1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on Today at 07:27:17 PM »

I showed you the calculation at Reply#2.  Average the groundspeeds of 2 aircraft flying in opposite directions at a similar airspeed in a similar airspace; for each aircraft the difference from the average is the headwind/tailwind speed component. 

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by Action80 on Today at 07:01:44 PM »

Those numbers are around the plane's cruise speed. But the plane should not be traveling at a speed around its cruising speed, since we know that on long haul flights planes across the oceans planes use jet streams to reach their location. It would be traveling the plane's cruising speed + jet stream.

Jetstreams even enable supersonic flight for commercial aircraft.

On the flight trackers there have been some interesting anomalies. Jeran shows at the 1h32m mark of the following video about the flight between Auckland and Santiago that True Airspeed can be seen to far exceed ground speed. Over the course of the flight the True Airspeed is either "N/A" or shows quite fast speeds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKHY72x3ZU

A jetstream is just a wind, and I accounted for it in my calculation.  A look at any jetstream map will show that they are predominently westerly in the southern hemisphere, which corresponds with my previous statement and, if it is assisting the eastbound flight will it not be hindering the westbound which is occuring simultaneously and at similar latitudes? 

We've also done Jeran's thing before.  Simultaneous to the "supersonic" speeds is a series of altitude changes which an F-16 would struggle with.  Its just a batch of missing data on aircraft position; when it recovers the position data it integrates the delta-position over time to determine speed.

How did you account for it? Can you show the calculation?

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on Today at 06:55:21 PM »

Those numbers are around the plane's cruise speed. But the plane should not be traveling at a speed around its cruising speed, since we know that on long haul flights planes across the oceans planes use jet streams to reach their location. It would be traveling the plane's cruising speed + jet stream.

Jetstreams even enable supersonic flight for commercial aircraft.

On the flight trackers there have been some interesting anomalies. Jeran shows at the 1h32m mark of the following video about the flight between Auckland and Santiago that True Airspeed can be seen to far exceed ground speed. Over the course of the flight the True Airspeed is either "N/A" or shows quite fast speeds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKHY72x3ZU

A jetstream is just a wind, and I accounted for it in my calculation.  A look at any jetstream map will show that they are predominently westerly in the southern hemisphere, which corresponds with my previous statement and, if it is assisting the eastbound flight will it not be hindering the westbound which is occuring simultaneously and at similar latitudes? 

We've also done Jeran's thing before.  Simultaneous to the "supersonic" speeds is a series of altitude changes which an F-16 would struggle with.  Its just a batch of missing data on aircraft position; when it recovers the position data it integrates the delta-position over time to determine speed.   

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 05:29:21 PM »

Wait... So you're bragging that Trump is less wealthy than he was in March?

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by Action80 on Today at 05:00:18 PM »

The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times.

Do you have evidence to back up this outright lie?

Yes. The evidence is that if the sun is a few thousand miles above a flat earth then you would have a clear line of sight to it at all time.

A statement made by some random contributor to this forum does not constitute evidence.

You should be able to model it on scale to back up your claim.

What would stop you seeing it?

Lots of things...distance for one, physical aspects of the aether for two, occluding objects for three...I could go on.

It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.

Just another baseless statement based on your inability to envision alternate and, certainly possible, modes of operation.

All that is in the context of the mainstream physics. You may have other mechanisms to explain this - EA, some magnification effect and I'm not sure about the luminosity one - the sun does admittedly change at sunset, but not during most of the day as it surely would if the sun was at a significantly different distance.

As I said, EA is a reasonable explanation. It's better than "perspective" which makes no sense at all. But it is at best a hypothesis, not a well formed theory.

"Mainstream physics"...joyfully uttered by most typical RE-zealots who visit this forum, as if they have any sort of grasp as to meaning.

You, of all contributors here, have the least amount of standing (based on the evidence of your posting history), to even include such a term in any of your posts.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by AATW on Today at 04:41:30 PM »

Not even in the top 300? What a loser!

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by AATW on Today at 04:39:50 PM »

The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times.

Do you have evidence to back up this outright lie?

Yes. The evidence is that if the sun is a few thousand miles above a flat earth then you would have a clear line of sight to it at all time. What would stop you seeing it? It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.
All that is in the context of the mainstream physics. You may have other mechanisms to explain this - EA, some magnification effect and I'm not sure about the luminosity one - the sun does admittedly change at sunset, but not during most of the day as it surely would if the sun was at a significantly different distance.

As I said, EA is a reasonable explanation. It's better than "perspective" which makes no sense at all. But it is at best a hypothesis, not a well formed theory.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by Action80 on Today at 03:57:08 PM »

The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times.

Do you have evidence to back up this outright lie?

Why do you persist in repeatedly writing this outright lie on this forum?

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by AATW on Today at 01:38:31 PM »

Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship.

Did it, though? He spends some time in ENaG claiming that things like ladies dresses disappear bottom first on a flat path, which they don't. And then he claims that ships which have gone over the horizon can be "restored", which they can't.

Lady Blount's society collected the professional surveyor and railway proofs.

Did they? Well where are those then? I looked her up and found something about some photo they took. It's here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth,_Lady_Blount#/media/File:Blount-photo-bedford-level.jpg
What the hell is that supposed to be?!

EA and UA are admittedly pretty good explanations for certain observations BUT they are just that.
The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times. So EA is used as an explanation. It's not a bad one, but it's at best a hypothesis that "light bends upwards", and the formula shown in the Wiki has no derivation and an unknown constant.
The model mainstream physics has of gravity can't work on a FE so UA is used as an explanation. Again, not a bad one but it doesn't explain variations of gravity so those have to be hand-waved away.

This is an issue with your way of enquiring. You form a theory which explains observation rather than forming a hypothesis and then making observations which test that hypothesis - which then becomes a theory as observations build confidence. I know this is deliberate, and working the other way around could lead to the same conclusions. The issue though is when observations are presented which show your theory to be wrong you just claim they're wrong/flawed/fake. That's not a way to make progress.

If you ask me what is happening on earth thousands of miles away, there will be less research there. The total world model is a topic for the next generation of FE to figure out.

Is it, though? There are flat earthers all around the...disc, right? And we have instant communications now.
There are surely ways you can do large scale experiments reasonably cheaply. I'm sure you could club together and get a ticket for a Santiago to Sydney plane ticket, a FE person on that flight could gather a load of data which would help you advance things.

Are you now leaning towards the bi-polar model? That does solve some issues - like how there are jobs in Antarctica, sailing races around it and so on. But I'm not sure how the 24 hour sun works in the Arctic and Antarctic AND the other observed patterns of light and motion of the sun would work. It solves some problems which the monopole model has in the southern hemisphere, but it seems to create some equally big ones.

10

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by Action80 on Today at 12:49:30 PM »

The answer to this question is entirely dependent on the purpose for which it was asked.

No one navigates utilizing a map of the entire earth.

Waypoints utilized for navigation by seafarers and aviators have been transcribed to the flat earth plane utilizing overhead coordinates of matching guiding light points from the celestial sphere above our heads.