Tau

• Zetetic Council Member
• 911
• Magistrum Fallaciae
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #260 on: August 26, 2017, 05:29:24 PM »
Tau,

Furthermore, would the effects of Aether be mathematically reducible to 0 in the event that fight times and speeds were repeatable on different dates within the aforementioned margins of error?  As an example, if Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- acceleration due to Aether (A) we could postulate that the distance is a known value within a confidence interval provided that speeds and times were repeated.

On shorter distance flights within a single continent, distance is a known value measured by physical measuring devices that do not rely on a globed earth assumption so we could take 2 different non stop flights between cities within say Australia on different dates and solve for the variable Aether as such: +/- A = (Speed*Time)/Distance.  This would create both an upper and lower bound for margin of error due to the variable Aetherial Wind.

Would this be an acceptable methodology of accounting for the missing variable in my first series of equations?

Thank You

CriticalThinker

I would caution you against assuming that measuring devices like sonar and radar don't take the Earth's shape into account. These devices need to be calibrated, after all. If one calibrates them with the assumption that the Earth is round, but using data from a flat Earth, then one has effectively created a device which converts flat Earth data into round Earth data.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Rounder

• 779
• What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #261 on: August 26, 2017, 05:41:21 PM »
They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.
TL;DR: there's no such thing as a "flat earth mile" vs a "round earth mile".  The mile is the distance covered by light traveling in a vacuum in the time span of 49,347.828 "ticks" of the atomic clock.

Long version: The mile was standardised at exactly 1,609.344 metres by international agreement in 1959.

So what is a meter?  Is it defined by a round earth feature?  Well, it used to be: originally the meter was one ten-millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator.  Several refinements later, the meter is now defined in terms of the second and the speed of light: the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

So what is a second?  Maybe it is defined by a round earth feature?  No, but it briefly was, between periods before and after where it was not.  From antiquity, time was measured against the day/night cycle, which is observational rather than theoretical.  (By which I mean that no matter what shape you think the earth is, we can all agree on the observed timing of the exact moment the sun is/appears to be at its zenith.)  The second became measurable with the advent of mechanical timekeeping (clocks) accurate enough to keep good time, and in the 1670s the spread of the grandfather clock effectively defined the second as 1/60th of the minute.  In 1862 the second was formally defined as 1/86,400 of the mean solar day, which was carried into the metric system when it was adopted.  Then, for nine brief years beginning in 1956, the second became tied to the round earth when it was defined as the fraction  1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.  I say "tied to the round earth" because nobody had measured the length of that year, it was calculated from heliocentric theory and the observed length of the contemporary year.  By this point, however, it was well known that the earth's rotation is not a constant over time, and is thus a poor standard against which to measure time.  So the atomic clock was born, and in 1967 the second was defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

CriticalThinker

• 159
• Polite and Pragmatic
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #262 on: August 26, 2017, 05:43:14 PM »
Tau,

Furthermore, would the effects of Aether be mathematically reducible to 0 in the event that fight times and speeds were repeatable on different dates within the aforementioned margins of error?  As an example, if Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- acceleration due to Aether (A) we could postulate that the distance is a known value within a confidence interval provided that speeds and times were repeated.

On shorter distance flights within a single continent, distance is a known value measured by physical measuring devices that do not rely on a globed earth assumption so we could take 2 different non stop flights between cities within say Australia on different dates and solve for the variable Aether as such: +/- A = (Speed*Time)/Distance.  This would create both an upper and lower bound for margin of error due to the variable Aetherial Wind.

Would this be an acceptable methodology of accounting for the missing variable in my first series of equations?

Thank You

CriticalThinker

I would caution you against assuming that measuring devices like sonar and radar don't take the Earth's shape into account. These devices need to be calibrated, after all. If one calibrates them with the assumption that the Earth is round, but using data from a flat Earth, then one has effectively created a device which converts flat Earth data into round Earth data.

Tau,

You are very correct in your caution.  Doppler shift radar was specifically chosen because it does not assume a globed earth.  Electromagnetic waves at a known frequency are sent straight forwards from the device and some of them will be bounced back by the target.  The time difference between the echo of each successive wave is compared to the previous one which provides the variable distance traveled which is then divided by the constant time intervals created by the frequency of the wave.  Distance divided by time provides us with the data point speed.  They are calibrated using a metered track and stopwatch.  Before being employed by police and researchers, their accuracy/repeatability on a flat plane is measured against these flat earth compatible systems of measurement and only units capable of staying within a 1% margin of error are used.

This was covered in my very first post on this thread, along with a peer reviewed article that substantiates its accuracy and validity in measuring flight speed relative to ground speed.

I still have many unanswered questions re: Aether, that I hope you will find the time and inclination to answer.  In order for me to fully understand your philosophical world view, these are details which are very important.

Thank you,

Critical Thinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

CriticalThinker

• 159
• Polite and Pragmatic
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #263 on: August 26, 2017, 05:52:02 PM »
They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.
TL;DR: there's no such thing as a "flat earth mile" vs a "round earth mile".  The mile is the distance covered by light traveling in a vacuum in the time span of 49,347.828 "ticks" of the atomic clock.

Long version: The mile was standardised at exactly 1,609.344 metres by international agreement in 1959.

So what is a meter?  Is it defined by a round earth feature?  Well, it used to be: originally the meter was one ten-millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator.  Several refinements later, the meter is now defined in terms of the second and the speed of light: the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

So what is a second?  Maybe it is defined by a round earth feature?  No, but it briefly was, between periods before and after where it was not.  From antiquity, time was measured against the day/night cycle, which is observational rather than theoretical.  (By which I mean that no matter what shape you think the earth is, we can all agree on the observed timing of the exact moment the sun is/appears to be at its zenith.)  The second became measurable with the advent of mechanical timekeeping (clocks) accurate enough to keep good time, and in the 1670s the spread of the grandfather clock effectively defined the second as 1/60th of the minute.  In 1862 the second was formally defined as 1/86,400 of the mean solar day, which was carried into the metric system when it was adopted.  Then, for nine brief years beginning in 1956, the second became tied to the round earth when it was defined as the fraction  1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.  I say "tied to the round earth" because nobody had measured the length of that year, it was calculated from heliocentric theory and the observed length of the contemporary year.  By this point, however, it was well known that the earth's rotation is not a constant over time, and is thus a poor standard against which to measure time.  So the atomic clock was born, and in 1967 the second was defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom

Thank you for the well placed backup to this discussion.  As both time and distance are currently variables that do not require a globed earth assumption, devices calibrated to measure speed after these two variables were standardized would fit the initial requirements set forth by Tom Bishop.  Tom was initially unhappy about the reported variability of modern GPS accuracy and challenged its face value as a methodology of measuring speed due to its basis on latitude and longitude.  The Doppler shift effect was chosen as a flat earth compatible system of measuring speed so that the speed and time data supplied by airlines would meet all of Tom's criteria for acceptance.  Since then, Tom has been suspiciously absent and has systematically ignored the majority of my responses or questions.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Curious Squirrel

• 1338
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #264 on: August 26, 2017, 05:57:48 PM »
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.
I'm sorry, what? Could you tl;dr that for me or something? I've never, ever heard speculation that we don't know whether the jet stream is real or not. Color me curious.

CriticalThinker

• 159
• Polite and Pragmatic
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #265 on: August 26, 2017, 06:06:30 PM »
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.
I'm sorry, what? Could you tl;dr that for me or something? I've never, ever heard speculation that we don't know whether the jet stream is real or not. Color me curious.

A few pages back 3dGeek, Inquisitor and myself used geometry as a proof that the Earth couldn't be a flat plane.  Airline flight time, speed and distance for nonstop flights was used as the data for the geometry calculations.  Tom Bishop called into question the variables distance and speed because he felt that GPS was too inaccurate and that Lat/Long was not valid on a flat Earth.  In response I provided evidence that speed of flight could be accurately calculated using Doppler Radar and that using algebra, you could solve for distance which backed up the original geometry proof.

Tau then claimed that the Aetherial wind was another variable that I had failed to take into account for my calculations along the lines of Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- Aether.

The claim is that Aether is a celestial force that affects all planets, stars etc but is somehow immeasurable.

That's the abridged version.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #266 on: August 26, 2017, 06:28:48 PM »
That's the abridged version.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Thanks for the summary - after 14 pages of posts, it's about time for that!

The Jet/Aetheric stream cannot be doing the magical things the FE'ers are guessing it does (they must be guessing because for 100% sure they didn't measure anything...so much for the "Zetetic method"!).

Why?  Because the flight time from Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile is only 10 minutes different from the flight time from Santiago Chile to Sydney Australia...since that's a 13 hour flight - the typical effects of these "streams" are of the order of 1% or so of the airplane's speed along that route.

It's greater on some other routes - but still nowhere close to enough to account for the inconsistencies we see in FE distance/flight times.

This was carefully explained at the top of this thread - so FE'ers with short memories need to go back and re-read that stuff.

Our resident airline pilot also chimed in on that one, explaining that the there-and-back flight times don't vary that much.

Bear in mind that we're not looking at small errors here.   We're looking at VERY large discrepancies between the reported flight times (and therefore distances) and what you'd expect if you used FE maps.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Curious Squirrel

• 1338
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #267 on: August 26, 2017, 06:57:37 PM »
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.
I'm sorry, what? Could you tl;dr that for me or something? I've never, ever heard speculation that we don't know whether the jet stream is real or not. Color me curious.

A few pages back 3dGeek, Inquisitor and myself used geometry as a proof that the Earth couldn't be a flat plane.  Airline flight time, speed and distance for nonstop flights was used as the data for the geometry calculations.  Tom Bishop called into question the variables distance and speed because he felt that GPS was too inaccurate and that Lat/Long was not valid on a flat Earth.  In response I provided evidence that speed of flight could be accurately calculated using Doppler Radar and that using algebra, you could solve for distance which backed up the original geometry proof.

Tau then claimed that the Aetherial wind was another variable that I had failed to take into account for my calculations along the lines of Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- Aether.

The claim is that Aether is a celestial force that affects all planets, stars etc but is somehow immeasurable.

That's the abridged version.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Sorry, should have been more clear on what I was asking of him. Been reading and contributing since the start, but I was really curious about his comment that "Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real" and how he could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.

3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #268 on: August 26, 2017, 07:14:04 PM »
Sorry, should have been more clear on what I was asking of him. Been reading and contributing since the start, but I was really curious about his comment that "Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real" and how he could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.

Yeah - that's weird.  According to Wikipedia, the Jet stream has been actively used by airlines since 1952.   They are very aware of where it is, what altitude it's at and the speed it's going at any given time.

The speed difference is typically about 50 to 60 mph...and it only blows west-to-east.

This can't possibly explain the discrepancies in the FE models.  On the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, the FE maps that I've seen demand airplane speeds in excess of Mach 2....IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.   So not possible.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

CriticalThinker

• 159
• Polite and Pragmatic
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #269 on: August 28, 2017, 01:29:22 PM »
Sorry, should have been more clear on what I was asking of him. Been reading and contributing since the start, but I was really curious about his comment that "Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real" and how he could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.

Yeah - that's weird.  According to Wikipedia, the Jet stream has been actively used by airlines since 1952.   They are very aware of where it is, what altitude it's at and the speed it's going at any given time.

The speed difference is typically about 50 to 60 mph...and it only blows west-to-east.

This can't possibly explain the discrepancies in the FE models.  On the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, the FE maps that I've seen demand airplane speeds in excess of Mach 2....IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.   So not possible.

It appears that this thread is being abandoned by the flat earth community members.  Only a couple of members engaged in the conversation and it's not their job to do it.  I would hope that others would join in to support their cause by evaluating the evidence.  Perhaps Zeteticism isn't widely practiced within the FE community.

Thank you

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

StinkyOne

• 805
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #270 on: August 28, 2017, 01:53:06 PM »
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

I am saying that it is not simply to calculate distance based on flight times, because actual speeds are dramatically altered by the Shadow of the Aethric Wind
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.

Is there any evidence of this Aetheric Whirlpool? I know that science has toyed around with the idea of an Aether since Newton, but the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there was no Aetheric wind. Numerous other experiments have been performed which also failed to find any evidence of an Aether.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #271 on: August 29, 2017, 11:55:15 AM »
Is there any evidence of this Aetheric Whirlpool? I know that science has toyed around with the idea of an Aether since Newton, but the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there was no Aetheric wind. Numerous other experiments have been performed which also failed to find any evidence of an Aether.

I agree - but even if such a thing existed, to account for the mach 2.1 flight speed of the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, it would have to be MONUMENTALLY important to the airline community - and you could be assured that it would have been mapped and understood long ago...just as the Jet Stream was.

The other problem with "natural phenomena" like this in FET is that somehow they ALWAYS wind up changing things so that the Flat Earth looks PERFECTLY like a Round Earth to every possible experiment!

So why would it be that this "Aetheric Wind" would blow in ways to precisely alter airline flight speeds to match what they'd have to be if the Earth was round?!?

Wouldn't that be the most astounding of coincidences?

Add that to how sun, moon, 'shadow object', stars, planets, etc seem to drift around with a complex choreography that just HAPPENS to match the way they'd look if the Earth was round - and you'd have to come to the conclusion that the laws of physics are conspiring (just like NASA) to fake the otherwise overwhelming experience of a round Earth.

No matter how clever the FE explanations become - no matter whether they did manage to paper over all of the cracks that are reported here - ultimately, their laws of physics would be so insanely complex as to be a demonstration in themselves that the world must be round because laws of nature are NEVER that complicated.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

TomInAustin

• 1349
• Round Duh
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #272 on: August 29, 2017, 03:07:45 PM »
Is there any evidence of this Aetheric Whirlpool? I know that science has toyed around with the idea of an Aether since Newton, but the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there was no Aetheric wind. Numerous other experiments have been performed which also failed to find any evidence of an Aether.

I agree - but even if such a thing existed, to account for the mach 2.1 flight speed of the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, it would have to be MONUMENTALLY important to the airline community - and you could be assured that it would have been mapped and understood long ago...just as the Jet Stream was.

The other problem with "natural phenomena" like this in FET is that somehow they ALWAYS wind up changing things so that the Flat Earth looks PERFECTLY like a Round Earth to every possible experiment!

So why would it be that this "Aetheric Wind" would blow in ways to precisely alter airline flight speeds to match what they'd have to be if the Earth was round?!?

Wouldn't that be the most astounding of coincidences?

Add that to how sun, moon, 'shadow object', stars, planets, etc seem to drift around with a complex choreography that just HAPPENS to match the way they'd look if the Earth was round - and you'd have to come to the conclusion that the laws of physics are conspiring (just like NASA) to fake the otherwise overwhelming experience of a round Earth.

No matter how clever the FE explanations become - no matter whether they did manage to paper over all of the cracks that are reported here - ultimately, their laws of physics would be so insanely complex as to be a demonstration in themselves that the world must be round because laws of nature are NEVER that complicated.

And even more bizarre is the whirlpool seems to act in both directions at once.  There are  2 planes in the air right now that are going between SANTIAGO, CHILE and AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND going opposite directions.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9106
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #273 on: August 29, 2017, 03:12:18 PM »
Is there any evidence of this Aetheric Whirlpool? I know that science has toyed around with the idea of an Aether since Newton, but the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there was no Aetheric wind. Numerous other experiments have been performed which also failed to find any evidence of an Aether.

I agree - but even if such a thing existed, to account for the mach 2.1 flight speed of the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, it would have to be MONUMENTALLY important to the airline community - and you could be assured that it would have been mapped and understood long ago...just as the Jet Stream was.

The other problem with "natural phenomena" like this in FET is that somehow they ALWAYS wind up changing things so that the Flat Earth looks PERFECTLY like a Round Earth to every possible experiment!

So why would it be that this "Aetheric Wind" would blow in ways to precisely alter airline flight speeds to match what they'd have to be if the Earth was round?!?

Wouldn't that be the most astounding of coincidences?

Add that to how sun, moon, 'shadow object', stars, planets, etc seem to drift around with a complex choreography that just HAPPENS to match the way they'd look if the Earth was round - and you'd have to come to the conclusion that the laws of physics are conspiring (just like NASA) to fake the otherwise overwhelming experience of a round Earth.

No matter how clever the FE explanations become - no matter whether they did manage to paper over all of the cracks that are reported here - ultimately, their laws of physics would be so insanely complex as to be a demonstration in themselves that the world must be round because laws of nature are NEVER that complicated.

And even more bizarre is the whirlpool seems to act in both directions at once.  There are  2 planes in the air right now that are going between SANTIAGO, CHILE and AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND going opposite directions.

Why are you trying to combat a map that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has put work into creating?

Rounder

• 779
• What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #274 on: August 29, 2017, 03:26:13 PM »
Why are you trying to combat a map that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has put work into creating?
Because it's all your team has provided us.  It should be super easy to produce a flat map of the flat earth.  Somebody should get on that.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

CriticalThinker

• 159
• Polite and Pragmatic
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #275 on: August 29, 2017, 03:43:11 PM »
Is there any evidence of this Aetheric Whirlpool? I know that science has toyed around with the idea of an Aether since Newton, but the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there was no Aetheric wind. Numerous other experiments have been performed which also failed to find any evidence of an Aether.

I agree - but even if such a thing existed, to account for the mach 2.1 flight speed of the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, it would have to be MONUMENTALLY important to the airline community - and you could be assured that it would have been mapped and understood long ago...just as the Jet Stream was.

The other problem with "natural phenomena" like this in FET is that somehow they ALWAYS wind up changing things so that the Flat Earth looks PERFECTLY like a Round Earth to every possible experiment!

So why would it be that this "Aetheric Wind" would blow in ways to precisely alter airline flight speeds to match what they'd have to be if the Earth was round?!?

Wouldn't that be the most astounding of coincidences?

Add that to how sun, moon, 'shadow object', stars, planets, etc seem to drift around with a complex choreography that just HAPPENS to match the way they'd look if the Earth was round - and you'd have to come to the conclusion that the laws of physics are conspiring (just like NASA) to fake the otherwise overwhelming experience of a round Earth.

No matter how clever the FE explanations become - no matter whether they did manage to paper over all of the cracks that are reported here - ultimately, their laws of physics would be so insanely complex as to be a demonstration in themselves that the world must be round because laws of nature are NEVER that complicated.

And even more bizarre is the whirlpool seems to act in both directions at once.  There are  2 planes in the air right now that are going between SANTIAGO, CHILE and AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND going opposite directions.

Why are you trying to combat a map that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has put work into creating?

Because it's the only one we have to work with. I need an accurate FE map so that I can see the edge myself. You claim it's there but have thus far provided me evidence to back your claim.

Thank You,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

TomInAustin

• 1349
• Round Duh
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #276 on: August 29, 2017, 04:16:53 PM »
Why are you trying to combat a map that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has put work into creating?
Because it's all your team has provided us.  It should be super easy to produce a flat map of the flat earth.  Somebody should get on that.

I am on that.   It's really pretty simple using distances that Tom agrees are valid.  Speed * duration = distance.  Aircraft speeds are determined by radar so there should be no problem.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9106
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #277 on: August 29, 2017, 05:02:33 PM »
Aircraft speeds are determined by radar

Evidence?

TomInAustin

• 1349
• Round Duh
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #278 on: August 29, 2017, 05:28:21 PM »
Aircraft speeds are determined by radar

Evidence?

Here are some 787 Flight Test radar data results.

http://www.airinformatics.com/787za005.html

A few more here

Funny thing about companies spending billions on airplanes is that they don't just take the word of Boeing, but they rely on FAA radar data.  Note that it even says that there are gaps in the data due to flight plans.

On top of that, air traffic control monitors the speed and altitude of all airliners (as well as GA).   You can listen to them live if you like.  They routinely tell pilots to climb or descend, maintain a heading, an altitude, and a get this, a speed!  Imagine that, they can see in real time how fast a plane is moving.  This is not a mystery.   Aircraft speeds are very well known.

You can see live radar data here.  Click on a plane and be amazed.  Note the ground speeds.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

inquisitive

• 1069
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #279 on: August 29, 2017, 05:57:01 PM »
Aircraft speeds are determined by radar

Evidence?
Maybe you could explain how you would calculate aircraft speeds, plus determine the shape and size of the earth.