The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: ichoosereality on August 01, 2021, 05:15:57 PM
-
I figured this would be frequently addressed but I couldn't find it (so if it has please just point me there).
Suppose you start out 1,000 miles north of the south pole (of for FEers the ice wall) and fly due south and continue on that same locked heading for 2,000 miles.
Where do you end up 2,000 miles laster? In reality you end up in what the FE model says is the other side of the disk, but that can't be so ?? Even ignoring that
no one has ever seen this claimed ice wall, doesn't just overlying the pole prove it really is the bottom of the ball?
-
In reality you end up in what the FE model says is the other side of the disk
How do you know that?
-
In reality you end up in what the FE model says is the other side of the disk
How do you know that?
The Qantas Santiago Chile to Aukland NewZealand flight is pretty close. Why does that flight not fly due west?
Plus there are the many circumnavigations of Antarctica by ship that do not take nearly the needed time to go around the disk of the FE model.
There of course have been many expeditions to Antartica with no evidence of the ice wall that would have to be extremely high (100 mies?) to contain the atmosphere and hence be easy to see.
-
The Qantas Santiago Chile to Aukland NewZealand flight is pretty close.
It was (not is — Qantas has not operated that route in over a year) nowhere near close (https://www.airportia.com/flights/qf322/santiago/auckland/?date=2020-04-07). At its southermost point, it passed around 4000 km from the south pole.
Why does that flight not fly due west?
Plus there are the many circumnavigations of Antarctica by ship that do not take nearly the needed time to go around the disk of the FE model.
There of course have been many expeditions to Antartica with no evidence of the ice wall that would have to be extremely high (100 mies?) to contain the atmosphere and hence be easy to see.
Irrelevant. If you want to discuss a different topic, you can create another thread for that. Do you have evidence for your claims regarding flying over the south pole or not?
-
The Qantas Santiago Chile to Aukland NewZealand flight is pretty close.
It was (not is — Qantas has not operated that route in over a year) nowhere near close (https://www.airportia.com/flights/qf322/santiago/auckland/?date=2020-04-07). At its southermost point, it passed around 4000 km from the south pole.
Why does that flight not fly due west?
Plus there are the many circumnavigations of Antarctica by ship that do not take nearly the needed time to go around the disk of the FE model.
There of course have been many expeditions to Antartica with no evidence of the ice wall that would have to be extremely high (100 mies?) to contain the atmosphere and hence be easy to see.
Irrelevant. If you want to discuss a different topic, you can create another thread for that. Do you have evidence for your claims regarding flying over the south pole or not?
Its exactly the same topic. The route is what is needed for a round death, not a flat earth. The fact that it did not go directly over the pole is irrelevant to question of geometry.
-
Its exactly the same topic. The route is what is needed for a round death, not a flat earth. The fact that it did not go directly over the pole is irrelevant to question of geometry.
I would suggest reading the thread title if you are still confused about the topic of the thread. I'm not going to engage if you are just going to bring up something else every time I ask for evidence you don't have — that would just be an endless game of goalpost-shifting.
-
Where is the South Pole in the FE model? Most FE models have the wall of ice surrounding the earth, so is the South Pole somewhere along that perimeter? If so then if you head due south in it’s direction then once you get past the South Pole you would surely just fly over the edge of the disc, no?
-
Where is the South Pole in the FE model? Most FE models have the wall of ice surrounding the earth, so is the South Pole somewhere along that perimeter?
The "south pole" is a RET concept that corresponds to a circle in FET, centred on the north pole, with twice the radius of the equator. In that sense, it is not really a pole in FET.
If so then if you head due south in it’s direction then once you get past the South Pole you would surely just fly over the edge of the disc, no?
That depends on where the edge is, or if there even is one. The region beyond 90°S latitude is unexplored. It is possible that the frozen wastelands of Antarctica continue for many thousands of kilometres beyond that.
-
Right. Except Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred.
Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole, so maybe the FE explanation (if you accept that these things happened) is that the planes had to turn back. But I’m not sure those routes work well on a FE map. You don’t have to Pac-Man, but the two bits of land north of Antarctica which the planes go from and to - which is the reason for the turn at the South Pole - are on different sides of the FE map.
This is one of the fundamental FE problems. Lines of longitude which converge at the Poles actually have to continue spreading out in the South. Unless you go for one of the bi-Polar FE models but that creates more problems than it solves.
-
Right. Except Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred.
Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole
That do not happen to be pole to pole.
-
Right. Except Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred.
Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole
That do not happen to be pole to pole.
Ok. Well how about you look the route of one of them up and show how it maps to a flat earth map.
-
Right. Except Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred.
Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole
That do not happen to be pole to pole.
Ok. Well how about you look the route of one of them up and show how it maps to a flat earth map.
Well, how about eliminating what you wrote to begin.
You write, "Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred."
Immediately after that, you write, "Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole."
Meaning that is not pole to pole.
Obviously, since the maps and charts used were flat, it worked just fine.
-
Right. Except Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred.
Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole
That do not happen to be pole to pole.
Ok. Well how about you look the route of one of them up and show how it maps to a flat earth map.
Well, how about eliminating what you wrote to begin.
You write, "Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred."
Immediately after that, you write, "Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole."
Meaning that is not pole to pole.
Obviously, since the maps and charts used were flat, it worked just fine.
Apparently this guy is pretty convinced he flew Pole-to-Pole:
San Diego Pilot Completes ‘Pole to Pole’ Circumnavigation
"San Diego resident Robert DeLaurentis, an aviator and former Navy officer, described his unique journey Wednesday after completing a nine-month circumnavigation from the South Pole to the North Pole to spread a message of peace."
https://timesofsandiego.com/life/2020/08/12/san-diego-pilot-completes-pole-to-pole-circumnavigation/
Pan Am apparently pulled it off too back in '77:
How Pan Am Flight 50 flew from pole to pole
"The one-time-only flight on Boeing's new special performance 747 began in San Francisco, flew over the North Pole and stopped at its next destination: London.
After refueling the plane jetted on to South Africa. Next, it flew over the South Pole and landed in New Zealand before taking off again and ending up back in San Francisco.
Total time: 54 hours, seven minutes and 12 seconds. The record-setting average speed, according to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale: 487 mph (784 km/hr)."
The route:
(https://i.imgur.com/6yCROw0.png)
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/pole-to-pole-pan-am-flight-50/index.html
https://youtu.be/Icu_44iVDA8
-
You write, "Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred."
Immediately after that, you write, "Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole."
Meaning that is not pole to pole.
That isn't what it means. Obviously there are practicalities involved, the plane has to fly from and to land masses.
But look at the routes which the last couple of posts have shown. Can you show how those would work in a FE map?
The first one goes from the tip of Africa to the South Pole and then from there to New Zealand
Can you see the issue of doing that on this FE Map, from your Wiki?
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
-
You write, "Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred."
Immediately after that, you write, "Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole."
Meaning that is not pole to pole.
That isn't what it means. Obviously there are practicalities involved, the plane has to fly from and to land masses.
But look at the routes which the last couple of posts have shown. Can you show how those would work in a FE map?
The first one goes from the tip of Africa to the South Pole and then from there to New Zealand
Can you see the issue of doing that on this FE Map, from your Wiki?
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
This seems like a too important thread to just bleed out without an answer.
I think an excellent point has been made and I'm quite curious about any responses from either side.
Any takers?
-
Without being limited to planes, humanity flies over the south pole every day. Check out this space map of satellite orbits. https://maps.esri.com/rc/sat2/index.html
You can identify dozens of satellites that pass over Antarctica every day.
(https://i.imgur.com/ajVI8gp.png)
According to data online, Taurus R/B is a https://www.celestis.com/ launch containing the cremated remains of 29 people. Morbid! I also found some details about the flight, and it's dead passengers: https://www.celestis.com/launch-schedule/ad-astra-flight/
Here's another one - https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=34361 It's satellite debris from Iridium 33, caused by this event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_33#Destruction and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision
-
Right. Except Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred.
Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole
That do not happen to be pole to pole.
Ok. Well how about you look the route of one of them up and show how it maps to a flat earth map.
Well, how about eliminating what you wrote to begin.
You write, "Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred."
Immediately after that, you write, "Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole."
Meaning that is not pole to pole.
Obviously, since the maps and charts used were flat, it worked just fine.
Apparently this guy is pretty convinced he flew Pole-to-Pole:
San Diego Pilot Completes ‘Pole to Pole’ Circumnavigation
"San Diego resident Robert DeLaurentis, an aviator and former Navy officer, described his unique journey Wednesday after completing a nine-month circumnavigation from the South Pole to the North Pole to spread a message of peace."
https://timesofsandiego.com/life/2020/08/12/san-diego-pilot-completes-pole-to-pole-circumnavigation/
Pan Am apparently pulled it off too back in '77:
How Pan Am Flight 50 flew from pole to pole
"The one-time-only flight on Boeing's new special performance 747 began in San Francisco, flew over the North Pole and stopped at its next destination: London.
After refueling the plane jetted on to South Africa. Next, it flew over the South Pole and landed in New Zealand before taking off again and ending up back in San Francisco.
Total time: 54 hours, seven minutes and 12 seconds. The record-setting average speed, according to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale: 487 mph (784 km/hr)."
The route:
(https://i.imgur.com/6yCROw0.png)
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/pole-to-pole-pan-am-flight-50/index.html
Scomato I believe Satellites exist and fly over all parts of the world. But because of refraction the images may be warped in some instances.
I mapped out Pan Am 50's circumpolar flight on a South Centered FE Map.
(https://i.imgur.com/3JwDLqJ.jpg)
Using this information, I don't see why it's impossible for a flight to travel along a Flat Earth and arrive at the same results. Their flight path looks very similar to the "great circle" paths commercial pilots use today (in red). And keep in mind that anybody who arrives at 90'N latitude assumes they are at the North Pole (as per RE Theory).
-
Right. Except Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred.
Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole
That do not happen to be pole to pole.
Ok. Well how about you look the route of one of them up and show how it maps to a flat earth map.
Well, how about eliminating what you wrote to begin.
You write, "Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred."
Immediately after that, you write, "Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole."
Meaning that is not pole to pole.
Obviously, since the maps and charts used were flat, it worked just fine.
Apparently this guy is pretty convinced he flew Pole-to-Pole:
San Diego Pilot Completes ‘Pole to Pole’ Circumnavigation
"San Diego resident Robert DeLaurentis, an aviator and former Navy officer, described his unique journey Wednesday after completing a nine-month circumnavigation from the South Pole to the North Pole to spread a message of peace."
https://timesofsandiego.com/life/2020/08/12/san-diego-pilot-completes-pole-to-pole-circumnavigation/
Pan Am apparently pulled it off too back in '77:
How Pan Am Flight 50 flew from pole to pole
"The one-time-only flight on Boeing's new special performance 747 began in San Francisco, flew over the North Pole and stopped at its next destination: London.
After refueling the plane jetted on to South Africa. Next, it flew over the South Pole and landed in New Zealand before taking off again and ending up back in San Francisco.
Total time: 54 hours, seven minutes and 12 seconds. The record-setting average speed, according to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale: 487 mph (784 km/hr)."
The route:
(https://i.imgur.com/6yCROw0.png)
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/pole-to-pole-pan-am-flight-50/index.html
Scomato I believe Satellites exist and fly over all parts of the world. But because of refraction the images may be warped in some instances.
I mapped out Pan Am 50's circumpolar flight on a South Centered FE Map.
(https://i.imgur.com/3JwDLqJ.jpg)
Using this information, I don't see why it's impossible for a flight to travel along a Flat Earth and arrive at the same results. Their flight path looks very similar to the "great circle" paths commercial pilots use today (in red). And keep in mind that anybody who arrives at 90'N latitude assumes they are at the North Pole (as per RE Theory).
There's kind of an issue with your map. North is everywhere around the rim:
(https://i.imgur.com/7YaL4fC.jpg)
-
Technically it's not impossible - Field lines can expand from the center and wrap around the earth (or something) ... Navigationally it would be tough since there's uncharted land out there and like I said, if you go far enough North people might assume it's the North Pole.
-
Technically it's not impossible - Field lines can expand from the center and wrap around the earth (or something) ... Navigationally it would be tough since there's uncharted land out there and like I said, if you go far enough North people might assume it's the North Pole.
How exactly is it not impossible?
On your map, for one, now Antarctica is the center of the flat earth, not the north pole? For two, you're saying on your map that if a pilot is navigating a plane from let's say Sydney and the destination is Tokyo, she/he would fly roughly due north, which on your map is the opposite of toward the north pole. Isn't that oddly confusing? It's not from a globe perspective, but from your map it's untenable in terms of navigational reality.
-
Right. Except Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred.
Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole
That do not happen to be pole to pole.
Ok. Well how about you look the route of one of them up and show how it maps to a flat earth map.
Well, how about eliminating what you wrote to begin.
You write, "Pole to Pole circumnavigation trips have occurred."
Immediately after that, you write, "Looking at the routes of those, they don’t go straight on at the South Pole."
Meaning that is not pole to pole.
Obviously, since the maps and charts used were flat, it worked just fine.
Apparently this guy is pretty convinced he flew Pole-to-Pole:
San Diego Pilot Completes ‘Pole to Pole’ Circumnavigation
"San Diego resident Robert DeLaurentis, an aviator and former Navy officer, described his unique journey Wednesday after completing a nine-month circumnavigation from the South Pole to the North Pole to spread a message of peace."
https://timesofsandiego.com/life/2020/08/12/san-diego-pilot-completes-pole-to-pole-circumnavigation/
Pan Am apparently pulled it off too back in '77:
How Pan Am Flight 50 flew from pole to pole
"The one-time-only flight on Boeing's new special performance 747 began in San Francisco, flew over the North Pole and stopped at its next destination: London.
After refueling the plane jetted on to South Africa. Next, it flew over the South Pole and landed in New Zealand before taking off again and ending up back in San Francisco.
Total time: 54 hours, seven minutes and 12 seconds. The record-setting average speed, according to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale: 487 mph (784 km/hr)."
The route:
(https://i.imgur.com/6yCROw0.png)
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/pole-to-pole-pan-am-flight-50/index.html
Scomato I believe Satellites exist and fly over all parts of the world. But because of refraction the images may be warped in some instances.
I mapped out Pan Am 50's circumpolar flight on a South Centered FE Map.
(https://i.imgur.com/3JwDLqJ.jpg)
Using this information, I don't see why it's impossible for a flight to travel along a Flat Earth and arrive at the same results. Their flight path looks very similar to the "great circle" paths commercial pilots use today (in red). And keep in mind that anybody who arrives at 90'N latitude assumes they are at the North Pole (as per RE Theory).
-Does this presentation of a south centered FE model mean it's now fair game to discuss its logic?
I mean, it opens loads of doors for asking questions regarding a suddenly no longer existing icewall, a continent that is suddenly fairly easy to fly or sail around, new trajectories for the sun and moon, heavily distorted landmasses around the rim of the disc, etc..
To be fair, it would explain why in history sailing the Northwest passage was so hard..
-
Stack, navigation isn't difficult if you just follow "north" on your compass and take into account different land masses on a FE Map (particularly the far north). We went into more detail about this here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18499.msg245481#msg245481
I also made an image explaining where the north and south poles are on a Flat Earth. I think a Flat Earth like ours resembles an Axial Magnetic Disc with both Poles located above and below the center.
(https://i.imgur.com/xk7a834.png)
Misterkami - There is an ice wall or sorts around the perimeter of this map... It begins as the Sea Ice and Glaciers you see the farther north you go.
-
Stack, navigation isn't difficult if you just follow "north" on your compass and take into account different land masses on a FE Map (particularly the far north). We went into more detail about this here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18499.msg245481#msg245481
I also made an image explaining where the north and south poles are on a Flat Earth. I think a Flat Earth like ours resembles an Axial Magnetic Disc with both Poles located above and below the center.
(https://i.imgur.com/xk7a834.png)
Misterkami - There is an ice wall or sorts around the perimeter of this map... It begins as the Sea Ice and Glaciers you see the farther north you go.
How would you explain, say, 24 hour sun hours that is observed on Antarctica on your Axial Magnetic Disc map? Such a scene from the video below would be impossible no matter which way you try to spin it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQlr366eels
-
There's a good thread about this subject here https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18607.0
I assume the 4 months are around Oct, Nov Dec, Jan? That would tilt the Earth away from the sun and center it more over Antarctica which allows it to be seen all day.
-
There's a good thread about this subject here https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18607.0
I assume the 4 months are around Oct, Nov Dec, Jan? That would tilt the Earth away from the sun and center it more over Antarctica which allows it to be seen all day.
What sort of tilt are you referring to?
And I still don't understand if I want to fly due north from sydney to tokyo, if north is all around the rim of the disk, which north am I traveling on? Which way am I traveling if I fly from sydney to sao paulo?
-
There's a good thread about this subject here https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18607.0
I assume the 4 months are around Oct, Nov Dec, Jan? That would tilt the Earth away from the sun and center it more over Antarctica which allows it to be seen all day.
I mean, yes, that is the correct answer to why the North and South poles experience midnight sun. During the summer the Northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun, in the winter the Earth is tilted away producing summer in the Southern hemisphere. Which is precisely what produces what we experience as seasons, 'summer' and 'winter' respectively. It's also why Winter in both South Africa and Australia is from June to August.
The obvious conclusion is that the Earth is a sphere with a 23.4 degree tilt, rotating once every 24 hours, making one orbit around the Sun every 365 days.
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/900x506/equinoxes-and-solstice.png?1)
-
There's a good thread about this subject here https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18607.0
I assume the 4 months are around Oct, Nov Dec, Jan? That would tilt the Earth away from the sun and center it more over Antarctica which allows it to be seen all day.
What sort of tilt are you referring to?
And I still don't understand if I want to fly due north from sydney to tokyo, if north is all around the rim of the disk, which north am I traveling on? Which way am I traveling if I fly from sydney to sao paulo?
Scomato explained what I meant by tilt, except seasonal variations in weather are caused by earth wobbling rather then orbitting the sun once a year.
For your second question, from Sydney to Tokyo, you would need to look up the lines of longitude you must travel along - in this case its 150'E... ..
From Sydney to Sao Paulo, you travel South towards Antarctica then North again to Brazil using lines of latitude and longitude as a reference.
I'm sorry to OP if we digressed from Circumpolar travel possibility to "How actually to fly a plane pole to pole in different earth dimensions."
-
There's a good thread about this subject here https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18607.0
I assume the 4 months are around Oct, Nov Dec, Jan? That would tilt the Earth away from the sun and center it more over Antarctica which allows it to be seen all day.
What sort of tilt are you referring to?
And I still don't understand if I want to fly due north from sydney to tokyo, if north is all around the rim of the disk, which north am I traveling on? Which way am I traveling if I fly from sydney to sao paulo?
Scomato explained what I meant by seasonal tilt, except on FE it is cause by a wobble.
For your second question, from Sydney to Tokyo, you would need to look up the lines of longitude you must travel along - in this case its 150'E... ..
From Sydney to Sao Paulo, you travel South towards Antarctica then North again to Brazil using lines of latitude and longitude as a reference.
I'm sorry to OP if we digressed from Circumpolar travel possibility to "How actually to fly a plane pole to pole in different earth dimensions."
What wobble are you referring to?
The problem is that north on my compass points to roughly near the North Pole, magnetic north. On your map, if I fly north to Tokyo from Sydney, north on my compass would be pointed in the opposite direction I am traveling. How does that work?
And why have Antarctica in the center of your map as opposed to the arctic? Why did you pick one over the other?
-
Like a frisbee, the Earth wobbles once a year. And stack you cannot assume your compass will point south on this map... A Magnetic North Pole is where field lines are vertical to earth. And I like this map bc the North lands create a basin to hold the majority of Earth's water like a tub, which makes a less dramatic ice wall more realistic to holds Earth's remaining water.
-
Like a frisbee, the Earth wobbles once a year. And stack you cannot assume your compass will point south on this map... A Magnetic North Pole is where field lines are vertical to earth. And I like this map bc the North lands create a basin to hold the majority of Earth's water like a tub, which makes a less dramatic ice wall more realistic to holds Earth's remaining water.
So even though I have compass that points south when I’m facing south you’re telling me it doesn’t do that when in reality it does?
And you realize there is a difference between a basic northern hemisphere compass and a basic Southern Hemisphere compass, right?
And why is magnetic north any different than magnetic south?
Just to be clear, this all is just what you believe and not really based on any science? I mean you realize, on your map, that planes flying from LAX to Heathrow would fly over South America on a straight shortest route shot? They don’t. They generally fly way up over Greenland on a great circle. Which on your map would be 1000s of miles out of the way. That would make zero sense and is not observed in reality.
-
@Metatron,
Some more questions regarding your South Centred Map;
Why do commercial California-Europe flights normally take the Great Circle route? (and what is a "Great Circle"?)
Wouldn't it be much shorter flying over central Africa?
How did Flight 50 fly a single sector from SF to London and then need to refuel twice on the way back, on what appears to be a similar distance?
-
Hi Duncan,
Planes from LA to Europe take Great Circle Paths on FE because they are following the path of Jet Streams that circle the world. Jet Streams are incredibly powerful streams of wind that run West to East and help carry a plane to their destination - sometimes doubling their speed.
Flying in cold weather also helps with Fuel Efficiency. So, when Pan AM starts to make their return trip from London, they are now flying across and against jet streams and in warmer weather conditions which may explain the added fuel stops.
Flying from East to West planes also take "Great Circle" paths because they try to avoid going against jet streams and pick the colder side which again is smoother and more efficient.
Traditionally, "Great Circle" paths are thought of as the shortest distance from point A to B on a spherical earth and look like straight lines.
Here's an image of Jet Streams on a spherical earth and a flat earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/fGFkVRB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6pPhXeB.jpg)
-
Hi Duncan,
Planes from LA to Europe take Great Circle Paths on FE because they are following the path of Jet Streams that circle the world. Jet Streams are incredibly powerful streams of wind that run West to East and help carry a plane to their destination - sometimes doubling their speed. Flying in cold weather also helps with Fuel Efficiency. So, when Pan AM starts to make their return trip from London, they are now flying across and against jet streams and in warmer weather conditions which may explain the added fuel stops.
Flying from East to West planes also take "Great Circle" paths because they try to avoid going against jet streams and pick the colder side which is smoother and more fuel efficient.
Traditionally, "Great Circle" paths are thought of as the shortest distance from point A to B a plane can fly on a spherical earth and would look like a straight line.
Here's an image of Jet Streams on a spherical earth and a flat earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/fGFkVRB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/W6u1k5j.jpg)
It takes 7 hours to fly direct from NYC to London, and 8.5 hours coming back. The polar jet streams account for a 20% speed difference over the identical route, not exactly 100% as you claim. Plus, you can freely access global wind data: https://earth.nullschool.net/ and while the jet stream is quite strong over the Atlantic ocean and around Antarctica, it's hardly present anywhere else.
(https://i.imgur.com/FKTLDUP.png)
-
Hi Duncan,
Planes from LA to Europe take Great Circle Paths on FE because they are following the path of Jet Streams that circle the world. Jet Streams are incredibly powerful streams of wind that run West to East and help carry a plane to their destination - sometimes doubling their speed.
What flight from NYC to London has ever doubled their speed due to a jetstream. For a BA Boeing 777, the average is 6 hours. London to NYC same equipment/airline/route averages 7:18. The record for fastest crossing is from 2020 (not including Concorde):
Four hours and 56 minutes is all it took for BA112 to make it across the Atlantic Ocean last week.
The Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet reached a top speed of 825 miles per hour which was boosted by a strong jet-stream and tailwind of over 200 miles per hour.
No speed doubling, let alone due to jetstream.
As well, your jetstream argument only applies to east and west directions. What about north and south? Those long haul flights all over the world follow great circles, like LAX to Sydney. No jetstreams involved.
Lastly, how far is it from NYC to London on your map following a great circle/jetstream versus a straight line?
-
I echo Stack's comments on the jetstreams (I'm a retired aircraft engineer), and what about west-bound traffic? I'm currently (09.20 UTC, 9 Dec) watching an Air India 777, callsign AIC 127, on FR24. He's going from Delhi to Chicago, and he's over Greenland. Why would he do that, when the most direct route is obviously over Antarctica?
And what is the relevance of a Great Circle, which you admit is a spherical concept, to flat navigation?
-
Flying in cold weather also helps with Fuel Efficiency. So, when Pan AM starts to make their return trip from London, they are now flying across and against jet streams and in warmer weather conditions which may explain the added fuel stops.
Airlines undertaking anything other than short journeys generally plan to fly at the tropopause, as that is the coldest part of the atmosphere. You are correct in saying that cold is good for efficiency. The problem with your argument is that, counter-intuitively, the temperature at the polar tropopause is actually warmer than the equatorial one, meaning that if you were choosing where to fly purely on the basis of atmospheric temperature, you'd prefer to fly in equatorial latitudes.
I also entirely agree with everything that stack, Duncan and Scomato have said. There are many, many things that simply make no sense at all about the model you have presented. For example, all of the issues that bedevil the north-centred monopole map are equally valid for yours. The enormous distortion of east-west distances causes all sorts of issues. Just look at typical journey times. It takes a couple of hours longer, for example, to fly from London to Buenos Aires than it does to fly from London to Los Angeles. But look at your map - according to what you've presented the distance between London and South America is far less than the distance to the west coast of the states. The USA on your map is also substantially bigger than Australia, which is completely at odds with what we know about those places.
There's nothing wrong with proposing something and then testing it against observations, but when those observations prove to be at odds with your model, a good scientist would go back and revise their assumptions - the world cannot be shaped in the way you propose.
-
Like a frisbee, the Earth wobbles once a year
.
How does it wobble if the whole surface is being accelerated at the same rate all the time?
-
Like a frisbee, the Earth wobbles once a year
.
How does it wobble if the whole surface is being accelerated at the same rate all the time?
I personally think Gravity is caused by Magnetism. The earth emits a negative charge which somehow influences how people can walk on it.
-
Like a frisbee, the Earth wobbles once a year
.
How does it wobble if the whole surface is being accelerated at the same rate all the time?
I personally think Gravity is caused by Magnetism. The earth emits a negative charge which somehow influences how people can walk on it.
How am I magnetic? How is a rock or a stick magnetic when it isn't?
-
Hi Duncan,
Planes from LA to Europe take Great Circle Paths on FE because they are following the path of Jet Streams that circle the world. Jet Streams are incredibly powerful streams of wind that run West to East and help carry a plane to their destination - sometimes doubling their speed.
You really have to address and reconcile something like this, BA Seattle to Heathrow:
(https://i.imgur.com/u2etoGt.png)
On your map the way, way shorter route, even able to catch some of the southern jetstream, is over Brazil, not Greenland. On your map there is literally no reason for BA to fly up and over Greenland. Way too far out of the way even considering the northern jetstream. Not to mention the reverse, Heathrow to Seattle:
(https://i.imgur.com/DpU4uFE.png)
-
Stack: Take a look at this map. I mapped out the flight paths from New Dehli to Chicago and London to LA. All of them encounter the same difficulties when trying to fly across the southern hemisphere. They run into multiple Head-On Jet Steams. Heathrow to Seattle runs you against maybe 4 or 5 jet streams. Going north is longer but you only run into 2 at most. Not to mention is colder, smoother, etc..
And to answer your previous question, it's about 7,500mi from Lax to Sydney with spherical Great Circle calculations. Straight line I have it about 5,000 miles.
Duncan: Your question as to why planes from New Delhi to Chicago go north rather then fly south is the same as Stacks question. You would cross multiple jet streams and in hot weather at times. They actually fly almost directly north to cold weather before going west to Chicago (as the map illustrates).
And why are Great Circles relevant to a FE? There not except in the sense they follow the path of Jet Streams.
Steely Bob: You asked about why planes don't travel near the equator since high altitude temperatures within the troposphere are lower than in polar regions. True, but most commercial aircraft travel in the stratosphere where the air is thinner in polar regions which translates into less drag, increased speed, and better fuel economy.
I also mapped out London to Buenos Aires and London to LAX. Even though Bueno is closer, you have to travel in hot weather and against maybe 3 jet streams.
Lastly, in terms of map dimensions and distance, I fully understand objections to a Flat Map and how exaggerated some regions are and very small in others. This map tries to correct for that by shortening the south and bringing the northern hemisphere down into real size (barring polar extremes). I listed the same distances across many continents and as you can see Australia and America are similar in width.
(https://i.imgur.com/qtJvSgL.png)
-
Stack: Take a look at this map. I mapped out the flight paths from New Dehli to Chicago and London to LA. All of them encounter the same difficulties when trying to fly across the southern hemisphere. They run into multiple Head-On Jet Steams. Heathrow to Seattle runs you against maybe 4 or 5 jet streams. Going north is longer but you only run into 2 at most. Not to mention is colder, smoother, etc..
According to the globe jet stream map as transferred to your map, you would only fly over 3 jestreams from heathrow to Seattle and you wouldn’t be flying against them, literally just crossing over them. So that doesn’t work as an argument.
Additionally your argument doesn’t work because now you’re saying that flying from Seattle to heathrow could take great advantage of flying with 4-5 jet streams. You’re contradicting your argument.
And the “cold weather” notion you have would need to be born out through calculation and evidence. As in, how much of a speed advantage is it to fly in colder area to make up the 1000’s of miles a plane is going out of its way in your map. Your cold weather argument is not currently justified.
And to answer your previous question, it's about 7,500mi from Lax to Sydney with spherical Great Circle calculations. Straight line I have it about 5,000 miles.
2500 miles would be roughly a 5 hour flying time difference from observed reality. What are your calculations for making 5 hours disappear? Not just words, actual real numbers as justification.
As well, on your map a flight from Cape Town to Buenos Aires looks like it’s around 2/3 the length of the US. So roughly 2000 miles. Same for Cape Town to Perth. Looks like in reality it’s about 4000 & 5000 miles distance respectively. What are your calculations for cutting more than half the real distances and subsequently cutting in half the flight times?
-
Meta - you keep mentioning this cold weather thing, but you are contradicting yourself and are also not quite right about how it works.
...Not to mention is colder, smoother, etc..
...And to answer your previous question, it's about 7,500mi from Lax to Sydney with spherical Great Circle calculations. Straight line I have it about 5,000 miles.
...They actually fly almost directly north to cold weather before going west to Chicago (as the map illustrates).
...Steely Bob: You asked about why planes don't travel near the equator since high altitude temperatures within the troposphere are lower than in polar regions. True, but most commercial aircraft travel in the stratosphere where the air is thinner in polar regions which translates into less drag, increased speed, and better fuel economy.
I also mapped out London to Buenos Aires and London to LAX. Even though Bueno is closer, you have to travel in hot weather and against maybe 3 jet streams.
Airliners don't tend to fly in the stratosphere, at least not by much. The 'sweet spot' is around the tropopause - the boundary between the two. At this altitude the air is at its coldest. The point, that you seem to agree with but then go against in the same post, is that the tropopause is actually warmer at latitudes away from the equator, and coldest at the equator. There is therefore no advantage whatsoever in flying in 'colder weather' as you put it, nor a disadvantage in flying where it is warmer on the ground.
Your method of counting jet streams is also a bit wonky I'm afraid. Jet streams seem to have acquired an almost mythical power on this site, whereby they are capable of magicking away all sorts of enormous errors on FE maps. The main problem you have with you analysis is that aircraft fly both ways, of course, and the routes they take generally aren't that different. Take the London to Buenos Aires vs LA example - it is further in both directions, using similar routes. That wouldn't make sense if the difference was caused by jet streams.
I also echo stack's question about distances. You can't have a 50% discrepancy (2500 miles on a 5000 mile distance) between two places and say 'close enough'. It clearly isn't - just look at the flight times between those two places. The jets would be flying very slowly, in both directions, if it was only 5000 miles between Sydney and LA.
-
Stack -
LAX to Sydney measures around 4 inches. Trans-Siberian Railway measures around 6 inches. LAX to Sydney is about 66% of TLR's distance which is about 3,844mi. I overestimated but allow room for error as open water distances are harder to map.
I measure 2 inches between Cape Town to Buenos Aires and CP to Perth. And since Australia is about 2 inches wide and 2,500mi across, that's the distance I'd use.
I'd go into specifics on how I created the map, but generally speaking you take a South Centered Azimuthal Equidistant Map, then half the southern hemisphere and widen the continents so they reflect accepted travel distances. Doing this pulls down the northern hemisphere and squeezes the continents so they aren't too wide. You have to again squeeze them to fit. After this, you double the northern perimeter of the map beyond 60N Latitude (which I didn't fully do) so vertical integrity is maintained and it doesn't look stretched anymore admitting however that horizontal land has increased up there. The Yeti would be proud.
-
You're saying that airliners are flying in colder weather at the equator then near the poles?
A plane from London to LA flies in a similar route both ways because they are trying to fly within a jet stream or outside of it and usually pick the side with colder weather like near Greenland.
And yes, I agree the distances may not be perfect, but please keep in mind I do feel the planes are flying slower from LAX to Sydney because the wind is against them and its hotter.
-
You're saying that airliners are flying in colder weather at the equator then near the poles?
I wouldn’t use the term ‘weather’, but yes, the tropopause air temperature is colder at the equator than it is at the poles. It’s not a rigid thing, of course, so we’re talking in general terms, but the important point to hoist aboard is that flying over a hot country at 40,000ft does not mean that the air outside will be hotter than that over a cold country - other factors dominate. I should also point out that the height of the tropopause also varies - it tends to be lower towards the poles.
And yes, I agree the distances may not be perfect, but please keep in mind I do feel the planes are flying slower from LAX to Sydney because the wind is against them and its hotter.
There’s lots to unpack there. Science isn’t about feelings - it’s about evidence. As for the hotter bit - you seem to have completely misunderstood that. Even if it was hotter, which it isn’t, that wouldn’t affect the speed, just the amount of fuel burnt along the way.
Furthermore, and again, your calculations have to work in both directions. You can’t have a headwind both ways to explain a discrepancy.
You appear to have started with your beliefs / feelings, and then attempted to make a map that fits them. That’s not how maps are created - we measure distances between known points through painstaking surveys and then plot them out. Centuries of progressively more accurate measurements have given us the wonderfully accurate maps we have. They work. And the only way they make sense is if the world is globe-shaped.
-
You're saying that airliners are flying in colder weather at the equator then near the poles?
I wouldn’t use the term ‘weather’, but yes, the tropopause air temperature is colder at the equator than it is at the poles. It’s not a rigid thing, of course, so we’re talking in general terms, but the important point to hoist aboard is that flying over a hot country at 40,000ft does not mean that the air outside will be hotter than that over a cold country - other factors dominate. I should also point out that the height of the tropopause also varies - it tends to be lower towards the poles.
That was good information thank you. I'd just add that along shorter distances planes do not have a lot of time to travel at high altitudes in favorable conditions. So, when adverse winds and higher temps do play a role, I don't think they have a huge advantage over planes zipping by up north.
If two people are running a marathon and one is bombarded by wind and temp and humidity I don't' think it's unrealistic to assume he will not travel the same distance in an equal amount of time. Even half the distance isn't impossible
And yes, I agree the distances may not be perfect, but please keep in mind I do feel the planes are flying slower from LAX to Sydney because the wind is against them and its hotter.
There’s lots to unpack there. Science isn’t about feelings - it’s about evidence. As for the hotter bit - you seem to have completely misunderstood that. Even if it was hotter, which it isn’t, that wouldn’t affect the speed, just the amount of fuel burnt along the way.
I don't know how to respond. I told you what I know about the issue and you disagree.
Furthermore, and again, your calculations have to work in both directions. You can’t have a headwind both ways to explain a discrepancy.
I don't know what this means?
-
That was good information thank you. I'd just add that along shorter distances planes do not have a lot of time to travel at high altitudes in favorable conditions. So, when adverse winds and higher temps do play a role, I don't think they have a huge advantage over planes zipping by up north.
It's certainly true that short-haul aircraft tend to fly a bit lower - the trade-off between fuel burnt in the climb means it isn't worth going all the way up for short flights. However, we are talking short flights here - typically anything over an hour or so, aircraft and airspace depending, and you'll typically be up around the tropopause.
If two people are running a marathon and one is bombarded by wind and temp and humidity I don't' think it's unrealistic to assume he will not travel the same distance in an equal amount of time. Even half the distance isn't impossible
That's not a particularly good analogy. Yes, of course, headwinds make a difference, as it's a straight subtraction from the airspeed to get groundspeed, but you need to look at flights in both directions to get an idea of how wind affects duration. To take the LAX-Sydney example, it is typically around 13.5 hours from Sydney to LA, and about an hour or so longer in the other direction. On your map, that is a journey of around 5000 statute miles, meaning the aircraft would be averaging around 350mph. That is ridiculously slow for an airliner over a long haul flight. Your distance cannot be correct. But when you plug in the the conventional distance, is all works. Could it not be that the conventional map is correct?
And yes, I agree the distances may not be perfect, but please keep in mind I do feel the planes are flying slower from LAX to Sydney because the wind is against them and its hotter.
It's not hotter, as I've explained.
There’s lots to unpack there. Science isn’t about feelings - it’s about evidence. As for the hotter bit - you seem to have completely misunderstood that. Even if it was hotter, which it isn’t, that wouldn’t affect the speed, just the amount of fuel burnt along the way.
I don't know how to respond. I told you what I know about the issue and you disagree.
I disagree because the evidence is stacked against what you are proposing. You seem to disagree because of your feelings.
Furthermore, and again, your calculations have to work in both directions. You can’t have a headwind both ways to explain a discrepancy.
I don't know what this means?
It means that we have to consider flights in both directions, as I've illustrated above with the LAX-Sydney example. We know the flight times in both directions, meaning we can't just magic away inconvenient failings in the FE maps by invoking 'anomalous winds'. It cannot be 5000 miles from Sydney to LA because if it was it wouldn't take 13.5/14.5 hours to get there. That is of course just one of myriad issues with the map you have proposed - I daresay if you look at flights across, for example, Canada/Alaska you will have similar issues because you have massively extended the true east-west size of northern latitudes.
It raises the question: what would it take to make you conclude that your map cannot be correct? You have the beginnings of some good science - you have a falsifiable hypothesis, in that you have proposed a shape and layout, and it is easily falsifiable. The problem is that it is absolutely false - there are numerous issues with it. So at that point a good scientist revises their hypothesis. Will you?
-
It was (not is — Qantas has not operated that route in over a year) nowhere near close (https://www.airportia.com/flights/qf322/santiago/auckland/?date=2020-04-07). At its southernmost point, it passed around 4000 km from the south pole.
As a matter of interest, QANTAS is currently flying from Australia to the South Pole;
31 December 2021, 09 January 2022, and 16 January 2022. They've been exploring
Antarctica by air since 1994, that's over 150 flights and 27 years. And aboard these
chartered aircraft you'll experience unparalleled Antarctic viewing, with up to 4 hours
over the white continent. And with 19 different routes, no two flights are ever the same.
Prices start from AU$1199 if you're interested. Personally, I can't afford it LOL.
-
Stack -
LAX to Sydney measures around 4 inches. Trans-Siberian Railway measures around 6 inches. LAX to Sydney is about 66% of TLR's distance which is about 3,844mi. I overestimated but allow room for error as open water distances are harder to map.
I measure 2 inches between Cape Town to Buenos Aires and CP to Perth. And since Australia is about 2 inches wide and 2,500mi across, that's the distance I'd use.
I don't know the exact inch measurements that you used, but the problem you're having and why there isn't really an accurate flat earth map to date is that distances must meet reality. You can't just arbitrarily make up distances just to cram things into your map. That's the exact opposite of what cartography is all about.
For instance, you have the distance from Cape Town to Buenos Aires at around 2500 miles due to your cramming. The problem is, in reality, it's like 4000 miles. So you're 1500 miles off, equally roughly 3 hours in flight time off. So:
A) What makes you think you can just make up new distances that don't jive with reality?
B) If you now believe in your 2500 miles distance, how do you explain at least a 3 hour difference in flight times from reality?
I'd go into specifics on how I created the map, but generally speaking you take a South Centered Azimuthal Equidistant Map, then half the southern hemisphere and widen the continents so they reflect accepted travel distances. Doing this pulls down the northern hemisphere and squeezes the continents so they aren't too wide. You have to again squeeze them to fit. After this, you double the northern perimeter of the map beyond 60N Latitude (which I didn't fully do) so vertical integrity is maintained and it doesn't look stretched anymore admitting however that horizontal land has increased up there. The Yeti would be proud.
That's all fine and good. But you should start from reality first and then work your continents and such, not the other way around. For example:
- Seattle to Fairbanks, Alaska is about 1400 miles in reality. On your map, it looks like about 5000-6000 miles. How can that be?
- Greenland on your map at its widest point looks like around 7000 miles. In reality, it's just 1100 miles wide. You're 6000 miles off!
- From Moscow to the Bering Straight is just over 5000 miles in reality, straight shot. On your map it's almost double that, 10,000 miles!
-
I don't know the exact inch measurements that you used, but the problem you're having and why there isn't really an accurate flat earth map to date is that distances must meet reality. You can't just arbitrarily make up distances just to cram things into your map. That's the exact opposite of what cartography is all about.
I'm not making up distances. I'm trying to get real distances in accordance with FE Theory. The Atmospheric Dome acts like a magnifying glass above the earth enlarging and shrinking the image as seen from space. I'm trying to correct for that.
And from Cape Town to Buenos Aires I agree it's about 2,500 miles compared to 4000miles on a RE as you say. Why the flight time isn't three hours shorter is because the plane in going slower then believed.
That's all fine and good. But you should start from reality first and then work your continents and such, not the other way around. For example:
- Seattle to Fairbanks, Alaska is about 1400 miles in reality. On your map, it looks like about 5000-6000 miles. How can that be? I measure 2,500mies (see map)
- Greenland on your map at its widest point looks like around 7000 miles. In reality, it's just 1100 miles wide. You're 6000 miles off! I measure about 8,000miles wide. Has anyone double checked?
- From Moscow to the Bering Straight is just over 5000 miles in reality, straight shot. On your map it's almost double that, 10,000 miles! I measure almost 12 inches and 15,000miles (see map)
Remember how refraction works with a Dome made of glass, water, or atmosphere ... It magnifies the inner portion of an image and diminishes the outer portion, so these distances are kind of justified.
[/color]
And SteelyBob if your listening, it occurred to me a big reason why planes travel more quickly up north is because they're closer to the edge of the atmosphere-dome where the air is much thinner. Likewise, towards the middle of earth where the atmosphere is thicker from top to bottom planes travel slower.
-
Why is the air thinner near the edges? How does it stay that way? If it’s thinner, there should be lower atmospheric pressure and therefore a wind developed that would work towards equalizing that pressure difference.
-
I don't know the exact inch measurements that you used, but the problem you're having and why there isn't really an accurate flat earth map to date is that distances must meet reality. You can't just arbitrarily make up distances just to cram things into your map. That's the exact opposite of what cartography is all about.
I'm not making up distances. I'm trying to get real distances in accordance with FE Theory. The Atmospheric Dome acts like a magnifying glass above the earth enlarging and shrinking the image as seen from space. I'm trying to correct for that.
And from Cape Town to Buenos Aires I agree it's about 2,500 miles compared to 4000miles on a RE as you say. Why the flight time isn't three hours shorter is because the plane in going slower then believed.
What FE Theory? You mean your FE Theory, right? There are lots, and a South Pole centered one is kinda rare.
In any case, you’re going about it backwards, anti-scientific. You’re literally making up distances to fit with your belief rather than centuries of observation, measurements, & calculation. You’re sitting there in your desk chair saying, “Well, I need to squeeze together these continents I’ve drawn in my notebook to make it look better. So yeah, let’s just arbitrarily make it 2500 miles instead of the well known and we’ll documented 4000 miles. Why? Beacause it makes my map better looking…”
Do you get how wrong that tactic is? How bad science that is? You’re making things up to conform to your belief system. Why are you doing that?
That's all fine and good. But you should start from reality first and then work your continents and such, not the other way around. For example:
- Seattle to Fairbanks, Alaska is about 1400 miles in reality. On your map, it looks like about 5000-6000 miles. How can that be?
I measure 2,500mies (see map)
You don’t simply “measure on your map” like it’s authoritative. You drew it to your liking in a notebook. It’s not based on any real measurements. Do you not understand this?
- Greenland on your map at its widest point looks like around 7000 miles. In reality, it's just 1100 miles wide. You're 6000 miles off!
I measure about 8,000miles wide. Has anyone double checked?
You measured? You measured what? You measured your own drawing? Seriously?
Has anyone double-checked? Is that a serious question or are you trolling now? Planes fly over that part of Greenland everyday. You think pilots don’t know the distance? You realize they very, very closely calculate the fuel needed for every flight? To be 6-7000 miles off planes would be crashing left, right, and center.
- From Moscow to the Bering Straight is just over 5000 miles in reality, straight shot. On your map it's almost double that, 10,000 miles!
I measure almost 12 inches and 15,000miles (see map)
Again, measure what? Your drawing? It’s not a map. No one can use your map. Planes would be crashing and ships sinking and trains never on time if anyone did.
Remember how refraction works with a Dome made of glass, water, or atmosphere ... It magnifies the inner portion of an image and diminishes the outer portion, so these distances are kind of justified.
You’ve never used a dome. Only a chunk of glass that would crush us all. How do you explain pilots calculating the fuel necessary for a flight if they are 1000’s of miles off?
How come no one on the planet uses your “map”? How does humanity manage without your “map”?
-
Why is the air thinner near the edges? How does it stay that way? If it’s thinner, there should be lower atmospheric pressure and therefore a wind developed that would work towards equalizing that pressure difference.
I think the atmosphere freezes as it approaches cold temperature and creates kind of an icy containment wall. The icy shell might be cloudy, transparent, etc... It's probably thicker at lower altitudes to contain the majority of air density in the troposphere. Here's an article on Sun Dogs caused by the Sun's light refracting off Atmospheric Ice Crystals. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/01/20/sun-dog-michigan-phenomenon/2632165002/
(https://i.imgur.com/5rjEOXa.jpg)
Within the shell / Within the ice cube, the atmosphere is layered by different densities from heavy to light as you move up in altitude. But near the Poles of earth, the air becomes thinner more quickly. The very thin stratosphere for example starts at 4 miles in altitude versus 12 miles at the equator. I'm not sure why - I used to think it's because your closer to space near the northern edge but seeing as it happens in polar south that sort of negates the argument.
(https://i.imgur.com/l9wiCFq.png?1)
-
Stack,
This is only a draft. The distances aren't set in stone. I even believe the distance between continents in the south may be greater than this map provides accounting for more water. Just take it easy, these are new ideas and I appreciate your feedback.
-
Stack,
This is only a draft. The distances aren't set in stone. I even believe the distance between continents in the south may be greater than this map provides accounting for more water. Just take it easy, these are new ideas and I appreciate your feedback.
You "believe" is not the way to go about it. Because you put belief before facts you're never going to get anywhere near to reality. For one, what is "South" on your map? Everything between the South Pole and the Equator? For two, though your map is a draft, you're still starting out with made-up distances of your own design, not based on anything, no measurements, just what you would like. You realize that we know the exact distances? And yet you still make up your own. Why don't you start with the extremely well measured and well-documented distances that exist and are used and relied upon by millions of people every day. What makes you think you can just arbitrarily make up distances? Because of belief? If you're talking about religion, that makes sense. But when you're talking about cartography, navigation, science, that makes no sense.
Is it that you think that all aeronautic engineers, air traffic control, pilots, shipping captains, even rail engineers, are lying? Or are somehow mistaken? I just don't see how you can come around with just your belief and tell the entire world they are somehow wrong about how they can get themselves and/or their things from one place to another. It's an incredibly arrogant position to take and not based in any facts at all. Just your belief.
And if that's your thing, just belief and not facts, that's fine. But be clear about that and own it.
-
Yes Stack, these are my beliefs, which I reserve the right to change at any time as new information becomes available.
And I see your point about distance problems... LAX to Sydney on my Trintec FE Map puts distance at 8,250miles. My map puts it at 3,500miles. RE at 7,500miles. And I'm using the ruler measurement technique where I equate a known distance like across Australia and compare it other places.
Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.
-
Yes Stack, these are my beliefs, which I reserve the right to change at any time as new information becomes available.
Of course you reserve the right to change your beliefs whenever and however you want. Just for the record, no new information, at least in factual reality, has come up as far as distances go - nothing has changed.
And I see your point about distance problems... LAX to Sydney on my Trintec FE Map puts distance at 8,250miles. My map puts it at 3,500miles. RE at 7,500miles. And I'm using the ruler measurement technique where I equate a known distance like across Australia and compare it other places.
If you want any accuracy relative to reality, you would start with actual distances and work from there. If you want to keep doing what you’re doing, making up distances, have at it. But you’re just creating a map no more real than the middle earth or game of thrones map. Might as well show where the dragons are.
And btw, the trintec map isn’t an FE map, it’s just a South Pole-centered azimuthal map. You can make an azimuthal map centered on any place on earth. Just go here: https://ns6t.net/azimuth/
Here’s one I made with Chicago as the center:
(https://i.imgur.com/COwCM0E.png)
Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.
Good luck. The real exercise would be to use real distances and map out your continents based upon facts, then see what it looks like.
-
Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.
This is the fundamental point. There is no way of preserving RE distances on a flat plane - the only way to not distort distance is to wrap them round a globe. Any flat presentation will have some kind of error - a ‘monopole’ presentation that preserves north-south distances, for example, can only have one latitude at which east-west distances correspond to the globe model.
If you believe in a flat earth, then implicit in that belief is that somehow almost every distance between two places on the planet is not what it is understood to be. That is a massive thing to allege, and it would also be very easy to prove. The wiki /TB seems to wave this problem away with vague statements about ‘anomalous winds’ , forgetting that aircraft can measure the wind…so they aren’t anomalous, they still get to where they were planning on going, and the wind can’t blow in both directions simultaneously.
To your previous point about the composition of the atmosphere…I think you need to do some reading. The troposphere contains almost all of the moisture in the atmosphere - that’s why you are almost always looking down on the weather when you are cruising in an airliner at or around the tropopause. Above that height things get warmer, not colder.
Airline pilots know exactly how fast they are flying, in every sense of the word fast - indicated and equivalent airspeed, true airspeed, groundspeed and Mach number. They also have very accurate distance to go readings. Your suggestion would require that thousands of flights everyday end up flying oddly slow, or over longer distances than expected without comment or question - that’s an absurd suggestion.
Like I said before, it’s ok to propose hypotheses, but when they are shown to be false you have to adjust your position. Again - the question is: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong about the shape of the world?
-
Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.
This is the fundamental point. There is no way of preserving RE distances on a flat plane
I agree with you on this.
If you believe in a flat earth, then implicit in that belief is that somehow almost every distance between two places on the planet is not what it is understood to be
I wouldn't go that far. We're talking ocean distance and polar region's, not well established travel routes
To your previous point about the composition of the atmosphere…I think you need to do some reading. The troposphere contains almost all of the moisture in the atmosphere - that’s why you are almost always looking down on the weather when you are cruising in an airliner at or around the tropopause. Above that height things get warmer, not colder.
That's not totally true If you Wikipedia "Stratosphere" you'll see that temperature is cold in the Stratosphere and only goes up as you approach it's 40km ceiling.. Planes enjoy flying around the lower Stratosphere to avoid Troposphere weather.
Your suggestion would require that thousands of flights everyday end up flying oddly slow, or over longer distances than expected without comment or question -
I'm always open to comments or questions
-
Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.
If you believe in a flat earth, then implicit in that belief is that somehow almost every distance between two places on the planet is not what it is understood to be
I wouldn't go that far. We're talking ocean distance and polar region's, not well established travel routes
No, it’s everywhere. I even worked it out in another post - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13948.msg237441#msg237441 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13948.msg237441#msg237441)
The north centred monopole map is ‘correct’ at the North Pole, and increasingly wrong the further south you go - yours would be the same, albeit reversed. If you hold the north-south distances to be the same as the RE distances, then your equatorial circumference will be 57% larger than the RE distances that everybody uses. That means if you get in a car and drive east-west on a journey that your map says would be 10 miles, your car odo would say 16 miles. And that doesn’t happen, does it?
It gets a lot worse the further towards the edge, of course, as you have seen with the very large distances in your ‘northern’ latitudes.
That's not totally true If you Wikipedia "Stratosphere" you'll see that temperature is cold in the Stratosphere and only goes up as you approach it's 40km ceiling.. Planes enjoy flying around the lower Stratosphere to avoid Troposphere weather.
Yes, the stratosphere is cold, but it gets warmer with increasing altitude, not colder. Yes, aircraft fly in it - you have to remember that it’s not a ‘hard’ boundary - just a convenient way of modelling the atmosphere. But generally speaking, airliners will tend to fly at or around the tropopause, at that is where it is coldest, unless other factors, such as jet stream or turbulence, skew the equation.
I'm always open to comments or questions
Well then why not answer the question that I’ve posed twice already? What would it take?
-
Your formula in the prior post is very intelligent and when/if I work on another draft than I will remember your methods...
It doesn't completely correspond to my map but generally your points are true. And why do they call it a Monopole map anyway? All objects have two poles.. My second pole is just in another location, lol..
-
Yo MetaTron.
I think part of the problem is hinted at by your "disclaimer": I advocate a South Pole centered FE Map that spins once a day, wobbles once per year, is covered by a dome shaped atmosphere ......... (my bold).
I'm sure that isn't what you mean. I don't think you're actually suggesting that the map wobbles, but rather that the disc-Earth does. But that's what you've written.
I don't know how your French is, or whether you take an interest in art, but try googling "The Treachery of Images". Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
Its a painting by the French artist Rene Magritte, and shows an image of a smoker's pipe, with the caption "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (This is not a pipe". The point of the painting is that the painting is not actually a pipe. You can't stuff the painting with tobacco and smoke it; it is just an illustration of a pipe.
Similarly with much of your argument (and you are by no means alone on this forum) you keep talking about (paraphrasing) "a hypothesised south-pole centered map". This is putting the cart before the horse. I think what you mean is "this is a map of a hypothesised south-pole centered Earth".
The map is not the thing.
The Earth is the thing.
If the Earth is a globe, it has 3 dimensions and can be viewed from an infinite number of perspectives, and projected onto a 2-dimensional flat map (be it paper or a screen) in a number of ways, to produce many different maps. But there is only one Earth.
A flat-Earth on the other hand has only 2-dimensions can only be mapped one way.
Although we can produce many maps, there can only be one Earth, and it is the Earth, not a map, who's shape that you need to specify and measure.
-
I'll try to make the distinction between a map and the Earth more clearly in the future. How do you say "No swimming allowed" in French in case people get the wrong idea about my illustration? Lol.
-
I see you've tidied up the maps, but they still leave questions.
I'm watching Cathay Pacific flight CX845 from JFK to Hong Kong. Its an Airbus A350, reg B-LXL. It headed almost due north, then slightly east over Baffin Bay, disappearing over western Greenland at around 75deg West, still heading NNE. Its data readout showed it reached an latitude of over 89 deg north, at around 12.50 utc.
I'm going to make a prediction that it reappears over norther Russia, at around 80 deg East, ie the directly opposite side of you're map, and heading predominantly south.
-
13.25 utc, and there it is.
103 deg East, heading 167 deg, just north of the Komsomolets Islands.
So that's North of Greenland to North of Russia in under an hour. Jetstreams?
-
Here's the flight you're tracking:
(https://i.imgur.com/HRNojia.png)
On a Globe it looks something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/8nN2LSt.png)
-
Yup, pretty close to a great circle.
Of course, we await the south-centred disc-world explanation.
-
So, if I have this straight, the Airbus passed western Greenland and made it to the Komsomolets Islands in northern Russia in under an hour?
The best answer I have is that during winter the westerly polar jets are at their strongest. I'm shy to give my ruler inch distance measurement, but if 2 inches equal approximately 2,500 miles, then this flight path is (edit) 30,000 miles long.
I don't have many excuses, beyond we now need to start talking about near space conditions where objects like the ISS can travel around 17,000mph over the equator.
Did anyone see a meteor in the sky around this time?
-
So, if I have this straight, the Airbus passed western Greenland and made it to the Komsomolets Islands in northern Russia in under an hour?
The best answer I have is that during winter the westerly polar jets are at their strongest. I'm shy to give my ruler inch distance measurement, but if 2 inches equal approximately 2,500 miles, then this flight path is a whopping 24 inches or 60,000 miles long.
Doesn't the difference between your map, 60,000 miles versus reality, 8000 miles give you some sort of pause? Your "Polar jets are at their strongest" notion would mean the Airbus was traveling at 4000 miles per hour.
You might want to rethink your map.
-
So your best shot is that it tracked almost due-north to western Greenland (about 1 o'clock on your map) at around 500 knots, whizzed around the Earth to the Komsomolets Islands (around 6 o'clock on your map) at 17000 mph, and then continued south to Hong Kong, again, at around 500 knots. Have you any evidence whatever that an Airbus A350, or any commercial airliner, has this capability? Apart from your surmised sojourn into hyperspace it was travelling almost entirely north-south, which you have previously argued is perpendicular to the jetstreams, and therefore best avoided.
-
Doesn't the difference between your map, 60,000 miles versus reality, 8000 miles give you some sort of pause? Your "Polar jets are at their strongest" notion would mean the Airbus was traveling at 4000 miles per hour.
You might want to rethink your map.
I calculated wrong. I measured 24 inches total route and mistakenly multiplied that by 2,500mi to get 60k. I then correctly measured it with 24 inches x 1.125inches per/mile which equals 30,000miles for total trip distance. However, Duncan calculated a possible shorter distance of about 24,000 miles closer to the shoreline.
-
So your best shot is that it tracked almost due-north to western Greenland (about 1 o'clock on your map) at around 500 knots, whizzed around the Earth to the Komsomolets Islands (around 6 o'clock on your map) at 17000 mph, and then continued south to Hong Kong, again, at around 500 knots. Have you any evidence whatever that an Airbus A350, or any commercial airliner, has this capability? Apart from your surmised sojourn into hyperspace it was travelling almost entirely north-south, which you have previously argued is perpendicular to the jetstreams, and therefore best avoided.
Lol, it's a good point. I haven't looked into the Airliners capabilities yet but by way of gravity if you're wondering why the passengers weren't floating perhaps it's because they were closer to earth then the space station is. And an airliner travelling close to 600 miles per hour going north over Canada is also new to me, lol.
-
Doesn't the difference between your map, 60,000 miles versus reality, 8000 miles give you some sort of pause? Your "Polar jets are at their strongest" notion would mean the Airbus was traveling at 4000 miles per hour.
You might want to rethink your map.
I calculated wrong. I measured 24 inches total route and mistakenly multiplied that by 2,500mi to get 60k. I then correctly measured it with 24 inches x 1.125inches per/mile which equals 30,000miles for total trip distance. However, Duncan calculated a possible shorter distance of about 24,000 miles closer to the shoreline.
We're still talking a 15 hour flight and 8000 miles in reality. Whether your map shows 30k or 24k miles, you're still way, way off. Doesn't that make you think?
As for an Airbus A350 going hypersonic, Airbus themselves would disagree:
- Range 15 000 km (9320 mils)
- Max fuel capacity 141 000 litres
- The A350's wing has a 31.9° sweep angle for a Mach 0.85 cruise speed and has a maximum operating speed of Mach 0.89 (682.87 mph)
- Service ceiling 41,450 ft (12,630 m)
- Maximum operating altitude 13 100m (43,000 Feet)
All this evidence - Have you thought about rethinking your map rather than coming up with ideas to make it work that don't meet with reality? Or do you think Pilots, ATC, Airbus, are lying to us?
-
So your best shot is that it tracked almost due-north to western Greenland (about 1 o'clock on your map) at around 500 knots, whizzed around the Earth to the Komsomolets Islands (around 6 o'clock on your map) at 17000 mph, and then continued south to Hong Kong, again, at around 500 knots. Have you any evidence whatever that an Airbus A350, or any commercial airliner, has this capability? Apart from your surmised sojourn into hyperspace it was travelling almost entirely north-south, which you have previously argued is perpendicular to the jetstreams, and therefore best avoided.
Lol, it's a good point. I haven't looked into the Airliners capabilities yet but by way of gravity if you're wondering why the passengers weren't floating perhaps it's because they were closer to earth then the space station is. And an airliner travelling close to 600 miles per hour going north over Canada is also new to me, lol.
If this is seriously news to you, you could do worse than to take a day out of your schedule to sit and watch a tracking site like FlightRadar24; watch the routes they actually take, the speeds that they travel, maybe pick a long-haul trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flight and follow it from start to finish. Did you really not know that planes flew north of Canada?
And no; I wasn't actually puzzled by the ability of passengers to remain in their seats.
-
I think the atmosphere freezes as it approaches cold temperature and creates kind of an icy containment wall.
In principle this is correct—in a colder atmosphere, water vapour does condense and freeze,
forming ice particles. But your notion that these ice crystals then coalesce to form some
sort of semi-solid "dome" isn't supported by any current evidence.
The icy shell might be cloudy, transparent, etc... It's probably thicker at lower altitudes to contain the majority of air density in the troposphere. Here's an article on Sun Dogs caused by the Sun's light refracting off Atmospheric Ice Crystals...
Yes, that too is correct. So-called sun dogs—like rainbows—are caused by refraction of the sun's
light, but in no way illustrate any other atmospheric phenomenon such as a solid ice plane or dome.
Within the shell / Within the ice cube, the atmosphere is layered by different densities from heavy to light as you move up in altitude.
Again, that's correct. As one's altitude increases, the density of the atmosphere decreases. But there's
no current evidence that supports this phenomenon being due solely to some sort of physical containment
such as an ice "dome". As the Earth's gravitational force is weaker farther from Earth's centre, at higher
altitudes, air molecules can spread out more, and the atmosphere becomes "thinner".
But near the Poles of earth, the air becomes thinner more quickly. The very thin stratosphere for example starts at 4 miles in altitude versus 12 miles at the equator.
The tropopause (https://skybrary.aero/articles/tropopause) can—as you suggest—indeed vary from around 23,000 ft to 65,000 feet,
but in actuality that's a relatively tiny difference in terms of altitude; we have planes currently
flying at each of those altitudes without any intrinsic problems. Commercial aircraft typically fly
between 33,000 ft and 42,000 ft whilst the highest military air-breathing engine airplane was
the SR-71 "Blackbird" with a 90,000 ft ceiling (until their retirement in 1999).
I'm not sure why - I used to think it's because you're closer to space near the northern edge but seeing as it happens in polar south that sort of negates the argument.
Air temperature, location, and the rate of temperature change (per 1,000 ft) affect the lower altitude of the tropopause (on the global model).
(https://code7700.com/images/tropopause_jeppesen_meteorology_pg_1-5.png)
-
This was helpful.... Thanks Kangaroo... Its quit the show in the upper atmosphere.
Duncan, I know of course planes go across Canada, I just didn't know it could go close to "max" speed going perpendicular to jet streams as you pointed out.
And Stack, I'm still looking into all of this. Right now, I'm kind of amused that at 17,000 miles an hour it takes an Airliner about 2.5 hours to circle this map and it takes the ISS about 1.5 hours to circle the equator. The similarity must raise an eyebrow? These kinds of speeds aren't unprecedented.
-
And Stack, I'm still looking into all of this. Right now, I'm kind of amused that at 17,000 miles an hour it takes an Airliner about 2.5 hours to circle this map and it takes the ISS about 1.5 hours to circle the equator. The similarity must raise an eyebrow? These kinds of speeds aren't unprecedented.
I don’t understand what you mean regarding the 17000 mph for an airliner? Airliners generally top out at the 600 mph cruising speed. But your map requires hypersonic speeds which don’t exist for airliners. Surely you must realize this. No?
I don’t know what the ISS has to do with anything regarding your map.
Do you believe that pilots, ATC, Boeing and airbus engineers and such are all lying about routes and capabilities?
-
Stack, I don't want to speculate. All I know is there are mechanisms in the atmosphere which accelerate vehicles like the International Space Station to incredible speeds and keep things calm enough to live and conduct science experiments on.
-
Stack, I don't want to speculate. All I know is there are mechanisms in the atmosphere which accelerate vehicles like the International Space Station to incredible speeds and keep things calm enough to live and conduct science experiments on.
But you are and have been speculating all along. I mean your map is one massive speculation - you don’t rely on any distance facts and keep speculating about polar regions, domes, jet streams, 4000 mph airliners, and on and on. All of it based upon you speculating.
And now you’re speculating that something up in the thermosphere, 250 miles up, is propelling the ISS?
What are these “mechanisms” you are speculating about?
And you never answered my question, do you believe that pilots, ATC, Boeing and airbus engineers and such are all lying about routes and capabilities?
-
I'm thinking the mechanism that propels these air and space craft are high powered winds near the atmospheres edge or shell.
The one thing Airbus CX845 and the ISS have in common is that within a dome they both travel near the edge. The ISS taking a higher and more narrow circular path and the airliner a lower and wider one.
Winds are produced by changes in air pressure and temperature and you may get alot of that near the edge of space per se. But these are just "guesses" into something that I need to look into and don't fully understand yet.
-
The ISS has an identical drag coefficient to that of a Sainsburys carrier bag. It can only achieve 17,000 mph because it operates in a vacuum. Current airliners are limited by aerodynamics and size/power ratio to subsonic airspeeds.
Amongst all your research and speculation about south centred discs, domes, hypersonic winds and a Boeing/Airbus/NASA/Commercial-pilot conspiracy, have you seriously considered the freakish possibility that the Earth is actually just a sphere, and that CX845 (and countless others) simply fly over the top?
Instead of just thinking-up stuff, PLEASE spend a day watching FR24, particularly the relationship of indicated speeds/time/distance. Come back to us when you have some evidence of speeds significantly in excess of 600 mph.
-
I'm thinking the mechanism that propels these air and space craft are high powered winds near the atmospheres edge or shell.
There are no "high powered" winds in space; it's effectively a vacuum. Satellites and the ISS are not
propulsed in the sense you mean. Relative to the CoG of the planet, their velocity is close to constant.
One thing Airbus CX845 and the ISS have in common is that within a dome they both travel near the edge. The ISS taking a higher and more narrow circular path and the airliner a lower and wider one.
Nope. The service ceiling of the Airbus A350-1000 is 13,000m. The ISS orbital altitude is 418,000m.
-
Further 1000 mph winds would rip even a commercial airliner to pieces let alone something as fragile (once the solar panels are unfolded) as the ISS.
And a tail wind of 1000mph would mean no air was flowing front to back over the wings of the plane so no lift and it would fall.
-
My only theory right now is that the planes can reach these high speeds because the air is thin enough to negate drag. But it's enough air to feed the engines, maintain lift and because jets or similarly rockets use newtows third law of conservation of momentum they sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium.
Planes from New York to Hong Kong that travel near the north pole fly eastern routes over Alaska and western routes over Greenland which rules out the strong wind theory.
.
-
My only theory right now is that the planes can reach these high speeds because the air is thin enough to negate drag. But it's enough air to feed the engines, maintain lift and because jets or similarly rockets use newtows third law of conservation of momentum they sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium.
So your theory is contrary to reported max speeds capable by the aviation industry and aeronautic engineers that design these crafts and of course pilots, FAA, ATC and everyone associated with the airline industry? So all of these people are lying?
Planes from New York to Hong Kong that travel near the north pole fly eastern routes over Alaska and western routes over Greenland which rules out the strong wind theory.
So why would they fly those routes if they could use your theory elsewhere and travel at least twice as fast?
-
My only theory right now is that the planes can reach these high speeds because the air is thin enough to negate drag. But it's enough air to feed the engines, maintain lift and because jets or similarly rockets use newtows third law of conservation of momentum they sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium.
Planes from New York to Hong Kong that travel near the north pole fly eastern routes over Alaska and western routes over Greenland which rules out the strong wind theory.
.
MetaTron, you really need to study and get your head around conventional physics, rather than just thinking up stuff.
Aerodynamic Drag is a function of Drag Coefficient, Surface Area, Velocity-squared and Air Density.
Aerodynamic Lift is a function of Lift Coefficient, Surface Area, Velocity-squared and Air Density.
Do you see the similarity? Lift and drag are equally dependant upon air density. Reduced air-density ("thinner air") reduces drag but reduces lift in equal measure. You can't lose the drag and keep the lift. Its physics.
And how exactly do they "...sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium"?
And this is seriously your only theory? You don't want to give any more thought to the sphere-thing?
-
It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.
And it's Newton's 3rd law of action and reaction I was referring to. NASA explain that it's like a person standing on a skateboard and by pushing a bowling ball outwards with his hands can generate movement.
-
Have you ever been on a passenger plane before? If so, what was your longest flight?
-
It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.
And it's Newton's 3rd law of action and reaction I was referring to. NASA explain that it's like a person standing on a skateboard and by pushing a bowling ball outwards with his hands can generate movement.
I don't think you're really following this.
The plane takes off, climbs, and then cruises through average-joe atmosphere at an airspeed of (let's say) 600mph. It enters your hypothesised super-jetstream which has a speed of (let's say) 17000mph; its ground speed is now 17600mph but its airspeed (the one that affects aerodynamics) is still only 600mph, so there is no change to lift or drag.
And NASA is describing a jet, or rocket, engine. The "bowling ball" is the exhaust gas.
A rocket engine burns its self-contained fuel/oxidiser and accelerates the exhaust gas to phenomenal speeds (perhaps more like skateboard guy firing a baseball with a grenade launcher). Airliners do not have rocket engines.
A jet engine gathers atmospheric air and uses a compression/combustion process to accelerate it to lower speeds than a rocket, but in comparatively huge quantities (hence a bowling ball in our comparison) to achieve the same thing. It needs to gather sufficient air, which is why airliner engines have such a huge frontal diameter, but they can still only operate in air which has sufficient density.
-
It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.
The stall speed (the minimum speed of air moving front to back over the wing) of a commercial plane is something like 150mph. If there is a 1000mph+ tail wind that means there is no front to back flow over the wings at all and the plane will drop like a stone.
Your attempts to explain the data in terms of your model clearly are not working. If you are applying critical thinking, i.e. going where ever the data leads, doesn't that say that your model is wrong?
-
Guys, there's a big misunderstanding. I'm trying to make the point that I no longer believe that Jet Streams are responsible for the very fast plane speeds we see near the Polar Regions on a Flat Earth. Rather, it's the thin air that allows these planes to travel so fast.
Below is a simple example to help answer some of your questions: At the top, plane one is flying through 10 cookies in about 10 seconds. And plane two is also flying through 10 cookies in 10 seconds! The only difference is that plane 2 needs to fly faster! That means that lift and air pressure and drag are presumably the same for both planes.
(https://i.imgur.com/n3MEIKO.png?1)
To propel Plane 2 to such great speeds, you need to assume their jet engines are producing enough thrust in these conditions until the aircraft reaches its structural limit. I don't know the ins and outs of Jet Engines, but so far, they seem similar to Rocket's and in some cases produce more thrust (Scram jets anyway). The Boeing 747 has a power to rate ratio greater than an SR-71 - One of the fastest Jet Planes to ever fly.
(https://i.imgur.com/8lvhwkS.png)
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust
-
The Boeing 747 has a power to rate ratio greater than an SR-71 - One of the fastest Jet Planes to ever fly.
According to the FAA & Boeing, the 747 (200-400, all models) is limited to VMO/MMO 375/0.92 above 35,000'.
VMO: “Maximum operating speed”. It denotes the maximum speed permitted for the aircraft.
MMO: A percentage of Mach limited by the change to the aircraft’s handling characteristics - The effective speed limit (“barber pole” on the airspeed indicator) at higher altitudes.
How does this fit into your theory? Are they lying?
-
Guys, there's a big misunderstanding. I'm trying to make the point that I no longer believe that Jet Streams are responsible for the very fast plane speeds we see near the Polar Regions on a Flat Earth. Rather, it's the thin air that allows these planes to travel so fast.
Below is a simple example to help answer some of your questions: At the top, plane one is flying through 10 cookies in about 10 seconds. And plane two is also flying through 10 cookies in 10 seconds! The only difference is that plane 2 needs to fly faster! That means that lift and air pressure and drag are presumably the same for both planes.
(https://i.imgur.com/n3MEIKO.png?1)
To propel Plane 2 to such great speeds, you need to assume their jet engines are producing enough thrust in these conditions until the aircraft reaches its structural limit. I don't know the ins and outs of Jet Engines, but so far, they seem similar to Rocket's and in some cases produce more thrust (Scram jets anyway). The Boeing 747 has a power to rate ratio greater than an SR-71 - One of the fastest Jet Planes to ever fly.
(https://i.imgur.com/8lvhwkS.png)
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust
(Sigh). This doesn't get any easier.
That chart isn't the thrust-to-weight ratios of the aeroplanes, its just the thrust to weight ratios of the engines. The engines of a 747 don't go anywhere without the rest of the 747 attached to them. All 400 tons of 747. I'll let you re-do the maths if you think it has any merit.
And I see what you're trying to say with the cookies, but we already discussed this. Go back a couple of posts, and where I wrote "air density", read that as "cookie density". Does that make any sense?
-
Duncin one of the first things you say in your earlier post was that my hypothetical plane travels a few hundreds miles an hour before hitting a 17,000mph jet stream at which point it goes 17,600mph.
That is opposite of what Ive been trying to say in my last three posts and the reason I made the Cookie chart to begin with! Again, there's no wind near the poles (that I'm referring to anyway)! I'm only speaking of aero and engine capacity.
And thank you for correcting me on the second chart. I'd just say that once you get a 747 going having a million pounds of thrust will still get you places fast.
And stack, calling everybody a liar when you confront something you don't understand is not useful. I plan on looking more into the instruments aviators use to calculate speed etc, but for now I'm going to bed and I wish you guys a happy New year.
-
DISCLAIMER:. I advocate a South Pole centered Flat Earth that spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by a dome shaped atmosphere that tilts towards a small solar system at about 30deg, and magnets are what holds everything together.
What you are doing is the opposite of critical thinking. You have a model that for some reason you want to match reality so you are trying to fit observations into it. But it doesn't work. If instead you simply ask what do our observations tell us about the earth, the answer is unmistakably that it is a sphere. What leads you to "advocate" something else?
-
Duncin one of the first things you say in your earlier post was that my hypothetical plane travels a few hundreds miles an hour before hitting a 17,000mph jet stream at which point it goes 17,600mph.
That is opposite of what Ive been trying to say in my last three posts and the reason I made the Cookie chart to begin with! Again, there's no wind near the poles (that I'm referring to anyway)! I'm only speaking of aero and engine capacity.
And thank you for correcting me on the second chart. I'd just say that once you get a 747 going having a million pounds of thrust will still get you places fast.
And stack, calling everybody a liar when you confront something you don't understand is not useful. I plan on looking more into the instruments aviators use to calculate speed etc, but for now I'm going to bed and I wish you guys a happy New year.
And a Happy New Year to you too.
It's not a million pounds of thust. It's million Newtons. Please read your chart. And 200 million pounds, Newtons or mega-watts can only push the plane through cookies as fast as Boeing, Airbus, Stack and others have already told you, the aircraft has a structural limit.
-
And, by the way, what research brought you to the conclusion that there are now no 17000 mph winds around the Arctic? A few posts back you seemed convinced.
-
And, by the way, what research brought you to the conclusion that there are now no 17000 mph winds around the Arctic? A few posts back you seemed convinced.
When I noticed on Flight Radar that Cathay Pacific flew flights both East AND West on there way from JFK to Hong Kong it suggests there's no one directional wind preventing travel in a certain direction. And both flight routes travel along 88n latitude so there's no room for two streams of air.
Generally winds play a bigger factor as you head south into thicker atmospheres.
-
It's not a million pounds of thust. It's million Newtons. Please read your chart. And 200 million pounds, Newtons or mega-watts can only push the plane through cookies as fast as Boeing, Airbus, Stack and others have already told you, the aircraft has a structural limit.
You need to look at my cookie chart again. In 10 seconds both airplanes encounter 10 molecules of air. In other words they both experienced the same amount of air resistance in the same amount of time except plane 2 travels much faster. So if the structural limit is ten cookies of air molecules every 10 seconds then in both scenarios it's possible for the planes to be flying at different speeds and within the limits of the aircraft.
-
What you are talking about is the difference between True Airspeed (TAS) and Indicated Airspeed (IAS). IAS is what is shown on the pilot's Airspeed Indicator, and is important for the aerodynamic handling of the aircraft, but at high altitude it is significantly lower than the TAS. If you like, IAS is the number of cookies per second, but is less than the actual speed. TAS is used for navigation, and is the maximum speed quoted by the manufacturer.
What this means in practice is that the aircraft is faster at altitude, as you suggest, but this is already the limiting speed quoted by the manufacturer. If the limiting TAS is, say 500 knots, the pilot might reach this speed when he sees only around 300 kts on the Airspeed Indicator.
Its not that the aircraft is exceeding this limiting speed at high altitude (low air density), its just that the pilot is actually seeing a lower figure for IAS. The minimum air density (in other words is maximum altitude) is specified, again, by the manufacturer.
It is quite categorical. The aircraft will not travel through the air, at any density which it is certified, faster than the manufacturer says.
-
This is a great response... I don't have an answer. ::) :o ;D
-
...Generally winds play a bigger factor as you head south into thicker atmospheres.
The atmosphere is not particularly "thicker" in the southern hemisphere. The density of the
atmosphere changes with altitude, not location.
-
The Qantas Santiago Chile to Aukland NewZealand flight is pretty close.
It was (not is — Qantas has not operated that route in over a year) nowhere near close (https://www.airportia.com/flights/qf322/santiago/auckland/?date=2020-04-07). At its southermost point, it passed around 4000 km from the south pole.
Why does that flight not fly due west?
Plus there are the many circumnavigations of Antarctica by ship that do not take nearly the needed time to go around the disk of the FE model.
There of course have been many expeditions to Antartica with no evidence of the ice wall that would have to be extremely high (100 mies?) to contain the atmosphere and hence be easy to see.
Irrelevant. If you want to discuss a different topic, you can create another thread for that. Do you have evidence for your claims regarding flying over the south pole or not?
Not true. Wise once claimed that Qantas killed one million passengers in order to hide up the fact that earth is flat.