, but when you do, it's obvious isn't it.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 21, 2020, 09:58:08 AM
There is still this issue of rounding which is very unclear to me. Is the variance on these short distances 0 because they are rounded down to the nearest KM which is 0 KM? If so then this is overwhelming evidence that the Bing API is not based on the haversine formula because the haversine formula does not include any rounding.

The answer is that Bing uses the haversine formula and then rounds down. You can see they round down using the measurement tools, they always show exactly one decimal place of accuracy. It will show 2.4km, not 2.412834756384976529385465362783664578234km.

The script that was posted does this, and matches EXACTLY the results Bing does.

I'd say getting the exact results over two hundred million calculations is pretty solid evidence the methods are the same.



They were not the same until we did some creative rounding. I could make a distance formula and round it to the nearest light year. I could measure the length of my roof with a tape measure and round it down to 0 light years and it would match the haversine formula. Does that mean I used the haversine formula to measure my roof? No I used a tape measure.



And now we're back to silence, tumbleweed, nothing, nada, no response.

Dude you have gotten many many responses. It's hit an impasse. We're trying to guess at what the Bing API is doing without seeing the source code. The only thing that I have learned is that, if the bing API does use the haversine formula, it does some pretty creating rounding.


In other words, their getDistanceTo method isn't directly an implementation of Haversine

Hmmm welcome to what I've been weary of this entire time....


it is a method which uses an implementation of Haversine. It clearly does other things as well. For example you can ask it to return the distance in a number of different units: feet, kilometres, metres, miles, nautical miles or yards. It also rounds to the nearest cm. Just to be clear, haversine neither rounds nor converts, but the getDistanceTo function, which uses it, does both.

exactly why we need to see the source code to know for sure. These exercises have just shown that, without the source code, it's very difficult to know what exactly is happening.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on April 21, 2020, 11:11:45 AM
Quote
They were not the same until we did some creative rounding. I could make a distance formula and round it to the nearest light year. I could measure the length of my roof with a tape measure and round it down to 0 light years and it would match the haversine formula. Does that mean I used the haversine formula to measure my roof? No I used a tape measure.
This is probably one of the dumber arguments you've made and it's really showing that you simply don't want to believe you could be wrong. Rounding numbers does not mean the math in the code or the method used isn't accurate, it's just for peoples ease when displaying large numbers... And the point being that it still shows that Bing maps is based on a globe and visually distorted to conform to a rectangle. If it weren't then you'd find the numbers in the higher northern and lower southern areas of the world would be way more off.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 21, 2020, 01:55:35 PM
I'd say getting the exact results over two hundred million calculations is pretty solid evidence the methods are the same.

They were not the same until we did some creative rounding. I could make a distance formula and round it to the nearest light year. I could measure the length of my roof with a tape measure and round it down to 0 light years and it would match the haversine formula. Does that mean I used the haversine formula to measure my roof? No I used a tape measure.

If you'd like to go out and measure 200 million different roofs to the nearest 1cm and find some simple mathematical formula which would give identical results without needing to go anywhere or take any measurements at all, I reckon you'd make a few $1m from that.

And now we're back to silence, tumbleweed, nothing, nada, no response.

Dude you have gotten many many responses. It's hit an impasse. We're trying to guess at what the Bing API is doing without seeing the source code. The only thing that I have learned is that, if the bing API does use the haversine formula, it does some pretty creating rounding.

Yes I did and the topic was very active for a long while, but then you complained about not being able to work with small distances and complained about rounding, so I went away and within 24h produced an improved solution to deal with the distance limitations and (I thought) answered your question about rounding. Then it all went quiet for a week, so from my perspective, a very active discussion appeared to have died for no apparent reason. I'm glad that you have re-engaged, so thank you for that.

I don't understand what you mean by creative rounding. 200 million Bing results are being returned with answers given in km to 5 decimal places. That means a 1cm resolution. It doesn't make any sense at all to quote distances on this scale to nanometer accuracy so it's perfectly sensible for the developers to round these values and a 1cm resolution is a good choice. When you compare with a non-rounded haversine value, you end up with a max variation of 0.5cm. This is a dead giveaway that they are rounding to the nearest cm. It's not creative rounding at all, it's an entirely sensible way to do it and it's a very simple bit of basic detective work to figure out this is what they've done.

In other words, their getDistanceTo method isn't directly an implementation of Haversine

Hmmm welcome to what I've been weary of this entire time....

In much the same way as a pineapple in a paper bag isn't a pineapple, it's a pineapple in a paper bag. So what.

it is a method which uses an implementation of Haversine. It clearly does other things as well. For example you can ask it to return the distance in a number of different units: feet, kilometres, metres, miles, nautical miles or yards. It also rounds to the nearest cm. Just to be clear, haversine neither rounds nor converts, but the getDistanceTo function, which uses it, does both.

exactly why we need to see the source code to know for sure. These exercises have just shown that, without the source code, it's very difficult to know what exactly is happening.

There are only two possibilities left here. A) Microsoft are telling the truth and they are using haversine. The very extensive testing strongly supports that hypothesis. B) Microsoft have deliberately published misleading documentation which claims they are using haversine, when they are not.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the latter. Let's assume Microsoft have developed a distance method which is indistinguishable from a haversine formula distance, to the nearest 1cm over distances ranging from 0.1 to 20,000km. Why would they even bother doing this when they could just use the very simple haversine formula in the first place. What would be the point? Does it even matter if we can demonstrably swap out the Microsoft implementation for our own and literally nobody could tell the difference. Either Bing is based on a globe model or it isn't, but it might as well be because you literally can't tell the difference.

And having gone to all the trouble of developing a new method, so far unknown to mankind, which leads to results which are indistinguishable from haversine, they then decide to lie about it and claim it is haversine. They could self-evidently save themselves an awful lot of time, trouble and money by just doing what they say they do and use haversine.

You yourself have said on a number of occasions there is no such thing as proof, which means you investigate, gather evidence, weigh the evidence and decide on the balance of probability where the truth lies. The trouble is you are simultaneously ignoring overwhelming evidence, demanding absolute proof and yet claiming there is no such thing as absolute proof.

From time to time cases come before courts where one songwriter claims plagiarism because another is using their song or parts of it. A famous example is George Harrison's My Sweet Lord and the similarities with The Chiffon's He's So Fine. Imagine if the two pieces of music were literally identical in every way. Every note, every instrument, every word, melody, harmony, beat, everything identical and indistinguishable. Your argument is "well we're at an impasse Judge, we'll never know".
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: GreatATuin on April 22, 2020, 05:36:30 AM
Quote
They were not the same until we did some creative rounding. I could make a distance formula and round it to the nearest light year. I could measure the length of my roof with a tape measure and round it down to 0 light years and it would match the haversine formula. Does that mean I used the haversine formula to measure my roof? No I used a tape measure.
This is probably one of the dumber arguments you've made and it's really showing that you simply don't want to believe you could be wrong.

He's nitpicking over rounding distances to the nearest cm. At this point, I think the most plausible explanation is that iamcpc was trolling all along (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15032.msg195668#msg195668). Someone who calls rounding distances on a map to the nearest cm "creative rounding" just cannot be serious.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 22, 2020, 08:31:42 AM
Quote
They were not the same until we did some creative rounding. I could make a distance formula and round it to the nearest light year. I could measure the length of my roof with a tape measure and round it down to 0 light years and it would match the haversine formula. Does that mean I used the haversine formula to measure my roof? No I used a tape measure.
This is probably one of the dumber arguments you've made and it's really showing that you simply don't want to believe you could be wrong.

He's nitpicking over rounding distances to the nearest cm. At this point, I think the most plausible explanation is that iamcpc was trolling all along (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15032.msg195668#msg195668). Someone who calls rounding distances on a map to the nearest cm "creative rounding" just cannot be serious.

I still haven't made up my mind. He (I'm just going to assume he to avoid horribly tortured sentences) is quite consistent in his views and the topics he tends to engage in and is quite willing to engage, so on balance, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

There is an understandable element of caution/cunning about some of his answers, always leaving a way out somewhere. For example he started off saying he trusted Bing's distances, but then later qualified that to mean driving and walking distances, leaving open the possibility of later on dismissing the "red pin" measurement tool which clearly does use the spherical haversine. I'm OK with that, I think it's all part of the game and doesn't necessarily mean he's trolling.

To be honest, I've enjoyed this discussion. It prompted me to research some quite interesting topics and I had fun developing the code I posted. When I started with the idea of testing Bing via code, I really didn't think it'd end up being 200 million values exactly matching with arbitrary distance limits and it would never have got anywhere near that without iamcpc's questioning and prodding. I do like a challenge.

I was pretty sure he would not (at least publicly) change his mind, but perhaps in private, we've introduced a little uncertainty, who knows.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 23, 2020, 04:43:35 AM
He's nitpicking over rounding distances to the nearest cm.

This is math. If I put two numbers onto a website which says that it adds two numbers and I put the number 1 in twice and the answer is 2.0000000005 then the code that's running on that website, VERY VERY clearly is not adding two numbers. If it was then the answer would have been 2.0000000000. So when it comes to mathematical functions like this the results of a formula like haversine can only have one answer.

If I took a math test and I put 1 + 1 = 1.9999999999999999999999999999995

the answer is WRONG. I get an F on my test. My math teacher is a troll! Nit picking over such a small variance!!!!! I guess every math teacher and match major, and engineer is a troll.


I was pretty sure he would not (at least publicly) change his mind, but perhaps in private, we've introduced a little uncertainty, who knows.

I have changed my mind. At the beginning of this conversation

When the discussion about the red pin distances started:
I was only 55% sure that the Bing red pin distance was based on the haversine formula. Access to the bing API will be able to increase that percent.

At this point:
I'm like 65% sure that the Bing red pin distance is based on various algorithms one of which appears to be based on the haversine formula with some rounding involved. Access to the bing API will be able to increase that percent.

The fact is, after all of this, ALL of you should be fairly confident that the bing API is not 100% haversine. It's VERY clear that there is rounding and converting going on behind the scenes.



iamcpc was trolling all along Someone who calls rounding distances on a map to the nearest cm "creative rounding" just cannot be serious.


If you think i'm a troll or lying then please stop responding to me. I'm here trying to engage people with an open, yet skeptical, mind.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on April 23, 2020, 05:05:15 AM
The fact is, after all of this, ALL of you should be fairly confident that the bing API is not 100% haversine. It's VERY clear that there is rounding and converting going on behind the scenes.

Microsoft probably is doing some rounding in addition to haversine, haversine being stated by them as to what they use. The fact of the matter is that their distances match globe earth calculations. If they clandestinely used some other calculation their distance output would be vastly different than, let's say, Google Maps - And it's not.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: GreatATuin on April 23, 2020, 06:25:16 AM
He's nitpicking over rounding distances to the nearest cm.

This is math. If I put two numbers onto a website which says that it adds two numbers and I put the number 1 in twice and the answer is 2.0000000005 then the code that's running on that website, VERY VERY clearly is not adding two numbers. If it was then the answer would have been 2.0000000000. So when it comes to mathematical functions like this the results of a formula like haversine can only have one answer.

If I took a math test and I put 1 + 1 = 1.9999999999999999999999999999995

the answer is WRONG. I get an F on my test. My math teacher is a troll! Nit picking over such a small variance!!!!! I guess every math teacher and match major, and engineer is a troll.

Bing rounds to the nearest centimeter because greater accuracy makes absolutely no sense on an online map. Pretending this is "creative rounding" is either trolling, or what I'd call a very creative understanding of how software development and engineering in general work.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 23, 2020, 08:42:32 AM
The fact is, after all of this, ALL of you should be fairly confident that the bing API is not 100% haversine. It's VERY clear that there is rounding and converting going on behind the scenes.

Microsoft probably is doing some rounding in addition to haversine, haversine being stated by them as to what they use. The fact of the matter is that their distances match globe earth calculations. If they clandestinely used some other calculation their distance output would be vastly different than, let's say, Google Maps - And it's not.

I'll hand it to iamcpc, he does get me thinking creatively.

The latest sticking point is rounding. That got me thinking. Could we bypass rounding altogether as an issue by preventing Bing from rounding any numbers? If I were writing their code, I'd use the Math.round function to round, so what if we could disable that function, get it to just return the unadulterated number instead of rounding it. Yep, that works a treat. Here is my hijack of the rounding function...

Code: [Select]
Math.round = function (v) { return v; };
I've included new code as an attachment as usual. As set up, our code does no actual rounding at all in our haversine distance calculation and we're not (yet) attempting to hijack the rounding function, so if you run it, expect to see something like this:

Comparison between 1000000 locations
Min variation 0.0000036mm
Max variation 5.0mm
Avg variation 2.5mm
Min variation(%) 4.3e-14
Max variation(%) 0.024
Avg variation(%) 2.5e-8
Min dist 0.01743km
Max dist 20037.494km
Avg dist 10014.35624km

As expected, because Bing is rounding and we aren't, we get a 5mm max variation. Note also that the min/max/avg distances are rounded to 5 decimal places for readability.

Now remove the // comments on line 2 of the code to engage the hijack of the rounding function and run again. This time, any attempt to round anywhere, either our code or Bing's won't do anything at all. Here's the result.

Comparison between 1000000 locations
Min variation 0.0mm
Max variation 0.0mm
Avg variation 0.0mm
Min variation(%) 0.0
Max variation(%) 0.0
Avg variation(%) 0.0
Min dist 0.07886966971510709km
Max dist 20037.506423042065km
Avg dist 10028.233812273153km

So now Bing's unrounded results are being compared with our unrounded results. There is no rounding going on at all and we still get a 100% match. Note also that the rounding of the min/max/avg distances to 5 decimal places isn't working either - as expected.

So there we go, all the argument about rounding is moot because there isn't any going on any more.

Note: Once you've hijacked the round function, it stays hijacked until the browser window is refreshed and the code re-pasted, so bear this in mind if you want to try turning this on and off.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 24, 2020, 08:47:13 AM
He's nitpicking over rounding distances to the nearest cm.

This is math. If I put two numbers onto a website which says that it adds two numbers and I put the number 1 in twice and the answer is 2.0000000005 then the code that's running on that website, VERY VERY clearly is not adding two numbers. If it was then the answer would have been 2.0000000000. So when it comes to mathematical functions like this the results of a formula like haversine can only have one answer.

If I took a math test and I put 1 + 1 = 1.9999999999999999999999999999995

the answer is WRONG. I get an F on my test. My math teacher is a troll! Nit picking over such a small variance!!!!! I guess every math teacher and match major, and engineer is a troll.

I know that my last post takes away the whole rounding issue in relation to Bing, but I want to come back to this exact answer nonsense because you keep saying things like this and you are wrong.

Suppose I say to you what's 1/3 + 2/3. The answer is obvious, right? But suppose I say write the two numbers down as decimals and then add them by hand...

0.3333333333.......
0.6666666666.......
----------------------
0.9999999999.......

No matter how many digits you pick, the answer is 0.999..... etc. The only way you can ever get the correct answer from this is if you round the answer up. If you insist on never rounding, you can never make this add up to 1.

Now try this: https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/ (https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/). Put in 0.75 for A and 0.75 for B and press the "Add" button. As expected the answer is exactly 1.5, but now try 0.1 + 0.1. You get:

0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2000000000000000111022302462515654042363

So what's going on here? Computers work in binary. The number 0.1 in binary is 0.0001100110011[0011 repeated forever]. It's a simple number to deal with in base 10, but not in base 2, because you need an infinite number of bits and you don't have that, you actually have 53 (in a typical modern computer). That's why, when you add 0.1 and 0.1 together on a computer, you don't get 0.2 unless you round the answer.

Reciprocal powers of 2 in combination will always be fine, so 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 etc. That's why 0.75 + 0.75 is exact because it's (1/2 + 1/4) + (1/2 + 1/4) and these are all reciprocal powers of 2.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 27, 2020, 02:47:39 PM
0.3333333333.......
0.6666666666.......
----------------------
0.9999999999.......

No matter how many digits you pick, the answer is 0.999..... etc. The only way you can ever get the correct answer from this is if you round the answer up. If you insist on never rounding, you can never make this add up to 1.

It was 7th grade math when I was taught that .9 repeating = 1

https://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm


0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2000000000000000111022302462515654042363

So what's going on here? Computers work in binary. The number 0.1 in binary is 0.0001100110011[0011 repeated forever]. It's a simple number to deal with in base 10, but not in base 2, because you need an infinite number of bits and you don't have that, you actually have 53 (in a typical modern computer). That's why, when you add 0.1 and 0.1 together on a computer, you don't get 0.2 unless you round the answer.

Reciprocal powers of 2 in combination will always be fine, so 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 etc. That's why 0.75 + 0.75 is exact because it's (1/2 + 1/4) + (1/2 + 1/4) and these are all reciprocal powers of 2.

This is a good logical argument which presents more evidence that the original haversine formula is different than the formula use by bing because the original haversine formula does not deal with binary numbers!
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: JSS on April 27, 2020, 03:12:49 PM
This is a good logical argument which presents more evidence that the original haversine formula is different than the formula use by bing because the original haversine formula does not deal with binary numbers!

That statement makes no sense, and shows you don't understand some basic math concepts.

A formula works no matter what base you use.  Binary, decimal, hexadecimal, those are ways of representing numbers. A formula or equation doesn't care which you pick. There is no 'Decimal Haversine ' or 'Binary Haversine' formulas.

Example Equation: X+X=2X

Decimal: 10+10=20
Binary: 1010+1010=10100
Hex: A+A=14
Roman: X+X=XX
Unary: 1111111111+1111111111=11111111111111111111

See, it doesn't matter what base you use.  So claiming Bing doesn't use Haversine (after seeing hundreds of millions of matching calculations) because it runs on a computer that uses binary at some point, is a completely invalid argument.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 28, 2020, 09:35:50 AM
This is a good logical argument which presents more evidence that the original haversine formula is different than the formula use by bing because the original haversine formula does not deal with binary numbers!
Let's just have a look at the underlying maths as this seems to be confusing you no end.

let r be the radius of a sphere
let A=(φ1, λ1) and B=(φ1, λ1) be two points on a sphere where φ1, φ2 are the latitudes and λ1, λ2 are the longitudes of the two points
let d  be the great circle distance between two points
Imagine a line from A to the centre and another line from B to the centre. The angle at the centre where these two lines meet is called the central angle
let Θ be the central angle between the two points A,B on the sphere

then

hav(Θ) = hav(φ2 - φ1) + cos(φ1) cos(φ2) hav(λ2 - λ1) [ this is core of the haversine formula ]

and

d = r archav(Θ)

So these two formulae when combined allow us to work out the central angle between A and B and from this, the great circle distance.

Note that there are no numbers used at all in either of these formulae, there is nothing to say what units you should use or whether you should use binary, octal, decimal, duodecimal, hex or any other base for your values.

So what is hav? hav is a trigonometrical function just like sine and cosine. The haversine formula is so called because it is based on the haversine (hav) trigonometrical function. hav is an obscure one, so for convenience we can use trigonometrical identities to reformulate using the more familiar sin cos and tan.

hav(θ) = sin2(θ / 2) = (1 - cos(θ)) / 2

And we end up with

d = 2r arcsin(√(sin2((φ2 - φ1) / 2) + cos(φ1) cos(φ2) sin2(λ2 - λ1))

And we can use another trigonometrical identity to replace the arcsin with arctan

arcsin(θ) = arctan(θ / √(1 - θ2))

Giving us (assuming I've got the brackets right)

d = 2r arctan(√(sin2((φ2 - φ1) / 2) + cos(φ1) cos(φ2) sin2(λ2 - λ1)) / √(1 - sin2((φ2 - φ1) / 2) + cos(φ1) cos(φ2) sin2(λ2 - λ1)))

And this is the formulation we have chosen to implement in code.

Note that this formulation does include an actual number, the number 2, but this isn't decimal 2, it's just the number 2 in some base which could be 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 etc. etc.

We can trivially rewrite this final formulation by replacing every number 2, wherever it occurs, with (1+1) and then you can't even rule out binary as as base for haversine.

d = (1+1)r arctan(√(sin(1+1)((φ2 - φ1) / (1+1)) + cos(φ1) cos(φ2) sin(1+1)(λ2 - λ1)) / √(1 - sin(1+1)((φ2 - φ1) / (1+1)) + cos(φ1) cos(φ2) sin(1+1)(λ2 - λ1)))

Furthermore we can see that the original formulation is equally valid and that didn't include any numbers at all, so basically, the number base is utterly irrelevant to haversine.

Saying haversine doesn't use binary numbers is a non sequitur, you can equally say haversine doesn't use decimal numbers either.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 28, 2020, 02:57:06 PM

That statement makes no sense, and shows you don't understand some basic math concepts.

A formula works no matter what base you use.  Binary, decimal, hexadecimal, those are ways of representing numbers. A formula or equation doesn't care which you pick. There is no 'Decimal Haversine ' or 'Binary Haversine' formulas.

Example Equation: X+X=2X


WRONG this has been shown by the post below:


Now try this: https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/ (https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/). Put in 0.75 for A and 0.75 for B and press the "Add" button. As expected the answer is exactly 1.5, but now try 0.1 + 0.1. You get:

0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2000000000000000111022302462515654042363

So what's going on here? Computers work in binary. The number 0.1 in binary is 0.0001100110011[0011 repeated forever]. It's a simple number to deal with in base 10, but not in base 2, because you need an infinite number of bits and you don't have that, you actually have 53 (in a typical modern computer). That's why, when you add 0.1 and 0.1 together on a computer, you don't get 0.2 unless you round the answer.

Reciprocal powers of 2 in combination will always be fine, so 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 etc. That's why 0.75 + 0.75 is exact because it's (1/2 + 1/4) + (1/2 + 1/4) and these are all reciprocal powers of 2.


in binary x + x does not always equal 2x.





Saying haversine doesn't use binary numbers is a non sequitur, you can equally say haversine doesn't use decimal numbers either.

Online is a binary version of the haversine formula. The formula that you discussed in your post uses the traditional base 10 number system.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 28, 2020, 05:00:37 PM

That statement makes no sense, and shows you don't understand some basic math concepts.

A formula works no matter what base you use.  Binary, decimal, hexadecimal, those are ways of representing numbers. A formula or equation doesn't care which you pick. There is no 'Decimal Haversine ' or 'Binary Haversine' formulas.

Example Equation: X+X=2X


WRONG this has been shown by the post below:


Now try this: https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/ (https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/). Put in 0.75 for A and 0.75 for B and press the "Add" button. As expected the answer is exactly 1.5, but now try 0.1 + 0.1. You get:

0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2000000000000000111022302462515654042363

So what's going on here? Computers work in binary. The number 0.1 in binary is 0.0001100110011[0011 repeated forever]. It's a simple number to deal with in base 10, but not in base 2, because you need an infinite number of bits and you don't have that, you actually have 53 (in a typical modern computer). That's why, when you add 0.1 and 0.1 together on a computer, you don't get 0.2 unless you round the answer.

Reciprocal powers of 2 in combination will always be fine, so 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 etc. That's why 0.75 + 0.75 is exact because it's (1/2 + 1/4) + (1/2 + 1/4) and these are all reciprocal powers of 2.


in binary x + x does not always equal 2x.


In the perfect realm of maths, x + x = 2x always. On a calculator or a computer that is not true. It's nothing to do with binary, it's simply a fact that both have limited storage capacity, so either a computer or a calculator has a biggest number it can handle in its internal storage, so if you add 1 to that number, it can't handle it. It doesn't matter what base is being used. In maths you can write c = 2πr and that's an exact statement, but if you want to make an actual calculation using that equation, you need to assign a value to π and you just have to accept that value can't be exact, because however you choose to store that number, calculator, computer, paper, you have a finite amount of room for it.

The mathematical formula for haversine is perfect. It has no units and there is no base, because there are no numbers involved. The minute you want to use it to answer a question, you need paper or a computer or a calculator and you have exactly the same issues of storage and accuracy.


Saying haversine doesn't use binary numbers is a non sequitur, you can equally say haversine doesn't use decimal numbers either.

Online is a binary version of the haversine formula. The formula that you discussed in your post uses the traditional base 10 number system.

No it isn't, the formula I discussed is not base anything any more than saying c = 2πr is in base whatever. You can calculate a value for c using c = 2πr in any base you like.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: JSS on April 28, 2020, 05:59:13 PM

That statement makes no sense, and shows you don't understand some basic math concepts.

A formula works no matter what base you use.  Binary, decimal, hexadecimal, those are ways of representing numbers. A formula or equation doesn't care which you pick. There is no 'Decimal Haversine ' or 'Binary Haversine' formulas.

Example Equation: X+X=2X

WRONG this has been shown by the post below:

Now try this: https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/ (https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/). Put in 0.75 for A and 0.75 for B and press the "Add" button. As expected the answer is exactly 1.5, but now try 0.1 + 0.1. You get:

0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2000000000000000111022302462515654042363

So what's going on here? Computers work in binary. The number 0.1 in binary is 0.0001100110011[0011 repeated forever]. It's a simple number to deal with in base 10, but not in base 2, because you need an infinite number of bits and you don't have that, you actually have 53 (in a typical modern computer). That's why, when you add 0.1 and 0.1 together on a computer, you don't get 0.2 unless you round the answer.

Reciprocal powers of 2 in combination will always be fine, so 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 etc. That's why 0.75 + 0.75 is exact because it's (1/2 + 1/4) + (1/2 + 1/4) and these are all reciprocal powers of 2.

in binary x + x does not always equal 2x.

You didn't manage to grasp the meaning of my post or the one you quoted.

If you want to understand how equations and numeric bases are separate you are going to have to read more carefully.

You also have to figure out the difference between pure math, and actually calculating it with physical hardware. In the real world you will have rounding inaccuraces no matter what base you use.

Do you think base-10 has some magic properties, or that it is what real numbers are, and binary is somehow fake?

There is nothing special about base-10. We just picked it. Any other base works equally well.

Saying haversine doesn't use binary numbers is a non sequitur, you can equally say haversine doesn't use decimal numbers either.

Online is a binary version of the haversine formula. The formula that you discussed in your post uses the traditional base 10 number system.
[/quote]

There is no such thing as a "binary version' of a formula.  I am not sure how else to explain it. X+X has nothing to do with any bases.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 28, 2020, 06:48:49 PM
You also have to figure out the difference between pure math, and actually calculating it with physical hardware. In the real world you will have rounding inaccuraces no matter what base you use.

Again it depends on the base. In base 10 .1 is not an infinite number.  in base 10 .1 + .1 = .2. No rounding whatsoever. No inaccuracies whatsoever.  so .1 + .1 is different in base 10 than it is in binary.

Do you think base-10 has some magic properties, or that it is what real numbers are, and binary is somehow fake?

No just that match in base 10, as has been demonstrated in previous posts, is different than math in bindary.


There is nothing special about base-10. We just picked it. Any other base works equally well.
binary sure seems to have some issues with adding .1 and .1



There is no such thing as a "binary version' of a formula.  I am not sure how else to explain it. X+X has nothing to do with any bases.

lets test this formula x + x = 2x with the number .1

in base 10:
.1 + .1 = .2


Now try this: https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/.  0.1 + 0.1. You get:

0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2000000000000000111022302462515654042363

in binary
x + x <> 2x



There is no such thing as a "binary version' of a formula.  I am not sure how else to explain it. X+X has nothing to do with any bases.

the example above suggest otherwise




 In maths you can write c = 2πr and that's an exact statement, but if you want to make an actual calculation using that equation, you need to assign a value to π and you just have to accept that value can't be exact, because however you


We're not talking about an infinite irrational number like pi. We are talking about .1 and mathematically those two numbers are very different.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: JSS on April 28, 2020, 08:18:48 PM
You also have to figure out the difference between pure math, and actually calculating it with physical hardware. In the real world you will have rounding inaccuraces no matter what base you use.

Again it depends on the base. In base 10 .1 is not an infinite number.  in base 10 .1 + .1 = .2. No rounding whatsoever. No inaccuracies whatsoever.  so .1 + .1 is different in base 10 than it is in binary.

Do you think base-10 has some magic properties, or that it is what real numbers are, and binary is somehow fake?

No just that match in base 10, as has been demonstrated in previous posts, is different than math in bindary.

Again you are completely missing the entire point of this whole discussion, which is pretty far from plane tickets and Bing at this point anyway.

You are converting back and forth between base 10 and base 2.  That introduces small rounding errors.

Formulas don't use bases, they are symbolic.

How do you express A+B=C in binary or decimal? You don't because it's a symbolic expression. A formula doesn't care what base you calculate it in.

This is a very simple, very basic concept. Decimal or binary is just a way to express numbers. Math is NOT different between decimal and binary. The numbers are expressed differently but the math is the same.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: pricelesspearl on April 28, 2020, 10:12:22 PM
Quote
in base 10:
.1 + .1 = .2


Now try this: https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/.  0.1 + 0.1. You get:

0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2000000000000000111022302462515654042363

in binary
x + x <> 2x

.1 in base 10 has a different value than .1 in binary so of course .1+.1 in base 10 will not equal .1 + .1 in binary.

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 28, 2020, 10:43:57 PM
You also have to figure out the difference between pure math, and actually calculating it with physical hardware. In the real world you will have rounding inaccuraces no matter what base you use.

Again it depends on the base. In base 10 .1 is not an infinite number.  in base 10 .1 + .1 = .2. No rounding whatsoever. No inaccuracies whatsoever.  so .1 + .1 is different in base 10 than it is in binary.

Sure but in base 10, 1/3 (as a decimal) is a repeating decimal, but in base 3, it's 0.1. The issue is exactly the same, whatever base you pick you will find some simple fractions which require an infinite series of digits after the radix point (i.e. the dot). These problem numbers may well be different for each base you pick, but they exist nonetheless.

In the realm of mathematics, these are not a problem. You can write them down if you invent a special notation such as 0.3 with a bar or dot above the 3 to indicate infinite repetition. Computers don't have this concept so the best you can do on a computer is fill as many available bits as you can (53) to get get as close to 1/3 as you can. Let's say that 53 bits is approximately equivalent to 16 decimal digits, so the best you can do is say that 1/3 is 0.3333333333333333, but the problem here is you can't tell the difference between a genuine 1/3 and 0.3333333333333333 (16 digits) or 0.33333333333333333333 (20 digits), because you can only store 16 digits in total. You end up with (in this case) 3 different numbers, which are all indistinguishable because all you can ever see is the first 16 digits. It's ambiguous.

Do you think base-10 has some magic properties, or that it is what real numbers are, and binary is somehow fake?

No just that match in base 10, as has been demonstrated in previous posts, is different than math in bindary.

The maths is the same, the nature of the problem is the same, the actual set of problem numbers varies depending on the base.


There is nothing special about base-10. We just picked it. Any other base works equally well.
binary sure seems to have some issues with adding .1 and .1

In much the same way as you'd have problems dealing with 1/3 in base 10.

There is no such thing as a "binary version' of a formula.  I am not sure how else to explain it. X+X has nothing to do with any bases.

lets test this formula x + x = 2x with the number .1

in base 10:
.1 + .1 = .2


Now try this: https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/.  0.1 + 0.1. You get:

0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2000000000000000111022302462515654042363

in binary
x + x <> 2x


This is nothing to do with binary, the same problems exist in every base whenever you have a limited number of digits you can store. If I tell you you can only store one digit, then in base 10, 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/5 because 0.3 + 0.3 = 0.6. You can improve things by using more digits, but you're just pushing the problem down the road. At some point you run out of digits and if the numbers you are dealing with require more digits than are available, you don't get entirely accurate results.


There is no such thing as a "binary version' of a formula.  I am not sure how else to explain it. X+X has nothing to do with any bases.

the example above suggest otherwise




 In maths you can write c = 2πr and that's an exact statement, but if you want to make an actual calculation using that equation, you need to assign a value to π and you just have to accept that value can't be exact, because however you


We're not talking about an infinite irrational number like pi. We are talking about .1 and mathematically those two numbers are very different.

But in the world of computers, the problem is exactly the same, you can't store the exact value of pi and you can't store the exact value of 1/3 either.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on April 30, 2020, 12:45:47 AM
In the realm of mathematics, these are not a problem. You can write them down if you invent a special notation such as 0.3 with a bar or dot above the 3 to indicate infinite repetition. Computers don't have this concept so the best you can do on a computer is fill as many available bits as you can (53) to get get as close to 1/3 as you can. Let's say that 53 bits is approximately equivalent to 16 decimal digits, so the best you can do is say that 1/3 is 0.3333333333333333, but the problem here is you can't tell the difference between a genuine 1/3 and 0.3333333333333333 (16 digits) or 0.33333333333333333333 (20 digits), because you can only store 16 digits in total. You end up with (in this case) 3 different numbers, which are all indistinguishable because all you can ever see is the first 16 digits. It's ambiguous.

This does not change the fact that, on a computer, x + x = 2x is not always true as you have demonstrated. So the Bing API has limitations of modern computer science as you have described above in addition to the rounding and converting most likely in the API.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: BRrollin on April 30, 2020, 01:57:34 AM
In the realm of mathematics, these are not a problem. You can write them down if you invent a special notation such as 0.3 with a bar or dot above the 3 to indicate infinite repetition. Computers don't have this concept so the best you can do on a computer is fill as many available bits as you can (53) to get get as close to 1/3 as you can. Let's say that 53 bits is approximately equivalent to 16 decimal digits, so the best you can do is say that 1/3 is 0.3333333333333333, but the problem here is you can't tell the difference between a genuine 1/3 and 0.3333333333333333 (16 digits) or 0.33333333333333333333 (20 digits), because you can only store 16 digits in total. You end up with (in this case) 3 different numbers, which are all indistinguishable because all you can ever see is the first 16 digits. It's ambiguous.

This does not change the fact that, on a computer, x + x = 2x is not always true as you have demonstrated. So the Bing API has limitations of modern computer science as you have described above in addition to the rounding and converting most likely in the API.

I agree. It is true only to a certain precision. So what? This is how the real world is!

The only time that equation is ever perfectly true is in pure mathematics. Real life numbers always have some uncertainty.

How long is your hand? Now how long is your forearm? Do you think the length of your hand plus your forearm is exactly the sum of those two lengths? No! Because you don’t know either length perfectly.

Whenever we talk about physical numbers it is always to some precision. The smart thing to do would be to analyse whether the rounding errors caused by the website are large enough to impact the current debate.

I think what you’ll find is that they are not. Not even close.

So this argument of yours is baseless. What are you going to do, claim you don’t know the length of your hand just because you can’t count every single atom? Just grab a ruler and measure the damn thing.

It not worth it to be this obtuse.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on April 30, 2020, 09:37:43 AM
So the Bing API has limitations of modern computer science as you have described above in addition to the rounding and converting most likely in the API.

Bingo. And not just the Bing API, but everything ever run on a computer has the same limitations. That's why computers typically deal differently with two types of number. The set of integers, in maths, referred to as are all the whole numbers, anything which can be written without a fractional part (e.g. -19, 0, 120). The set of real numbers, includes all the whole numbers (i.e. members of ), plus all fractions, plus all the irrational numbers such as π. In maths, is a superset of . In a computer they are treated separately.

Integers within a certain range can be stored exactly on computers. Operations which combine integers to form other integers, such as addition and multiplication are always exact, but the results may exceed the storage capacity and overflow. Integer division is allowed, but the fractional part of the result is ignored, so 8/3 = 2. That's just the way it is.

Real numbers can sometimes be stored exactly, e.g. 0.5, because as noted before, that's 1/2 and requires only 1 bit in a binary computer, but oftentimes, real numbers are only approximations in a computer because the exact representation exceeds the 53 bits that you have available. Again, just the way it is.

Computers typically have a dedicated processor (either on a separate chip or integrated into the CPU chip) just to deal with floating point numbers, usually called a floating point unit (FPU) or a maths co-processor. The integer stuff is dealt with by the separate arithmetic logic unit (ALU).

In a perfect mathematical world, we wouldn't need to go to all this effort, we'd just need a single processing unit to deal with all numbers and an infinite amount of memory to store these numbers in, but computers are part of the real world, so have to be engineered to work around these issues as well as possible.

But let's get back to Bing and put this in perspective. The real numbers we deal with here, due to the inherent limitations of our computers, probably have capacity of around 16 significant figures (decimal notation), so for a maximum distance possible in our measurements of 20,000km (1/2 way around the world), that means 11 decimal places are available e.g. 20,000.00000000001 (16 in all). The "1" here is 10 nanometres, so we're saying Bing's values are mathematically accurate to 10 nanometres in 20,000 km. To be fair, since we're combining several steps to get the final result and each step can have an inaccuracy, the result may be out by a bit more than 10 nanometres, but that's for an extreme distance. For much shorter distances, the calculated values will be much closer to the theoretical mathematical result.

Microsoft, as we've demonstrated, round their results to the nearest 1cm, meaning that on this scale, the inaccuracies introduced by the computer itself are utterly irrelevant.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 01, 2020, 04:26:08 PM
Bingo. And not just the Bing API, but everything ever run on a computer has the same limitations. That's why computers typically deal differently with two types of number. The set of integers, in maths, referred to as are all the whole numbers, anything which can be written without a fractional part (e.g. -19, 0, 120). The set of real numbers, includes all the whole numbers (i.e. members of ), plus all fractions, plus all the irrational numbers such as π. In maths, is a superset of . In a computer they are treated separately.



This is then yet even more evidence that the bing API is not based on the haversine formula! The real true haversine formula is not constrained by limited memory where the bing API one is.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on May 01, 2020, 04:57:47 PM
Bingo. And not just the Bing API, but everything ever run on a computer has the same limitations. That's why computers typically deal differently with two types of number. The set of integers, in maths, referred to as are all the whole numbers, anything which can be written without a fractional part (e.g. -19, 0, 120). The set of real numbers, includes all the whole numbers (i.e. members of ), plus all fractions, plus all the irrational numbers such as π. In maths, is a superset of . In a computer they are treated separately.



This is then yet even more evidence that the bing API is not based on the haversine formula! The real true haversine formula is not constrained by limited memory where the bing API one is.
OK, say you are correct in that it's not 100% accurate because of computation limitations.. What now? It's still accurate enough to show that it's using a globe projection so what exactly is your point? It just seems like you're doubling down on something pointless.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on May 01, 2020, 04:59:04 PM
Bingo. And not just the Bing API, but everything ever run on a computer has the same limitations. That's why computers typically deal differently with two types of number. The set of integers, in maths, referred to as are all the whole numbers, anything which can be written without a fractional part (e.g. -19, 0, 120). The set of real numbers, includes all the whole numbers (i.e. members of ), plus all fractions, plus all the irrational numbers such as π. In maths, is a superset of . In a computer they are treated separately.



This is then yet even more evidence that the bing API is not based on the haversine formula! The real true haversine formula is not constrained by limited memory where the bing API one is.

Just run me through the logic here. If I say "here's a computer program which solves pythagoras's formula", then you're going tell me it doesn't, because it runs on a computer and the real pythagoras's formula is the perfect mathematical one. That seems to be the implication of what you're saying. And substitute for pythagoras literally every known mathematical formula.

I think you are missing the real point here. We have two implementations of something. I'm claiming the something I've implemented is called haversine. Microsoft wrote the other one and they claim theirs also implements something called haversine.

I've demonstrated that Microsoft's version rounds its numbers to the nearest 1cm, but actually found a way to stop their version from doing any rounding at all. Both versions are running on computers that will inevitably give imprecise results because they are dealing with real numbers. Both versions inevitably deal with pi because they calculate arc lengths on the surface of a sphere with a certain radius. The number pi is irrational and its true value is not precisely known, because it would contain an infinite number of digits. You could store a decimal digit of pi on every atom in the entire universe and you still don't have enough digits.

Given all that, when you compare 200 million results from their code with 200 million results from my code, the results match, 100%. The only way this could possibly happen is that the two implementations are virtually line for line the same, do exactly the same steps in exactly the same order, get exactly the same imprecise results from each of the internal calculations.

This is like getting two exam essays to mark from two different students. Not only do you find complete agreement on every point, but the same spelling and grammar mistakes are made throughout. It'd be pretty suspicious wouldn't it.

I don't have access to the Bing code, but the published versions of the haversine formula are almost certainly in my opinion where Microsoft looked when they were writing this stuff. It's simple enough code and there are a few minor variations and I tried a few of these, but in the end found one which, with a little extra experimentation, just matches exactly their results. You could just swap out their code and swap in my code and it would be impossible for anyone to find any difference.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Nosmo on May 01, 2020, 11:35:21 PM
iamcpc made the point.


in binary x + x does not always equal 2x.


An accurate statement is that in binary
  x + x = 10x
Where for example
  0.01 + 0.01 = 0.1
  0.1 + 0.1 = 1
  1 + 1 = 10
  10 + 10 = 100

It seems iamcpc is under the impression that one tenth plus one tenth in binary does not equal two tenths.
This is incorrect and can be shown
 (1/1010) + (1/1010) = (10/1010)

The problem that iamcpc is highlighting is that when expressing fractional numbers in a decimal fraction style format not all values can be exactly represented.
For the Base 2 number system one tenth is one of these fractions.
The problem here is not that oneX + oneX <> twoX.
It is that X is not exactly equal to one tenth.

This is not a unique problem for Base 2.
Base 10 has the same issue with a range of fractions, 1/3 for example which has been pointed out.

It seems that iamcpc does not understand the use of precision in the real world.
It is also strange that when using computers such an exacting level of precision is being asked for, when one of the instruments that iamcpc has used to verify Bin’s distances is such inaccurate and imprecise device.


I have used a use a rolling measuring tape, GPS, I've driven a route that I've walked along the street and used my Car odometer, I've used wearable fitness trackers, and for a while I wore a pedometer which also tracked distance.


A Car odometer, a device that measures to the one tenth of a kilometre, (one tenth of a mile in the UK or USA), so not very precise. They also generally measure distance based on the rotation of a wheel, whose diameter and circumference vary over time (as tyres wear), so also not exactly accurate.
This seems to be quite a different standard to the one Robinofloxley is being held too.

I must say Robin that I have enjoyed your explanation and work in this thread, it is an example of the unexpected educational threads that pop up from time to time.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on May 02, 2020, 09:23:26 AM
A Car odometer, a device that measures to the one tenth of a kilometre, (one tenth of a mile in the UK or USA), so not very precise. They also generally measure distance based on the rotation of a wheel, whose diameter and circumference vary over time (as tyres wear), so also not exactly accurate.
This seems to be quite a different standard to the one Robinofloxley is being held too.

I must say Robin that I have enjoyed your explanation and work in this thread, it is an example of the unexpected educational threads that pop up from time to time.

Thank you for saying that, I'm glad you've enjoyed it. I've learned quite a lot myself putting it all together and have enjoyed doing it.

I do think iamcpc has a somewhat varied standard when it comes to evaluating evidence. He believes Bing distances are based on measured distances in the real world and take into account elevation. No evidence has ever been given for this belief, so unless he's holding something back, that's a strong belief based on zero evidence, however when it comes to this whole haversine business, there's a mountain of evidence now and he's still a very long way from being convinced.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 04, 2020, 05:44:40 PM

A Car odometer, a device that measures to the one tenth of a kilometre, (one tenth of a mile in the UK or USA), so not very precise. They also generally measure distance based on the rotation of a wheel, whose diameter and circumference vary over time (as tyres wear), so also not exactly accurate.
This seems to be quite a different standard to the one Robinofloxley is being held too.

I must say Robin that I have enjoyed your explanation and work in this thread, it is an example of the unexpected educational threads that pop up from time to time.

Again we are talking about math and a mathematical formula. Go take a first grade math test. On the question 1+ 1 = I want you to put 1.999999995 and see if the answer is correct or not. Now try again with the answer 2.0000000000005. This is the results of a mathematical calculation, so as a result both of the answers listed before are WRONG even though they are very very close to being right.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on May 04, 2020, 06:09:55 PM

A Car odometer, a device that measures to the one tenth of a kilometre, (one tenth of a mile in the UK or USA), so not very precise. They also generally measure distance based on the rotation of a wheel, whose diameter and circumference vary over time (as tyres wear), so also not exactly accurate.
This seems to be quite a different standard to the one Robinofloxley is being held too.

I must say Robin that I have enjoyed your explanation and work in this thread, it is an example of the unexpected educational threads that pop up from time to time.

Again we are talking about math and a mathematical formula. Go take a first grade math test. On the question 1+ 1 = I want you to put 1.999999995 and see if the answer is correct or not. Now try again with the answer 2.0000000000005. This is the results of a mathematical calculation, so as a result both of the answers listed before are WRONG even though they are very very close to being right.
Beginning to think you don't have a point to this or don't understand what people are saying. I asked above what you're trying to get across but you ignored that. We all know the limitations of computers when dealing with large numbers.

You can't give the absolutely correct value for pi, so does that mean the value you do give will always be incorrect for any purpose?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 04, 2020, 10:21:49 PM

A Car odometer, a device that measures to the one tenth of a kilometre, (one tenth of a mile in the UK or USA), so not very precise. They also generally measure distance based on the rotation of a wheel, whose diameter and circumference vary over time (as tyres wear), so also not exactly accurate.
This seems to be quite a different standard to the one Robinofloxley is being held too.

I must say Robin that I have enjoyed your explanation and work in this thread, it is an example of the unexpected educational threads that pop up from time to time.

Again we are talking about math and a mathematical formula. Go take a first grade math test. On the question 1+ 1 = I want you to put 1.999999995 and see if the answer is correct or not. Now try again with the answer 2.0000000000005. This is the results of a mathematical calculation, so as a result both of the answers listed before are WRONG even though they are very very close to being right.
Beginning to think you don't have a point to this or don't understand what people are saying. I asked above what you're trying to get across but you ignored that. We all know the limitations of computers when dealing with large numbers.

You can't give the absolutely correct value for pi, so does that mean the value you do give will always be incorrect for any purpose?

My point is that it's not robinofloxely who is being held to this standard of accuracy. It's the testing of the mathmatical formula which is being held to a high degree of precision which I have explained several time
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on May 04, 2020, 10:43:09 PM
Great! and so what is your point? it functions as intended and isn't off by any noticeable error. Now look at your idea of the flat earth map and notice the poles are stretched from 0 which it should be, to 24,901 miles. That's a massive error and doesn't appear to be happening at the equators. Why are you so extremely against such small roundings of numbers vs 24,901 miles or error? This is the point I'm trying to make. you could complain that computers are off by a even a mile but it's still sure as hell showing to be more of a spheroid shape than a flat one. you're being held to the same standards but your idea of what the map should be has a huge error which has been proven. You could get caught up in the debate about whether machines can calculate big numbers or you could stop doubling down on a silly point.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on May 05, 2020, 09:30:40 AM
My point is that it's not robinofloxely who is being held to this standard of accuracy. It's the testing of the mathmatical formula which is being held to a high degree of precision which I have explained several time

I guess I'm with ChrisTP and Nosmo on this, I'm really struggling to understand your point. I know you've tried to explain to us several times, but I'm just not really getting it.

Computers and maths are two different things. Maths doesn't have to live in the real world so things like π and √2 and ∞ are nothing special and the fact that their values can never be written down as actual numbers is an irrelevance. My favourite mathematical formula is:
eiπ = -1
Now you can't just plug in values for e, i and π and work this out, but it is nevertheless true.

Computers are just machines for performing calculations, nothing more. You can't just hand a computer an equation like that and expect it to solve it.

What you can do is take a mathematical formula and use it as a basis for some computer code to calculate a result from a set of values. The code is not maths, the syntax is not the same for a start. What we're comparing in this thread topic is not maths and computers, but two separately written bits of computer code which do something. The something they do is claimed to be the same thing, whatever name you like to give that thing is up to you. We're all referring to it as haversine, but if you object to that, fine let's call it Nigel instead. So now we have Bing and ourselves implementing Nigel. Do they really? Well we can just feed in endless different values to each one and every time, the two Nigels agree with each other 100% (and don't forget, the most recent code does away with all rounding, so that's no longer an issue). So Nigel1 and Nigel2 are in complete agreement with each other, always. They are identical twins.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 07, 2020, 03:43:54 PM
Great! and so what is your point? it functions as intended and isn't off by any noticeable error.

I guess we can just agree to disagree on what level of variation is considered noticeable.  if I said that 1 + 1 = 1.9999999995 I would consider the amount that equation is off to be noticeable. You don't. There is nothing wrong with us having a difference of opinion here.


Now look at your idea of the flat earth map and notice the poles are stretched from 0 which it should be, to 24,901 miles. That's a massive error and doesn't appear to be happening at the equators.

Bing maps has an interactive scale.



Why are you so extremely against such small roundings of numbers vs 24,901 miles or error?
I'm not at all against rounding.

you could complain that computers are off by a even a mile but it's still sure as hell showing to be more of a spheroid shape than a flat one.

Spheroid? I thought the earth was a Sphere, or was it an oblate spheroid? I'm confused.


your idea of what the map should be has a huge error which has been proven.

That's funny because like 99% of the population would agree that Bing maps, with it's interactive scale, represents a map of the earth.



Computers and maths are two different things.

Yep.  This has been strongly demonstrated here. So trying to compare non computer math to computer math is a little challenging.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on May 07, 2020, 04:13:29 PM
Quote
That's funny because like 99% of the population would agree that Bing maps, with it's interactive scale, represents a map of the earth.
99% of the population would also agree that Bing maps work because it's representing a map of a globe earth. you think it's representing a flat earth, that's great and all but you're wrong. Stop with the "interactive scale" stuff, repeating it doesn't make Bing maps any less of a sphere projection.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 07, 2020, 04:38:09 PM
you think it's representing a flat earth, that's great and all but you're wrong.


This is where you are wrong. I think that Bing maps represents a map of the earth regardless of what shape the earth is.  So please leave the shape of the earth out of it.

It's very common among the FE community to say that there is no map of the earth, regardless of what shape the earth is, or some variant of that concept or idea such as:

-We don't know what a map of the Earth looks like
-There is no map of the Earth
-We don't know the size and positions of the continents on this planet
-Long distances are unknown or unmeasured

Do you notice how NONE of those statements or ideas say that the earth is flat?  So please leave the shape of the earth out of it.

To further illustrate it:

-If the earth is a cube I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is a sphere I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is a spheroid I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is half sphere dome I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is a half spheroid dome I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is a half oblate spheroid dome I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is an oblate spheroid I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is a flat circular dinner plate I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.

We could repeat this with an infinite number of shapes/sizes. So again please leave the shape of the earth out of it.

If the earth is [Insert shape here] I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.





I very strongly disagree with this concept or idea that we don't have a map. I'm not talking about the shape of the earth, I'm only talking about a map, so again please leave the shape of the earth out of it. I believe that after hundreds, if not thousands, of years of advancement in things like navigation, shipping, GPS, surveying, cartography, etc that we are able to make a map of the earth. I'm not talking about the shape of the earth, I'm only talking about a map, so again please leave the shape of the earth out of it.







No. I do not think that Bing maps represents a flat earth. I think that Bing maps, with an interactive scale, represents a map of the earth. I'm not talking about the shape of the earth, I'm only talking about a map so this is where you are confused on my position.

Stop with the "interactive scale" stuff

Then stop with the "Bing maps is not accurate because the distances are wrong the further you get away from the equator stuff" because that is the canned response to that statement.


Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on May 07, 2020, 05:14:25 PM
Well if I wrongly assumed you to be a flat earther I am sorry. I will say though that there is no mystery behind Bing maps, humans made it to work under the assumption that the shape is mapped out based on a spheroid. It simply wouldn't all work exactly the same with any other shape (unless it was projected from a spheroid). I'm not sure how else to put this "If the earth is [Insert shape here] I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet." No, because unless the visual representation is a projection from a spheroid the base shape of the thing being mapped out has to be a spheroid regardless. You can project that onto a cube, a plane, whatever... The calculations are still based on a globe shape.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on May 07, 2020, 05:16:03 PM
Quote
Then stop with the "Bing maps is not accurate because the distances are wrong the further you get away from the equator stuff" because that is the canned response to that statement.
Man, I wouldn't have to keep repeating it if you understood... The flat map shown is a projection from a globe and just a representation of the underlying base shape, which we know is spheroid and nothing else.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Nosmo on May 08, 2020, 11:21:40 PM

If I took a math test and I put 1 + 1 = 1.9999999999999999999999999999995

the answer is WRONG.

I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree with you on this.
You have clearly introduced an error.


Again we are talking about math and a mathematical formula. Go take a first grade math test. On the question 1+ 1 = I want you to put 1.999999995 and see if the answer is correct or not. Now try again with the answer 2.0000000000005. This is the results of a mathematical calculation, so as a result both of the answers listed before are WRONG even though they are very very close to being right.


I guess we can just agree to disagree on what level of variation is considered noticeable.  if I said that 1 + 1 = 1.9999999995 I would consider the amount that equation is off to be noticeable.


Lets couch this in a slightly different way, in a practical real world application.
If I asked you to machine some bar stock and produce three 2cm lenghts, and the three pieces were actually 1.999999995, 2 and 2.0000000000005 cm respectivley. Could you really notice the difference?
You couldn't measure the difference with a vernier guage or a micrometer, you would need very sophisticated equipment to detect the difference.
In what real world application can you see this difference mattering?

If I ask you to measure out a distance to 2000km, and you measure it to the above accuracy you would be withn 5mm.
In what real world application can you see this difference mattering?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 13, 2020, 08:01:31 PM
Lets couch this in a slightly different way, in a practical real world application.
If I asked you to machine some bar stock and produce three 2cm lenghts, and the three pieces were actually 1.999999995, 2 and 2.0000000000005 cm respectivley. Could you really notice the difference?
You couldn't measure the difference with a vernier guage or a micrometer, you would need very sophisticated equipment to detect the difference.
In what real world application can you see this difference mattering?

First off math is math. The answer is right or it's wrong. If you are trying to solve for x in the formula x + 1 = 2 then, out of all of the infinite possible answers, there is only one that is correct. In measuring the distance to grandma's house i would say that .0000005 CM does not really matter. But we're not talking about the distance to grandma's house we are talking about reverse engineering the distance formula used on a website. They are two totally different things with two totally different degrees of accuracy.


Second off small distances do matter.
There is an entire branch of science called metrology dedicated to precise measurements measuring to the milliong/billionth of an inch actually is important and matters from things like nano technology, computer processors, or the precision engineering needed in a modern jet engine where, if one blade is long by .00000005 CM and another blade is short by .00000005 CM the entire engine would either not function or function much less efficiently.

Here's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-xMCFOwllE
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: stack on May 13, 2020, 08:54:56 PM
Lets couch this in a slightly different way, in a practical real world application.
If I asked you to machine some bar stock and produce three 2cm lenghts, and the three pieces were actually 1.999999995, 2 and 2.0000000000005 cm respectivley. Could you really notice the difference?
You couldn't measure the difference with a vernier guage or a micrometer, you would need very sophisticated equipment to detect the difference.
In what real world application can you see this difference mattering?

First off math is math. The answer is right or it's wrong. If you are trying to solve for x in the formula x + 1 = 2 then, out of all of the infinite possible answers, there is only one that is correct. In measuring the distance to grandma's house i would say that .0000005 CM does not really matter. But we're not talking about the distance to grandma's house we are talking about reverse engineering the distance formula used on a website. They are two totally different things with two totally different degrees of accuracy.

It's been made infinitely clear that Bing is using globe 'math' for its distance calculations. Nothing has even remotely been shown as evidence to the contrary. Even Microsoft says they use it. Case closed.

Second off small distances do matter.
There is an entire branch of science called metrology dedicated to precise measurements measuring to the milliong/billionth of an inch actually is important and matters from things like nano technology, computer processors, or the precision engineering needed in a modern jet engine where, if one blade is long by .00000005 CM and another blade is short by .00000005 CM the entire engine would either not function or function much less efficiently.

Here's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-xMCFOwllE

Cool video, but has nothing to do with the topic.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: BRrollin on May 13, 2020, 08:57:27 PM
Lets couch this in a slightly different way, in a practical real world application.
If I asked you to machine some bar stock and produce three 2cm lenghts, and the three pieces were actually 1.999999995, 2 and 2.0000000000005 cm respectivley. Could you really notice the difference?
You couldn't measure the difference with a vernier guage or a micrometer, you would need very sophisticated equipment to detect the difference.
In what real world application can you see this difference mattering?

First off math is math. The answer is right or it's wrong. If you are trying to solve for x in the formula x + 1 = 2 then, out of all of the infinite possible answers, there is only one that is correct. In measuring the distance to grandma's house i would say that .0000005 CM does not really matter. But we're not talking about the distance to grandma's house we are talking about reverse engineering the distance formula used on a website. They are two totally different things with two totally different degrees of accuracy.


Second off small distances do matter.
There is an entire branch of science called metrology dedicated to precise measurements measuring to the milliong/billionth of an inch actually is important and matters from things like nano technology, computer processors, or the precision engineering needed in a modern jet engine where, if one blade is long by .00000005 CM and another blade is short by .00000005 CM the entire engine would either not function or function much less efficiently.

Here's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-xMCFOwllE

I see what you’re saying, and I get your point, but it’s just not technically true.

x+1=2

In real space decimal, the solution is x=1.

But in complex space, you can have x=1,-i^2, and in fact, -i^(2+4n) where n is a natural number. So there are infinitely many solutions.

Also, if we move to a different number basis, then you obtain different solutions adherent to that basis.

The point I’m making is that even simple equations have details that are implicitly made. Which is fine. But if those details are not understood, and one of them changes, then someone could be entirely off base and not understand why.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on May 14, 2020, 08:04:35 AM
Quote from IAMCPC on 13 May 2020:

"Second off small distances do matter.
There is an entire branch of science called metrology dedicated to precise measurements measuring to the milliong/billionth of an inch actually is important and matters from things like nano technology, computer processors, or the precision engineering needed in a modern jet engine where, if one blade is long by .00000005 CM and another blade is short by .00000005 CM the entire engine would either not function or function much less efficiently". 

I don't know how to make a computer chip, but I am a Licensed Jet Engine Engineer.  In engine maintenance I've got no way of measuring a turbine blade to 5/millionth of a millimeter and, you know what, it doesn't matter.  The engine is going to work, and to an acceptable level of efficiency. If someone made a blade to that level of accuracy, it would be a few molecules smaller by the time he'd cleaned it and put it in a shipping package.  I'm looking for around 0.02mm (0.002cm). You're talking out of your jetpipe. 

On a similar note, I've got an apple in a fruit-bowl; one apple.  I add a second apple.  How many apples in the bowl?  Well, while I was picking the second apple, bacteria started reacting on the first apple and decay set in so, I've probably got 1.9999999995 apples. 

See my point?  Math is math.  Reality is reality.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on May 14, 2020, 02:58:19 PM
Just to get back to haversine for a moment. The mathematical haversine formula works by first calculating the central angle, θ, between two arbitrary points on a sphere. Then with the central angle determined, you work out the great circle distance between them. So a very simple example would be, what's the distance between 45°N, 10W and 46°N, 10W. Well the central angle, θ, is exactly 1°, so that bit is simple. All we need now is to work out the great circle distance. And that's easy too, it's πrθ/180 and that's an absolutely precise and correct mathematical solution to the problem. Unfortunately, it's useless. "Just drive north a distance of πrθ/180 and you'll be at your destination". To be of any use whatsoever, we need actual numbers for answers, so let's go ahead and assign a value for r of 6378.137km, but what do we use for pi? How many of the infinite decimal places do we need?

That's the problem with this, you can have an absolutely precise mathematical answer - πrθ/180 - or you can have an approximate, rounded actual value, e.g. in this case if we take pi to be 3.14159 then the answer is approximately 111.32km. You just can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 14, 2020, 03:46:11 PM
I've got no way of measuring a turbine blade to 5/millionth of a millimeter

That's funny because, per the video I linked before, we had figured out ways to measure to one millionth of an inch over a hundred years ago.


On a similar note, I've got an apple in a fruit-bowl; one apple.  I add a second apple.  How many apples in the bowl? 

Two apples

Well, while I was picking the second apple, bacteria started reacting on the first apple and decay set in so, I've probably got 1.9999999995 apples. 

If you said there are two apples and decay and bacteria have removed .0000000005 apples. How many apples are left then the correct answer would be 1.9999999995 apples

Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on May 14, 2020, 03:56:48 PM
At this point you're arguing the utility of every digital calculator, which IMO is pretty futile and really beside the point. I'm not sure why you're doubling down on this.  The real question you should be asking yourself no is why you're bothered about such a tiny error introduced when a computer is crunching numbers compared to the extremely large error that would be if the map wasn't based on a globe...
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on May 14, 2020, 06:21:02 PM
Your're missing the point IAMCPC.  "WE" have the ability to split the atom and do brain surgery, but "I" do not,  and it doesn't matter, because "I" don't need to spit atoms or operate on brains. 

Similarly, I agree that "WE" can measure a zillionth of an inch, but "I" can't, and it doesn't matter, because "I" am doing engineering on jet engines in the real world and they don't need that level of accuracy, a claim made by you which is incorrect.   
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 15, 2020, 02:32:53 PM
"I" am doing engineering on jet engines in the real world and they don't need that level of accuracy, a claim made by you which is incorrect.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the building of modern jet engines requires less accurate measurements than what they were doing in the 1800's? I find a claim like that rather hard to believe and was unable to find any evidence to support or refute it online.


The real question you should be asking yourself no is why you're bothered about such a tiny error introduced

First off I'm not bothered by it. I'm pointing out that there is some part of the Bing API which is unknown or unclear.

I'm holding this up to the scrutiny of a first grade math teacher putting a red check next to the answer 1.999999999995 in the blank of 1+1 = __________. I don't think that's unreasonable
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ChrisTP on May 15, 2020, 06:24:47 PM
It was explained in this thread so it's not an unknown or unclear problem

While it's not unreasonable of you to be holding up the scrutiny of 1+1=anything but 2, it's just not the same scenario.

To put this to an example that isn't apples, I'm going to assume you have a desk for you computer, if you use a measuring tape or something and measure your desk, whats your answer? Well whatever it is, it's wrong because in reality whatever number you just gave to yourself there is not going to be the exact answer. Just like how if some guy asked for directions one day and I say "oh yea, go 5 miles and you'll come to the exit off to that road" etc etc is also wrong by your standard, because it could well have been 5.000000239237645391 miles (sorry Pete don't ban me) are you suddenly going to assume that the distance is unknown? Am I lying? can you never trust me with directions again? Or is that pretty solid directions?

Lets use another example and assume that google maps or bing is super accurate and you want to walk exactly 5 miles. You follow the directions given and stop when your phone says you're there at your destination 5 miles away from your starting position. Well, you aren't because you took half a step extra over the distance it gave. Now you've walked an unknown distance in your standards... Seems like a strange standard to have
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on May 15, 2020, 07:06:07 PM
"I" am doing engineering on jet engines in the real world and they don't need that level of accuracy, a claim made by you which is incorrect.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the building of modern jet engines requires less accurate measurements than what they were doing in the 1800's? I find a claim like that rather hard to believe and was unable to find any evidence to support or refute it online.


You won't find it on-line because its Commercial-in-Confidence Maintenance data from the manufacturer. 

But why would you think that all technical progress depends purely on the ability to measure increasingly long decimal fractions?  Since its the example you raised, do you know how the gap between turbine rotor blade tips and the enclosing stator is generally measured in service?  Laser? Photon particle accelerator? 

No.  We normally use feeler gauges, like Henry Ford used to set up the spark plugs on his Model T.  Do you know how we ensure that the flying control range of movement is correct on a business aircraft?  We use a protractor.  Or a ruler. 

You really need to consider whether the level of precision you're claiming, in any field of technology (in the real world) is going to be robust enough to survive erosion, temperature change, contamination, and simply surviving transit from where its made to where its employed. 

I don't doubt that there are some engineering technologies that are designed, manufactured and maintained to higher tolerances, but don't quote turbine engine blades as an example when you clearly have no knowledge of the subject or data sources yourself.  Perhaps you could provide an example, with sources, from your own field of technical expertise, not just something you read on the internet. 
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on May 15, 2020, 08:57:39 PM
I’m not shocked to come back to this thread to find it has eroded from deciding whether or not plane tickets are real all the way down to arguing over the validity of google/bing maps api code, with the flaw being it does not calculate distance by the picometer. In the real world, estimates are made. The only time estimates might not be made are in labs, if even.

Better estimates were made in google maps than are currently being made by flat earthers’ maps, and the whole point of this thread originally was to use the fact that the airline industry offers flights that travel under certain times over certain terrain that would confirm the idea that the round earth “theory” (or we can relate it to the round earth estimates made by google/bing) has better estimates of the REAL distances than the flat earth theory. As a matter of fact, one could use all of the flight data offered by the airliner companies to plot the shape of the earth, it wouldn’t be that hard actually. Because you could do this, and you would end up with a ball, you would not be able to come up with anything else like, say, a pancake, or a concave dome or whatever.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Nosmo on May 15, 2020, 11:26:07 PM

Second off small distances do matter.
There is an entire branch of science called metrology dedicated to precise measurements measuring to the milliong/billionth of an inch actually is important and matters from things like nano technology, computer processors, or the precision engineering needed in a modern jet engine where, if one blade is long by .00000005 CM and another blade is short by .00000005 CM the entire engine would either not function or function much less efficiently.



"I" am doing engineering on jet engines in the real world and they don't need that level of accuracy, a claim made by you which is incorrect.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the building of modern jet engines requires less accurate measurements than what they were doing in the 1800's? I find a claim like that rather hard to believe and was unable to find any evidence to support or refute it online.


So lets see. You made a claim about the precision required in modern jet engines, and when called out on it claim you can find no evidence to support or refute it online.
I guess that makes your initial statement a baseless claim.

The Whitworth video was very interesting, and his measuring machine is truly marvelous. It however is still not capable of measuring the differences you are referring to.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on May 16, 2020, 06:30:55 PM
I can’t really help out Duncan here but I happen to work on F35s and after everything is manufactured, the quality group uses lasers and scanners to chisel down the frame to a ten thousand of an inch of tolerance. I don’t work with that group much and f35 engines are outsourced, but I can tell you the tolerances at least on modern fighters are super tight. They are not 1/inf though, but nothing can be toleranced perfectly because of the way metal and any materials are structured and the way they will weather and deteriorate on the vehicle or anything made with it. Perfection is something you only hear about in coursework, but it’s not a real world thing. Theoretically, we can speak of perfection, but in the real world, like we are speaking of now, it’s best to understand when we say “10 meters” we implicitly understand that’s “10 meters +/-1cm”. All things are this way, including googles api code for their maps.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 18, 2020, 07:59:32 PM
I’m not shocked to come back to this thread to find it has eroded from deciding whether or not plane tickets are real


Well the conversation really should have been over when I posted the results from the plane flight super thread earlier on. I felt that answered pretty much all of the questions/issues with how flight times/distances don't support the flat circle model. If that's not enough then there are other forums in which a more active member claimed in regard to southern hemisphere flights which weaken the flat circle model:









https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2046469#msg2046469

 "This flight has never been existed."


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2044714#msg2044714
"Don't trust  aircraft companies such as Qantas and Latam by their claims about flight times. These are liars."


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2045126#msg2045126
"If you find a video show full flight of a travel between Chile and Australia, then there will be a possiblity that path it exist."
-These flights only exist if you can produce a full video of the entire flight.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2045413#msg2045413
-flying from Santiago, Chile to Sydney Australia in about 14 hours is impossible



There is a whole array of responses from many different view points about the whole flight times/paths/distances don't support the flat circle north pole center model. My response is that I believe these flights are real and that they weaken the flat circle north pole center model. The question was asked, dozens of possible answers were given. End of discussion.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: robinofloxley on May 19, 2020, 03:35:42 PM
I’m not shocked to come back to this thread to find it has eroded from deciding whether or not plane tickets are real

Well the conversation really should have been over when I posted the results from the plane flight super thread earlier on. I felt that answered pretty much all of the questions/issues with how flight times/distances don't support the flat circle model. If that's not enough then there are other forums in which a more active member claimed in regard to southern hemisphere flights which weaken the flat circle model:

There is a whole array of responses from many different view points about the whole flight times/paths/distances don't support the flat circle north pole center model. My response is that I believe these flights are real and that they weaken the flat circle north pole center model. The question was asked, dozens of possible answers were given. End of discussion.

I looked at the plane flight super thread links you posted soon after you posted them. At the time I don't think you actually said what your position was, just that the question had been discussed at length. Pretty much all of the links you posted seemed to be Tom Bishop saying something and everybody else saying "no that's wrong", so I didn't get a clear picture from that what your position was and what I was supposed to conclude from the super thread, other than there was no agreement reached (hardly a surprise).

To be honest, your position confuses me a lot. You seem to sit very much on the fence, sometimes appearing to side with flat earth and sometimes not. Even after all this time, I really have no idea what shape you would pick for the earth if you had to pick one.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 19, 2020, 04:55:02 PM
I looked at the plane flight super thread links you posted soon after you posted them. At the time I don't think you actually said what your position was, just that the question had been discussed at length. Pretty much all of the links you posted seemed to be Tom Bishop saying something and everybody else saying "no that's wrong", so I didn't get a clear picture from that what your position was and what I was supposed to conclude from the super thread, other than there was no agreement reached (hardly a surprise).

To be honest, your position confuses me a lot. You seem to sit very much on the fence, sometimes appearing to side with flat earth and sometimes not. Even after all this time, I really have no idea what shape you would pick for the earth if you had to pick one.


I've explained this many many times and I'll explain it again. This is not a binary situation. You don't fall into two categories in which one person is 100% certain the earth is a sphere and one person is 100% certain that the earth is not a sphere. Tom Bishop for instance might bet 90% certain that the earth is not a sphere. You might be 95% certain that the earth is a sphere.


I'm a little more unique because I'm not as high of a percent that the earth is flat as other people here. I'm able to acknowledge there are huge holes in the FE models and no one model is able to explain things as thoroughly as I feel the RE model does. Based on my observations, if the earth was flat, i don't think it would be shaped like a flat disk and it would function more as an omnidrectional treadmill. I'm also able to admit that the FE idea does have some observations and thought experiments which make sense. I'm also also able to acknowledge that rebuttals for most of those observations and ideas were also presented.

In terms of these flights I believe that they are real, that we know the flight times, flight speeds, and flight paths. Because I believe these things these flight paths, in my opinion, provide overpowering evidence that any FE models in which the earth is shaped like a circle are most likely inaccurate.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Regicide on May 24, 2020, 10:35:48 PM
I have had experiences traveling from Sydney to Dallas and back on Quantas Flight 7/8. Probably made the trip 7 times, was never once moved to a non continuous flight. The distance on an FE map from Sydney to Dallas is 17,181 km, while only being 13,808 km on an RE map. For the Airbus A380 to make the flight in the typical 15.25 hours, it would need to travel at Mach 0.92 for the FE distance and only Mach 0.75 for the RE distance. Given the average cruising speed of an Airbus A380 is Mach 0.85, it is difficult to see how it could make the flight consistently coming in at 15.25 hours if the FE model is to be accepted. I'll acknowledge that the Airbus A380 once reached Mach 0.98- however, that was in a full dive. The A380's maximum operating speed is Mach 0.89. Any explanations?
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on May 26, 2020, 01:41:40 PM
I have had experiences traveling from Sydney to Dallas and back on Quantas Flight 7/8. Probably made the trip 7 times, was never once moved to a non continuous flight. The distance on an FE map from Sydney to Dallas is 17,181 km, while only being 13,808 km on an RE map. For the Airbus A380 to make the flight in the typical 15.25 hours, it would need to travel at Mach 0.92 for the FE distance and only Mach 0.75 for the RE distance. Given the average cruising speed of an Airbus A380 is Mach 0.85, it is difficult to see how it could make the flight consistently coming in at 15.25 hours if the FE model is to be accepted. I'll acknowledge that the Airbus A380 once reached Mach 0.98- however, that was in a full dive. The A380's maximum operating speed is Mach 0.89. Any explanations?


There are many different FE models and, according to the different FE models, the reason why the observed flight paths/times/distances don't match the predicted flight paths/times/distances are different. Dozens of reasons why have been listed on this thread already.


Here's a link from this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15877.msg204803#msg204803


and another one from this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15877.msg212388#msg212388
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: DanAlex on June 16, 2020, 01:31:32 PM
I’m not shocked to come back to this thread to find it has eroded from deciding whether or not plane tickets are real


Well the conversation really should have been over when I posted the results from the plane flight super thread earlier on. I felt that answered pretty much all of the questions/issues with how flight times/distances don't support the flat circle model. If that's not enough then there are other forums in which a more active member claimed in regard to southern hemisphere flights which weaken the flat circle model:









https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2046469#msg2046469

 "This flight has never been existed."


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2044714#msg2044714
"Don't trust  aircraft companies such as Qantas and Latam by their claims about flight times. These are liars."


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2045126#msg2045126
"If you find a video show full flight of a travel between Chile and Australia, then there will be a possiblity that path it exist."
-These flights only exist if you can produce a full video of the entire flight.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2045413#msg2045413
-flying from Santiago, Chile to Sydney Australia in about 14 hours is impossible



There is a whole array of responses from many different view points about the whole flight times/paths/distances don't support the flat circle north pole center model. My response is that I believe these flights are real and that they weaken the flat circle north pole center model. The question was asked, dozens of possible answers were given. End of discussion.

I challenge IAMCPC:

Northern hemisphere - Seoul, NORTH KOREA  to New York, USA - 14 hours (7000 miles) direct flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycrfS9ALH0Q

Southern hemisphere  - Sydney, AUSTRALIA to Santiago, CHILE - 14 hours (7000 miles) direct flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu6AApYgdRg

Best,
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: iamcpc on June 16, 2020, 05:39:59 PM

I challenge IAMCPC:

Northern hemisphere - Seoul, NORTH KOREA  to New York, USA - 14 hours (7000 miles) direct flight.


Southern hemisphere  - Sydney, AUSTRALIA to Santiago, CHILE - 14 hours (7000 miles) direct flight.

Best,
One of the rebuttals was the claim that, without the entire flight being documented and video taped, they would not be acknowledged as real.

The videos you have sent claim to be of long flights but the videos only last like 20-30 mins and are very clearly many different shots being edited together instead of one continuous shot. 


This thread was started as an inquiry to the possible rebuttals to the claim that these flights significantly weaken most of the dinner plate shaped FE models. I have given dozens of possible rebuttals even though some of them I disagree with.

Please read my post below. I have highlighted my response to the claim that these flights significantly weaken most of the dinner plate shaped FE models below:


There is a whole array of responses from many different view points about the whole flight times/paths/distances don't support the flat circle north pole center model. My response is that I believe these flights are real and that they weaken the flat circle north pole center model.
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: Cocopuff on July 10, 2020, 10:56:09 AM
I love the "air refueling" theory.  Show me where on the 787 the refueling hose goes in.  Better yet, explain how a flight distance on a FE which should take more than 24 hours, is accomplished in 13 hours, and why air refueling would be necessary.  The 787 has an 8,000 nautical mile range which I more than enough to get from Sydney to Santiago on a round Earth, however, no way it will make it in 13 hrs on a FE...
Title: Re: Are plane tickets real?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on July 10, 2020, 11:52:19 AM
As an aircraft engineer, I can tell you that no civil airliner comes off the production line with air-to-air refuelling (AAR) capability.  Some have been modified for use by the military (eg the VC-25 and E-4 Boeing 747s) but its hugely expensive and a technical challenge; the receptacle has to be on the top of the fuselage, and the fuel tanks are in the wings, so the plumbing has to be through the passenger compartment.  Safety regulation authorities would have a fit. 

On top of that is the economics.  You buy a ticket for a (say) 200-passenger flight, you are paying a 200th part of the costs of purchase, maintenance, fuel, crew and catering of your plane, plus a profit margin. 

Throw in AAR and your ticket price is the same PLUS 200th of the costs of purchase, maintenance, and crew of the refuelling plane PLUS the costs of the extra fuel you take on, PLUS the fuel to get the refueller to the rendezvous and back.  And another profit margin. 

Now Michael O'Leary is also having a fit.