The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Media => Topic started by: İntikam on April 28, 2016, 07:43:06 AM

Title: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on April 28, 2016, 07:43:06 AM
1-

EUROPE IS COMPLETELY FLAT

Started distances with "planned". Because we know the distances on the Europe is completely true.

Destination cities:

Paris
Amsterdam
Vienna
Madrid
Istanbul

Selected Ports:

Paris Charles De Gaulle
Amsterdam Schiphol
Vienna International
Madrid Barajas
Istanbul Ataturk

STARTING DISTANCES (PLANNED FROM FLYING CITIES)

Amsterdam   Paris Charles De Gaulle 399 kms
Amsterdam   Istanbul Ataturk 2212
Amsterdam   Vienna 961
Paris Charles De Gaulle   Istanbul Ataturk 2239
Paris Charles De Gaulle   Vienna 1036
Istanbul Ataturk   Vienna 1252
Madrid   Amsterdam 1459
Madrid   Paris Charles De Gaulle 1064
Madrid   Istanbul Ataturk 2717
Madrid   Vienna 1807


Method:

First we draw a line on autocad that the lenght one of these destinations. After that we draw 2 circles to find the next city location. It is enought 2 circle to find the next place on the map. After all cities placed, then we choose the midpoints between intersections. Correcting the places of the cities. Calculating and writing all other  distances on the map and see how we mistaken.

Results:

(https://i.imgsafe.org/e6df245.jpg)

STARTING AND FINISHING DISTANCES (PLANNED FROM FLYING CITIES / SHOWN ON THE MAP (MISTAKE BY DRAWING)

Amsterdam   Paris Charles De Gaulle 399 kms 399 (0km)
Amsterdam   Istanbul Ataturk 2212 / 2214 ( +2 kms)
Amsterdam   Vienna 961 / 961 (0 km)
Paris Charles De Gaulle   Istanbul Ataturk 2239 / 2237 (-2 kms)
Paris Charles De Gaulle   Vienna 1036 / 1036 (0 km)
Istanbul Ataturk   Vienna 1252 / 1254 (+2 kms)
Madrid   Amsterdam 1459 / 1460 (+1 km)
Madrid   Paris Charles De Gaulle 1064 / 1063 (-1 km)
Madrid   Istanbul Ataturk 2717 / 2717 ( 0 km)
Madrid   Vienna 1807 / 1807 ( 0 km)

Total error: (absolute value) 2+2+2+1+1= 8 kms
Total lenght: 15.146 kms


proportional mistake = 8 / 15.146 = 0,0005 << 0,0050 mathematichal error limit.

Spherical and flat maps do not overlap. So the Europe is completely flat.


Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on April 28, 2016, 08:10:29 AM
We'll draw all of the continents seperated to others. We'll use the distances that planned distances from flying cities. Because; It is easy to correct the distances on the same continents by a lot of way.

When we finished the continents, then we'll start  to cities to cities destinations from different continents for correct them all continents to same map. The method will be different that time because the "planned" distances are usually wrong between cities stayed on different continents. This caused by some different reasons. So then we'll use "average shortest flying distance" to calculate the real distances.

Next continent will be Asia.

Europe
Asia
Africa
N America
S America
Australia

will be mapped one by one. At last the maps will be merged. I'm working online so i'm starting to Asia now. I wanted to find the time i hope it ends today.

Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on April 28, 2016, 08:55:25 AM
We started to Asia with these cities:

moscow sheremetyevo
beijing capital
new delhi indira gandhi
astana int
dubai international


But we see that Beijing is in incorrect place and distances are so wrong. See how the planes going a wrong route when coming from Beijing to Delhi. They do not extend the road map faulty. So we extract out the beijing  from the list. I'll find another city instead of Beijing.

See these 4 photos to understand what is going on. It is enough to fly directly China to India but plane unnecessarily traveling around a lot of country. Look to 4th picture first.

(https://i.imgsafe.org/de9de49.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/dd68646.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/dc0f410.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/e02fc3d.jpg)

moscow sheremetyevo
new delhi indira gandhi
astana int
dubai international
Guangzhou Baiyun Int'l (instead of Beijing)

After that we see the globe map of the Asia completely wrong. The planned distances does not match with the flying distances. So we'll get "shortest" flying distances instead of "planning distances". Then we'll correct it by reducing 10 kms because of fixes statistic errors.

moscow sheremetyevo vs new delhi indira gandhi (planned 4367 kms)

4.440 km
4.540 km
4.513 km
4.598 km
4.509 km
4.497 km
4.551 km
4.484 km
4.744 km
4.567 km
4.480 km
4.451 km
4.614 km
4.616 km
4.519 km
4.517 km
4.510 km
4.503 km
4.700 km
4.658 km
4.595 km
4.586 km
4.503 km

minimum value is: 4.440 kms
statistic fix: -10kms

moscow sheremetyevo vs new delhi indira gandhi exact distance : 4.430 kms (by flying routes)




Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on April 28, 2016, 12:16:59 PM
Our work will be hard because:

The "Asia" Globe earth map is clearly wrong.

The map is wrong so the pilots often are going to the wrong way.

There is only one fly between Beijing to New Delhi. Usually a lot of flyings are between Shangai to New Delhi.

(https://i.imgsafe.org/b1b275d.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/16bb231.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/171861a.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/186ea55.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/18c04ac.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/19354b6.jpg)

As we see that that only one plane flying with about 1.100 kms route mistake. This caused by the map is wrong.

Lets see the other route: Shangai to New Delhi:

(https://i.imgsafe.org/19aa1ed.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/1a5c49a.jpg)

As we see that the distance of flying between Shangai to new Delhi is shorter than the distance of beijing-New Delhi. Is it really on the google "round" map?

(https://i.imgsafe.org/1baa8a2.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/1c06f22.jpg)

Google saying that shangai to delhi is 4228 kms
Google saying that beijing to delhi is 3771 kms

Ooppss! Google map is a nonsence! :D
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on April 29, 2016, 08:56:08 AM
We saw that the globe Asia map is completely a nonsence. We'll return to Asia later. Lets continue with other continents.

Nort America.

Selected ports:

Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)
Seattle-Tacoma Intl (as north west)
Miami Intl (as south east)
JFK (as North East)
Anchorage Intl  (as alaska, as 5th port)
Lic. Benito Juarez Int'l as Mexico

will be continue...




Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 09, 2016, 07:57:24 AM
a method for the correction of the incorrect distances.                        
                        
                        
   
Quote
planned   average fly (best 3 of last 50)   average mistake (%)   average mistake (km)            
Amsterdam   Paris Charles De Gaulle    399   415                  
      415                  
      414                  
   AVERAGE   414,67   3,93   15,667            
                        
Amsterdam   Istanbul Ataturk    2212   2263                  
      2252                  
      2232                  
   AVERAGE   2249,00   1,67   37,000            
                        
Amsterdam   Vienna    961   981                  
      989                  
      977                  
   AVERAGE   982,33   2,22   21,333            
                        
                        
Paris Charles De Gaulle   Istanbul Ataturk    2239   2246                  
      2303                  
      2295                  
   AVERAGE   2281,33   1,89   42,333            
                        
Paris Charles De Gaulle   Vienna    1036   1045                  
      1040                  
      1036                  
   AVERAGE   1040,33   0,42   4,333            
                        
Istanbul Ataturk   Vienna    1252   1263                  
      1268                  
      1265                  
   AVERAGE   1265,33   1,06   13,333            
                        
Madrid   Amsterdam    1459   1460                  
      1482                  
      1468                  
   AVERAGE   1470,00   0,75   11,000            
                        
Madrid   Paris Charles De Gaulle     1064   1097                  
      1091                  
      1093                  
   AVERAGE   1093,67   2,79   29,667            
                        
Madrid   Istanbul Ataturk    2717   2813                  
      2809                  
      2863                  
   AVERAGE   2828,33   4,10   111,333            
                        
Madrid   Vienna     1807   1813                  
      1876                  
      1874                  
   AVERAGE   1854,33   2,62   47,333            
                        
         %   KMS            
   AVERAGE MISTAKE (ALL PORTS)      2,145   33,333            
                        
CORRECTING TEST                        
      PLANNED   AVERAGE FLOWN   CORR.(PLANNED %)   CORR.(PLANNED KMS)   (planned- planned %mistake)   Flown-planned %mistake   
Amsterdam   Paris Charles De Gaulle       399   414,6666666667   407,559   432,333   2,145   8,3541353383   
Amsterdam   Istanbul Ataturk       2212   2249   2259,447   2245,333   2,145   1,5069168174   
Amsterdam   Vienna       961   982   981,613   994,333   2,145   3,4685744017   
Paris Charles De Gaulle   Istanbul Ataturk       2239   2281   2287,027   2272,333   2,145   1,4887449754   
Paris Charles De Gaulle   Vienna       1036   1040   1058,222   1069,333   2,145   3,2174710425   
Istanbul Ataturk   Vienna       1252   1265   1278,855   1285,333   2,145   2,6623801917   
Madrid   Amsterdam       1459   1470   1490,296   1492,333   2,145   2,2846470185   
Madrid   Paris Charles De Gaulle        1064   1094   1086,823   1097,333   2,145   3,1328007519   
Madrid   Istanbul Ataturk       2717   2828   2775,280   2750,333   2,145   1,2268310637   
Madrid   Vienna        1807   1854   1845,760   1840,333   2,145   1,8446596569   
                        
               AVERAGE ERROR   2,145   2,9187161258   

explanation this calculate: The average mistake between "best 3 flies of last 50 fly and planned distance" as a percentage %2,145 , as km 33,333 kms. We see that get percentage is better than get kms as an average mistake by compare with correcting city distances. Correcting by persentage has %2,145 average error and correcting by kms has %2,919 average error. So %2,145 correcting rate will be used.

We are getting the "planned" distances  for Europe as "%100 true".

We are  approaching others suspicious.

This calculating shows us "average errors" between flown and planned distances of cities in Europe. We do it for get a refference to using on calculating the other  continentals.

For all of other continentals This method will be Used:

If difference between "average shortest flown distance" (will be calculated by best 3 flies of last 50)  and "planned distance" for a city  is lower than < % 2,145 ; then planned distances will be accepted as "TRUE".

If difference between "average shortest flown distance" and "planned distance" for a city  is higher than > % 2,145 ; then planned distances will be accepted as "FALSE". Then it will be calculated by "average shortest flown distance" / (1+%2,145)

Notice:

it wasn't business busy yet, but soon it starts. chief driving around.  I hope he forgets me today.  ;D If he does, i hope i can finish to  working on America today.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 11, 2016, 08:19:30 AM
PLANNED    / BEST 3 FLOWN    / CORRECTED PLANNED VALUE(best 3/%2,145) /   ON MY MAP / DİFFERENCE CALCULATE AND MAP (%)
Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)   Seattle-Tacoma Intl (KSEA)   1617,00   1587,33   1554,00   1554   0,00
Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)   Miami Intl (MIA)   3855,00   3824,67   3744,35   3744   0,01
Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)   JFK (KJFK) (as North East)   4063,33   4084,33   3998,56   3991   0,19
Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)   Anchorage Intl Alaska (PANC)   3814,00   3858,33   3777,31   3797   0,52
Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)   Lic. Benito Juarez Int'l as Mexico (MMMX)   2598,67   2529,00   2475,89   2463   0,52
Seattle-Tacoma Intl (KSEA)   Miami Intl (MIA)   4459,33   4480,00   4385,92   4385   0,02
Seattle-Tacoma Intl (KSEA)   (KJFK)  (as North East)   4054,67   4027,67   3943,09   3949   0,15
Seattle-Tacoma Intl (KSEA)   Anchorage Intl Alaska (PANC)   2397,33   2354,67   2305,22   2289   0,70
Miami Intl (MIA)   (KJFK)  (as North East)   1827,67   1826,00   1787,65   1803   0,86
Miami Intl (MIA)   Anchorage Intl Alaska (PANC)   6486,33   6522,67   6385,69   6347   0,61
Miami Intl (MIA)   Lic. Benito Juarez Int'l as Mexico (MMMX)   2175,67   2102,67   2058,51   2049   0,46
(KJFK)  (as North East)   Anchorage Intl Alaska (PANC)   5524,67   5485,33   5370,14   5408   0,70
(KJFK)  (as North East)   Lic. Benito Juarez Int'l as Mexico (MMMX)   3463,33   3430,67   3358,62   3370   0,34
                  
AVERAGE ERROR % 0,39 < % 0,50 MATHEMATHICAL ERROR LIMIT.

Result map of North America with +- %0,4

(https://i.imgsafe.org/e183712.jpg)

Compare to google map

ON MY MAP   / DIRECT (GOOGLE)   / DIFFERENCE MY MAP AND GOOGLE (%)
Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)   Seattle-Tacoma Intl (KSEA)   1554   1539   0,97
Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)   Miami Intl (MIA)   3744   3767   -0,61
Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)   JFK (KJFK) (as North East)   3991   3979   0,30
Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)   Anchorage Intl Alaska (PANC)   3797   3775   0,58
Los Angeles Intl (KLAX) (as south west)   Lic. Benito Juarez Int'l as Mexico (MMMX)   2463   2503   -1,60
Seattle-Tacoma Intl (KSEA)   Miami Intl (MIA)   4385   4384   0,02
Seattle-Tacoma Intl (KSEA)   (KJFK)  (as North East)   3949   3891   1,49
Seattle-Tacoma Intl (KSEA)   Anchorage Intl Alaska (PANC)   2289   2328   -1,68
Miami Intl (MIA)   (KJFK)  (as North East)   1803   1759   2,50
Miami Intl (MIA)   Anchorage Intl Alaska (PANC)   6347   6442   -1,47
Miami Intl (MIA)   Lic. Benito Juarez Int'l as Mexico (MMMX)   2049   2053   -0,19
(KJFK)  (as North East)   Anchorage Intl Alaska (PANC)   5408   5440   -0,59
(KJFK)  (as North East)   Lic. Benito Juarez Int'l as Mexico (MMMX)   3370   3369   0,03

Total average difference (plus and minus signs) % -0,02
Total average difference (the sum of the absolute value.) % 0,93

We started to gettin value with best3 flown / %2,145

I think %0,93 difference with google map and %0,39 difference with calculated values show  our method is not wrong.            
                  
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 11, 2016, 10:20:29 AM
Will Start to the South America with:

Tocumen Int'l - Panama (PTY / MPTO) **
São Paulo-Guarulhos Int'l (GRU / SBGR)
Jorge Chavez Int Lima -Peru (LIM / SPJC)
Ministro Pistarini - Buenos Aires(EZE/SAEZ)
Comodoro Arturo -Santiago Chile ((SCL / SCEL)

** Cheddi Jagan (Jamaica) (GEO / SYCJ) has changed with Tocumen Int'l (PTY / MPTO), because Cheddi Jagan Airport has not enough number of flight.

Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 12, 2016, 12:40:49 PM
FLAT SOUTH AMERICA

CODECODE CORRECTED PLANNED VALUE (BEST3/ %2,145)   PLANNED    MAP   map difference with calculated (%)   map difference with planned (%)
TOCUMEN – Panama   MPTO   São Paulo-Guarulhos Int'l   SBGR   5062   5091   5054   0,2   0,7
TOCUMEN – Panama   MPTO   Jorge Chavez Int Lima -Peru   SPJC   2366   2361   2359   0,3   0,1
TOCUMEN – Panama   MPTO   Ministro Pistarini - Buenos Aires   SAEZ   5297   5357   5308   0,2   0,9
TOCUMEN – Panama   MPTO   Comodoro Arturo -Santiago Chile   SCEL   4768   4814   4765   0,1   1,0
São Paulo-Guarulhos Int'l   SBGR   Jorge Chavez Int Lima -Peru   SPJC   3435   3479   3432   0,1   1,4
São Paulo-Guarulhos Int'l   SBGR   Ministro Pistarini - Buenos Aires   SAEZ   1732   1724   1732   0,0   0,5
São Paulo-Guarulhos Int'l   SBGR   Comodoro Arturo -Santiago Chile   SCEL   2616   2617   2616   0,0   0,0
Jorge Chavez Int Lima -Peru   SPJC   Comodoro Arturo -Santiago Chile   SCEL   2425   2465   2425   0,0   1,6
Jorge Chavez Int Lima -Peru   SPJC   Ministro Pistarini - Buenos Aires   SAEZ   3126   3157   3126   0,0   1,0
Ministro Pistarini - Buenos Aires   SAEZ   Comodoro Arturo -Santiago Chile   SCEL   1159   1140   1159   0,0   1,7
                        
AVERAGE   difference with calculated values % 0,09 < %0,50

AVERAGE difference with google map % 0,89 > %0,50

Results:

map is consistent with the flight times.

map, is not compatible with the google map. (Not so far)

South America Map:

(https://i.imgsafe.org/a25b177.jpg)

+- %0,1


Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 13, 2016, 07:37:19 AM
For you know how these workings will be united, i want to show a united drawing like this:

(https://i.imgsafe.org/21abdb7.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 13, 2016, 07:59:37 AM
Africa working will start with:

Johannesburg Or Tambo (FAOR / JNB)
Cairo - Egypt (HECA / CAI)
Lagos- Nigeria Murtala Mohammed Int'l  (LOS / DNMM)
Addis Ababa- Ethiopian Bole Int'l  (ADD / HAAB)
Luanda - Angola Quatro de Fevereiro (LAD / FNLU)
Kotoka – Gana (DGAA)
Mohammed V Casablanca

I think i made a good choice because these 7 cities drawing the African map completely. :)

EDİT:
Port Louis DELETED: insufficent number of flyings.
Kotoka – Gana (DGAA)  added
Mohammed V Casablanca added

Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 13, 2016, 01:24:54 PM
I left the Asia map to last because China map is incorrect and a significant part of the problem. Probably we may have to deal with it for a long time. To see what happens look what is going on.

I found a China map with language Chinese. Because you can't deceive a Chinese with wrong China map. :D

I compared it to google map. And see whats happened. See which axles are wrong.

(https://i.imgsafe.org/5264a19.jpg)

1) In Chinese map the distance between Taiwan and Korea is longer than the reference lenght (number 3) chosen on the left side.
But on the google map number 3 and Taiwan-Korea distance is equal.

2) In Chinese map the distance between Taiwan and Banglades is longer than a line passing the Mongolia.
But on the google map the line passing the Mongolia is longer than the distance of Taiwan and Bangladesh.

This  result is Compatible with non-compliance of air flight.

As a result google map showing China smaller than real.

We correct it to real. And it will be near to Australia. So Australia will solve from America and China will correct with Australia and Europa. This is the reason why we left the working on China to the last working.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 15, 2016, 03:57:07 PM
Africa is smaller then estimated.

One example:

Port/port / on map or planned / average of best 3 flown / corrected route
Johannesburg Or Tambo (FAOR / JNB)   Luanda - Angola Quatro de Fevereiro (LAD / FNLU)   2493   / 2502 / 2449,79

This means;
Johannesburg to Luanda (Angola) on the global map: 2493 kms.
Johannesburg to Luanda (Angola) average of best 3 flown: 2502 kms.
Corrected distance by best 3 flown / 1,02145 = 2450 kms.

The global map has about %1,7 error. It is more than mathemathical error limit %0,5 , so the google map on Africa is wrong.

To understand this issue think about best 3 flown and direct distance (from global map).

The average of best 3 is 2.502 kms - on the global map: 2.493 kms = 9 kms. It means 3 of planes flown with only 9 kms mistake. This is impossible because landing, takeoff and maneveur distance is impossible to do in 9 kms. And pilot going on completely a flat drawn. Completely impossible. Anyway, we will do the true.  :)

There is another one.

This is one of best 3 flown from St Louis island to Johannesburg.

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/SAA190/history/20160515/0825Z/FAOR/FIMP

Direkt: 3.071 km    Planned: 3.070 km    Flown: 3.071 km No any loosing on the way. Zero tolerance.  ;D Actually probably it is shorter than direct route but it is impossible to show it on the map so probably site accept is as equal with direct distance but this is impossible too.  :D

Ahah if you want to know what thats means, that means the Africa showen bigger than real Africa on the google map and other maps. It will be funny to correct the African map.  ;D

And if this detecting is true and real Africa is smaller than map, then "the legend of Equatoral 40.000 kms" goes to trash can.  ;D

Wait i'll open it the debate forum after i finished the African map, as a matter "why Africa shown on the google map bigger than the real". Yes it is a hard question but i think globers will find an answer like "it is caused by perspective of the satelites" :D  ;D  :D  8)

         
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 16, 2016, 08:11:46 AM
It was not so funny. because on city "Addis Ababa" a problem occurred. It was hard to solve this problem because most of planes was flown with "planned" distances. And our formula "flown distance / 1,02145" doesn't work on the map. But when i get "planned" distance instead of "best 3 fly / 1,0245" it has fixed to other cities. This means Addis Ababa on the global map with same size. Usually mappers "forcing" the cities to be bigger or smaller than real to show them as a "globe", but they did'nt do that for Addis Ababa. I don't know why they act like this but now the problem is solved.

CITY   CITY   PLANNED   FLOWN   CORRECTED   MAP   map/corrected(%)
Johannesburg Or Tambo (FAOR / JNB)   Cairo - Egypt (HECA / CAI)   6272   6362   6228,40   6228   0,006
         6378         
         6376         
         6332         
Johannesburg Or Tambo (FAOR / JNB)   Lagos- Nigeria Murtala Mohammed Int'l  (LOS / DNMM)   4528   4574   4477,95   4478   0,001
         4575         
         4574         
         4573         
Johannesburg Or Tambo (FAOR / JNB)   Addis Ababa- Ethiopian Bole Int'l  (ADD / HAAB)   4072   4081   4072,00   4081   0,221
This planned distance is true   This planned distance is true      4078         
         4081         
         4083         
Johannesburg Or Tambo (FAOR / JNB)   Luanda - Angola Quatro de Fevereiro (LAD / FNLU)   2493   2502   2449,79   2450   0,009
         2510         
         2499         
         2498         
Cairo - Egypt (HECA / CAI)   Lagos- Nigeria Murtala Mohammed Int'l  (LOS / DNMM)   3936   3947   3864,44   3864   0,011
         3949         
         3950         
         3943         
Cairo - Egypt (HECA / CAI)   Addis Ababa- Ethiopian Bole Int'l  (ADD / HAAB)   2476   2477   2476,00   2477   0,040
This planned distance is true   This planned distance is true      2476         
         2478         
         2476         
Lagos- Nigeria Murtala Mohammed Int'l  (LOS / DNMM)   Addis Ababa- Ethiopian Bole Int'l  (ADD / HAAB)   3920   3924   3841,92   3778   1,692
         3931         
         3921         
         3921         
Addis Ababa- Ethiopian Bole Int'l  (ADD / HAAB)   Luanda - Angola Quatro de Fevereiro (LAD / FNLU)   3461   3468   3461,00   3482   0,603
This planned distance is true   This planned distance is true      3469         
         3468         
         3468         
Kotoka – Gana (DGAA)   Johannesburg Or Tambo (FAOR / JNB)   4679   4700   4601,30   4591   0,224
         4709         
         4696         
         4695         
Kotoka – Gana (DGAA)   Cairo - Egypt (HECA / CAI)   4288   4308   4217,21   4249   0,748
         4317         
         4288         
         4318         
Kotoka – Gana (DGAA)   Lagos- Nigeria Murtala Mohammed Int'l  (LOS / DNMM)   401   419   410,53   410   0,129
         427         
         428         
         403         
Kotoka – Gana (DGAA)   Addis Ababa- Ethiopian Bole Int'l  (ADD / HAAB)   4317   4317   4226,34   4174   1,254
         4317         
         4317         
         4317         
MOHAMMED V CASABLANCA (GMMN / CMN)   Luanda - Angola Quatro de Fevereiro (LAD / FNLU)   5192   5267   5156,40   5147   0,183
         5267         
         5265         
         5269         
MOHAMMED V CASABLANCA (GMMN / CMN)   Cairo - Egypt (HECA / CAI)   3688   3782   3702,58   3702   0,016
         3782         
         3779         
         3785         
MOHAMMED V CASABLANCA (GMMN / CMN)   Lagos- Nigeria Murtala Mohammed Int'l  (LOS / DNMM)   3188   3200   3133,13   3142   0,282
         3201         
         3191         
         3209   

         0,36      
                  Average difference of "map/corrected" = %0,36


This is final image for Africa. +- %0,36 < %0,50 mathemathichal error limit.

(https://i.imgsafe.org/d314379.jpg)

I wrote the aligned dims on it for you see the distances and correct them, are they logical or not.  8)

Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 16, 2016, 08:50:10 AM
Selected cities for Australia and islands of territory

Perth
Sydney
Brisbane
Auckland New Zeland
Narita Japan
Hong Kong
Beijing
Shangai
Kuala Lumpur
Singapore Changi
Melbourne
Darwin

Will be control with cities early calculated:
Los Angeles
Chile
Johannesburg
Istanbul


I tried to keep the number much. because sometimes we  can't find a sufficient number of air flight in some airports.

Edit:

Hang Nadim Singapore
Juanda Singapore
Christchurch New Zeland
Iloilo Philippines
Saipan (Northern Mariana Islands)
Port Moresby (Papua New Ginea)

are deleted. (spends more time)

Melbourne added.
Darwin added
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 18, 2016, 10:18:28 AM
            PLANNED       BEST     3       FLOWN         CORRECTED      CORRECTED   MAP   difference
Melbourne   YMML   Perth   YPPH   2704   2720   2720   2720   2662,88   -41,12   2662,88   2717   2,03
Melbourne   YMML   Sydney   YSSY   706   733   726   729   714,02   8,02   714,02   719   0,70
Melbourne   YMML   Brisbane   YBBN   1382   1425   1429   1438   1400,62   18,62   1400,62   1417   1,17
Melbourne   YMML   Darwin   DRW   3136   3168   3170   3156   3098,21   -37,79   3098,21   3098   0,01
Melbourne   YMML   Auckland New Zeland   NZAA   2640   2647   2645   2646   2590,44   -49,56   2590,44   2622   1,22
Melbourne   YMML   Singapore Changi    SIN   6041   6104   6085   6110   5971,58   -69,42   5971,58   5980   0,14
Melbourne   YMML   Hong Kong    VHHH   7421   7483   7494   7490   7331,73   -89,27   7331,73   7245   1,18
Melbourne   YMML   Kuala Lumpur   KUL   6322   6397   6401   6390   6261,69   -60,31   6261,69   5979   4,51
Melbourne   YMML   Shangai Pudong   ZSPD   8027   8593   8588   8594   8411,25   384,25   8411,25   7697   8,49
Melbourne   YMML   Beijing    ZBAA   9123   9613   9483   9610   9367,73   244,73   9367,73   8874   5,27
Melbourne   YMML   Narita Tokyo Japan   RJAA   8188   8328   8272   8319   8131,90   -56,10   8131,90   7922   2,58
                                    
Perth   YPPH   Sydney   YSSY   3281   3313   3318   3309   3243,75   -37,25   3243,75   3298   1,67
Perth   YPPH   Brisbane   YBBN   3612   3680   3677   3683   3602,72   -9,28   3602,72   3642   1,09
Perth   YPPH   Darwin   DRW   2655   2682   2684   2676   2624,37   -30,63   2624,37   2650   0,98
Perth   YPPH   Auckland New Zeland   NZAA   5342   5371   5439   5386   5285,30   -56,70   5285,30   5339   1,02
Perth (Planned distance is true)   YPPH   Singapore Changi    SIN   3916   3943   3962   3976   3877,17   -38,83   3877,17   3912   0,90
Perth   YPPH   Hong Kong    VHHH   6043   6147   6101   6161   6007,47   -35,53   6007,47   5933   1,24
Perth   YPPH   Kuala Lumpur   KUL   4145   4190   4193   4190   4102,99   -42,01   4102,99   4191   2,15
                                    
Sydney   YSSY   Brisbane   YBBN   754   785   769   786   763,62   9,62   763,62   779   2,01
Sydney   YSSY   Darwin   DRW   3158   3196   3200   3203   3132,48   -25,52   3132,48   3132   0,02
Sydney   YSSY   Auckland New Zeland   NZAA   2162   2171   2170   2172   2125,41   -36,59   2125,41   2123   0,11
Sydney   YSSY   Singapore Changi    SIN   6301   6352   6368   6360   6226,44   -74,56   6226,44   6247   0,33
Sydney   YSSY   Narita Tokyo Japan   RJAA   7841   7930   7895   7946   7757,27   -83,73   7757,27   7645   1,45
Sydney   YSSY   Hong Kong    VHHH   7402   7448   7445   7449   7290,94   -111,06   7290,94   7266   0,34
Sydney   YSSY   Beijing    ZBAA   8974   9444   9446   9399   9231,65   257,65   9231,65   8780   4,89
Sydney   YSSY   Kuala Lumpur   KUL   6592   6632   6627   6629   6490,12   -101,88   6490,12   6558   1,05
                                    
Brisbane   YBBN   Darwin   DRW   2854   2890   2884   2895   2828,98   -25,02   2828,98   2845   0,57
Brisbane   YBBN   Auckland New Zeland   NZAA   2298   2315   2315   2316   2266,71   -31,29   2266,71   2267   0,01
Brisbane   YBBN   Singapore Changi    SIN   6150   6220   6237   6238   6100,80   -49,20   6100,80   6122   0,35
Brisbane   YBBN   Narita Tokyo Japan   RJAA   7156   7252   7223   7277   7098,41   -57,59   7098,41   7015   1,17
Brisbane   YBBN   Hong Kong    VHHH   6956   7000   7007   7012   6859,20   -96,80   6859,20   6865   0,08
                                    
Auckland New Zeland   NZAA   Narita Tokyo Japan   RJAA   8846   8929   8915   8916   8732,68   -113,32   8732,68   9000   3,06
Auckland New Zeland   NZAA   Hong Kong    VHHH   9180   9272   9257   9280   9075,01   -104,99   9075,01   9117   0,46
Auckland New Zeland   NZAA   Beijing    ZBAA   10438   10929   10853   10896   10663,93   225,93   10663,93   10443   2,07
Auckland New Zeland   NZAA   Kuala Lumpur   KUL   8713   8826   8826   8852   8649,14   -63,86   8649,14   8645   0,05
                                    
Singapore Changi    SIN   Darwin   DRW   3344   3366   3364   3363   3293,68   -50,32   3293,68   3340   1,41
Singapore Changi    SIN   Auckland New Zeland   NZAA   8418   8495   8485   8484   8309,76   -108,24   8309,76   8334   0,29
Singapore Changi    SIN   Narita Tokyo Japan   RJAA   5364   5469   5441   5460   5342,08   -21,92   5342,08   5383   0,77
Singapore Changi    SIN   Hong Kong    VHHH   2568   2624   2624   2625   2569,22   1,22   2569,22   2624   2,13
Singapore Changi    SIN   Beijing    ZBAA   4495   4685   4659   4665   4571,61   76,61   4571,61   4619   1,04
Singapore Changi    SIN   Kuala Lumpur   KUL   297   314   308   313   305,12   8,12   305,12   311   1,93
                                    
Narita Tokyo Japan   RJAA   Hong Kong    VHHH   2965   3089   3087   3056   3012,71   47,71   3012,71   3062   1,64
Narita Tokyo Japan   RJAA   Beijing    ZBAA   2138   2348   2359   2351   2303,26   165,26   2303,26   2303   0,01
Narita Tokyo Japan   RJAA   Kuala Lumpur   KUL   5415   5504   5518   5505   5393,31   -21,69   5393,31   5436   0,79
                                    
Hong Kong    VHHH   Beijing    ZBAA   1994   2049   2070   2059   2016,09   22,09   2016,09   2016   0,00
Hong Kong    VHHH   Kuala Lumpur   KUL   2546   2597   2604   2603   2546,71   0,71   2546,71   2578   1,23
                                    
Beijing    ZBAA   Kuala Lumpur   KUL   4418   4614   4622   4595   4513,52   95,52   4513,52      
                                    
Shangai Pudong   ZSPD   Sydney   YSSY   7875   8246   8437   8458   8204,35   329,35   8204,35   7592   7,46
Shangai Pudong   ZSPD   Singapore Changi    SIN   3809   3874   3884   3899   3804,07   -4,93   3804,07   3886   2,15
Shangai Pudong   ZSPD   Auckland New Zeland   NZAA   9380   9744   9716   9748   9531,55   151,55   9531,55   9258   2,87
Shangai Pudong   ZSPD   Hong Kong    VHHH   1256   1369   1364   1336   1327,85   71,85   1327,85   1336   0,61
Shangai Pudong   ZSPD   Kuala Lumpur   KUL   3800   3873   3893   3863   3794,93   -5,07   3794,93   3876   2,14
Shangai Pudong   ZSPD   Narita Tokyo Japan   RJAA   1799   1848   1851   1834   1805,60   6,60   1805,60   1790   0,86
Shangai Pudong   ZSPD   Beijing    ZBAA   1100   1190   1187   1195   1165,66   65,66   1165,66   1190   2,09
                                    
                                    1,58

The map has +- %1,58 mistake > mathemathical error limit. This is caused the map which pilots using and most of them going wrong route and fliying more than the shortest distance that don't needed. But some pilots knowing true route.

For example:

Auckland (New Zeland) to Beijing distance on the google map 10.438kms, on this map 10.443 kms (about same), pilots flying shortest 10.663 about 200 kms more.
Melbourne to Beijing distance on the google map 9.123 kms, on this map 8.874 kms (300 kms fewer), pilots flying shortest 9.367 kms. This is about 360 kms more. This mistake causes the maps showing wrong route between Melbourne to Beijing than pilots going more than requered.

One of the good result of this map is showing the shortest route between Beijing and Melbourne. Pilots usually using the route passing from Hong Kong. But that route is about 250 kms more longer than a route passing from Shangai. Also Sydney has same stuation like Melbourne.

Anyway.

This is the final map of Australia and the territory.

(https://i.imgsafe.org/673ed50.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 18, 2016, 10:32:35 AM
Next continent is Asia (there's nothing else.) :)

Cities selected (if there is enough flyings)

Beijing
Moscow
Shangai
Pulkovo (St. Petersburg)
Novosibirsk
Almaty
Urumqi
Helsinki.

Notice:

Chinggis Khaan (Ulan bataar-Mongolia) deleted. insufficient number of flyings. Helsinki added.

India and territory will be added when the map will be combined.

When we combine continents, we'll use "3 points" method to combine. (2 points for combine, 1 or more for control and to correct)
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 18, 2016, 10:00:38 PM
      PLANNED        SHORTEST       3     ROUTE         AVERAGE   CORRECTED   MAP   difference
                           
Beijing   Moscow   5801   5994   5968   5980   5980,67   5855,08   5923   1,16
Beijing   Shangai   1100   1190   1190   1190   1190,00   1190,00   1190   0,00
Beijing   Pulkovo(St. Petersburg)   6063   6207   6196   6242   6215,00   6084,49   6063   0,35
Beijing   Novosibirsk   2999   3080   3050   3072   3067,33   3002,92   3063   2,00
Beijing   Almaty   3275   3355   3362   3321   3346,00   3275,74   3250   0,79
Beijing   Urumqi    2433   2449   2445   2446   2446,67   2395,29   2423   1,16
Moscow   Shangai   6858   7090   7077   7100   7089,00   6940,13   7031   1,31
Moscow   Pulkovo   600   615   621   618   618,00   605,02   613   1,32
Moscow   Novosibirsk   2803   2842   2836   2841   2839,67   2780,03   2891   3,99
Moscow   Almaty   3125   3135   3135   3134   3134,67   3068,84   3038   1,00
Moscow   Urumqi    3733   3760   3760   3747   3755,67   3676,80   3715   1,04
Shangai   Urumqi    3315   3431   3444   3441   3438,67   3366,46   3399   0,97
Pulkovo   Novosibirsk   3101   3108   3114   3123   3115,00   3049,59   3000   1,63
Pulkovo   Almaty   3613   3706   3665   3681   3684,00   3606,64   3392   5,95
Novosibirsk   Almaty   1360   1400   1399   1368   1389,00   1359,83   1360   0,01
Almaty   Urumqi    842   850   842   842   844,67   826,93   827   0,01
Helsinki   Beijing   6315   6405   6387   6432   6408,00   6273,43   6332   0,93
Helsinki   Shangai   7401   7586   7581   7587   7584,67   7425,39   7485   0,80
Helsinki   Moscow   875   940   937   937   938,00   918,30   927   0,95
                           
                        +-   % 1,34

This is the final image for Asia:

(http://i.imgsafe.org/a977caa.jpg)

Notice: Take care about where is the Shangai.

Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 21, 2016, 08:35:58 AM
Before preparing the full map i'm  preparing a preliminary study. I put the map these cities with correct distances. These cities meanwhile the most important and known cities around the world.

New York (North America)
Los Angeles (North America)
Moscow (Asia)
Beijing (Asia)
Tokyo (Japan)
Shangai
(Asia)
Sydney (Australia)
Chile (South America)
Johannesburg
(South Africa)

Is somebody say it is impossible?  :D

Now i'm going to control and correct them with these cities:

Madrid, (Europe)
İstanbul, (Europe)
Sao Paolo (South America)
Panama  (Central America)
Egypt or a city from (North Africa),

When i done the controls you'll see a basic presentations that i promised.

After that, i'll start the full map but it really spends a lot of time. Then a good photoshop user needed to create the map.

Another problem is Copyright making me think. This should be obvious to everyone . But this could be a problem if someone takes the copyright to copy it. Therefore, all of the maps will not be published before the copyright. Or we will solve this problem in advance .

Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 23, 2016, 12:17:32 PM
As i promised i prepared a preliminary study.

 I'm still working on the map.

Map still have some mistakes. But meanwhile the general map is done. If you have turn around the map, you have don't big mistakes. This map has +-%2,8 difference with google map and +-%2,1 with best flown distances. (by looking the environment). The inside area have more mistakes that i'm still working to correct them.

This is the final image.

(https://i.imgsafe.org/a179478.jpg)

These are the lenght of the flown distances, google values and the distances on the map on the table on the below.

the total environment                      
CITY   / CITY /   GOOGLE /   BEST FLOWN/    CORRECTED /   MAP /   difference google   / dirrerence corrected
Beijing    Sydney   8974   9430   9232   9118   0,034   0,012
Sydney   Scel   11338   11338   11338   11225   0,010   0,010
Scel   New York   8247   8487   8309   8028   0,057   0,035
New York   London   5575   5633   5515   5544   0,016   0,005
London   Moscow   2511   2565   2511   2457   0,044   0,022
Moscow   Beijing    5801   5984   5858   6234   0,040   0,060
                     
Diagonal                     
CITY   / CITY /   GOOGLE /   BEST FLOWN/    CORRECTED /   MAP      
Beijing    Los Angeles   10048   10269   10053   10209   0,006   0,015
Los Angeles   Sydney   12074   12167   11911   11992   0,015   0,007

                     
                           
          0,029      0,020

   average error                   +-%2,8      +-%2,1

summary of the table (To understand more easy)

CITY/   CITY/   DISTANCE ON GOOGLE/   DISTANCE ON MY MAP/
Beijing    Sydney   8974   9118
Sydney   Scel   11338   11225
Scel   New York   8247   8028
New York   London   5575   5544
London   Moscow   2511   2457
Moscow   Beijing    5801   6234
Beijing    Los Angeles   10048   10209
Los Angeles   Sydney   12074   11992
New York Sydney 16013 14945 ( no direct fly, estimated)



Notice: Dec dimensions are still checking and correcting. Some of distances are interesting for example, on my map, the distance of Sydney to Johannesburg and Los Angeles to SCEL is shorter significant than google map. To control and checking to from LA to SCEL is impossible because there is no direct fly. So there is one problem on this map is Johannesburg to Sydney distance is shorter than google map. Actually this problem can solve by error distribution. But before do that i want to try to understand if the pilots going on wrong route or not.  :)


Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 23, 2016, 11:24:42 PM
I am impressed, I didn't think you would get this far.

Since SCEL (Santiago) does not have many direct flights, try using Sao Paulo instead. It has direct flights to Los Angeles, New York, London, Madrid, and Johannesburg.

I am also interested in how these two cities fit on your map:
- Mexico City (direct flights to Los Angeles, New York, London, Madrid, Santiago, Sao Paulo)
- Cairo (direct flights to London, Madrid, New York, Johannesburg, Beijing, Istanbul)

Good Luck :)
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 24, 2016, 07:47:07 PM
I am impressed, I didn't think you would get this far.

Since SCEL (Santiago) does not have many direct flights, try using Sao Paulo instead. It has direct flights to Los Angeles, New York, London, Madrid, and Johannesburg.

I am also interested in how these two cities fit on your map:
- Mexico City (direct flights to Los Angeles, New York, London, Madrid, Santiago, Sao Paulo)
- Cairo (direct flights to London, Madrid, New York, Johannesburg, Beijing, Istanbul)

Good Luck :)

I choose SCEL (Santiago) instead of Sao Paolo or Rio de Janeiro, because most of Australian using for a disprove flat earth with travelling Santiago with short travel times. Becase most of flat maps showing South America far away to Australia. It was important to show Australia and South America how near on same map side.

There is no any fly from Sao Paolo to Sydney direct or indirect flights. There is only one flight from Sao Paolo to Melbourne but it is indirect that stands one stop on USA. How interesting. :)

To show how much kilometres from Australia to South Africa i must use Santiago for this reason.

The most interesting situation on the map is America looks like reverse to google map. This situation arising from the perspective.  Probably nobody tried this location for LA and NY. :)

When i working on the map i'm developing new methods to decrease mistakes to minimum. For example at the beginning i was started with a coefficient effect to flight times and got this values as true. But after that i was see that some routes are wrong. If one route is wrong, this causes all of the map wrong. For this reason i learned the method as "range error". This method decreasing most of the errors. For example if a route with best fly distance as 2.000 kms, i'm getting it a value changing from 1.900 kms to 2.100 kms. This value Letting pilots do %5 mistake. the actual value is calculated in comparison with other distances. This method actually a few complicated but now i'm thinking as a 4 transactions on mathemathic.  :)


I'm working on different positions and trying to find the best . so far I have not found a better map yet.

I'll look your selected cities for distances.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 24, 2016, 10:25:40 PM
Take care about Russia isn't neighbour to Canada. If they are neighbours, Russians was occupied Canada and the continent of America since tousend of years. So America continent is far away to Asia in my opinion. There is only  one connection. But i'm not sure the position of the cities on America.

Don't forget this is just a preliminary study. I'm trying about 1 try per day for a better a different model.

Another idea is that: Using flying times instead of flying distances. Sometimes far distances spends shorter times than flying time for fewer distances. This shows the sites using Navigation data instead of plane's data. So it is more effective to use flying time instead of  flying distances.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 24, 2016, 11:39:32 PM
City  /   City /   Planned /   on map
Mexico City    Los Angeles   2503   2498
Mexico City           New York   3369   3385
Mexico City    London   8900   8509
Mexico City    Madrid   9100   7199
Mexico City    Scel    6600   5185

(http://i.imgsafe.org/9080c3c.jpg)


City  /   City /   Planned /   on map
cairo   London   3659   4261
cairo   Madrid   3354   3045
cairo   New York   9026   6930
cairo   Johannesburg   6272   7757
cairo   Beijing    7541   3874
cairo   Istanbul   1231   2193


(http://i.imgsafe.org/7f72e3b.jpg)

There is a problem distances of  Cairo to Johannesburg and Beijing. I was currently thinking about Johannesburg must a bit on the North.

Don't forget this is just a preliminary study. So we don't need the trust this map yet. I'm still working on it. To asking questions about map doing my job harder.




Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 27, 2016, 06:46:02 AM
Don't forget this is just a preliminary study. So we don't need the trust this map yet. I'm still working on it. To asking questions about map doing my job harder.

I know it is not done. I just wanted to point out potential problems. Sometimes it is better to know potential problems as early as possible.

I'll leave you alone to work on it. Have fun.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 27, 2016, 07:04:32 AM
Don't forget this is just a preliminary study. So we don't need the trust this map yet. I'm still working on it. To asking questions about map doing my job harder.

I know it is not done. I just wanted to point out potential problems. Sometimes it is better to know potential problems as early as possible.

I'll leave you alone to work on it. Have fun.

Asking about Hawai was more effective .  :)

Now i'm thinking to change the position of LA and NY but I haven't totally decided. and I'm not sure is better.

Another problem is about Qantas.  :)
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 22, 2016, 03:26:09 PM
So.... did you give up? If constructing a flat-earth map is impossible, you should probably let the rest of the flat-earth community know :)
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Unsure101 on June 23, 2016, 04:00:18 AM
So.... did you give up? If constructing a flat-earth map is impossible, you should probably let the rest of the flat-earth community know :)
I think he's ignoring you, hang on, I'll ask him.
Wait... no can do. I'm being ignored too :(

I must say that I was super psyched to see his map. Guess he's just adding the finishing touches.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on July 12, 2016, 10:43:38 AM
There is 2 reply but ignored. Anyway.

I want to tell why i don't continue this issue. I'm too bussy at these months. To working on this issue is different then others because it is need to open Autocad program. Its spend more time and CPU for working. And when my chief come here, can see i'm working on Autocad that these days i don't need to use. This is not true to do that. But the other issues i can continue because when my chief asking me what am i doing i'm telling that i'm surfing on the internet, it is not a problem for us. But using Autocad for FE theory is a problem.

Another reason is as we see that the flat map is usually about same with the map that famous flat earth map. So it is probably will end with same map like this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png)

Yes i'll finish my map at a day but it's not really needed to by immedietly.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Charming Anarchist on July 12, 2016, 07:37:34 PM
Our work will be hard because:
The "Asia" Globe earth map is clearly wrong.
The map is wrong so the pilots often are going to the wrong way.
Perhaps this explains the Spratley Islands dispute. 
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on August 03, 2016, 06:12:46 AM
Our work will be hard because:
The "Asia" Globe earth map is clearly wrong.
The map is wrong so the pilots often are going to the wrong way.
Perhaps this explains the Spratley Islands dispute.

It is possible.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Rounder on August 03, 2016, 12:43:11 PM
Our work will be hard because:
The "Asia" Globe earth map is clearly wrong.
The map is wrong so the pilots often are going to the wrong way.
Perhaps this explains the Spratley Islands dispute.

It is possible.

No, it isn't.  Over half of the supertanker traffic by tonnage of the ENTIRE WORLD passes through the South China Sea in any given year.  If ever there was a place on the globe where accurate mapping was of economic interest, this is the place.  The maps are accurate.  The conflicts are not caused by mapping errors or falsehoods, they are caused by belligerent nations all wanting to lay claim to natural resources.  As has been the story throughout human history.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 03, 2016, 01:24:39 PM
The maps are accurate.
Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim?
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Rounder on August 03, 2016, 04:59:18 PM
The maps are accurate.
Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim?

My claim is not outlandish.  It is perfectly reasonable to consider the fact that we do not lose millions of tons of ocean cargo a year as proof that the ships which rely on the maps find them to be accurate.  It IS outlandish to expect safe navigation of half the world's ocean going cargo every year, if they were sailing based on incorrect maps.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 20, 2016, 01:28:06 PM
My claim is not outlandish.  It is perfectly reasonable
I take it that your answer to my question is "no". Thank you for clarifying.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Rounder on October 20, 2016, 08:16:29 PM
My claim is not outlandish.  It is perfectly reasonable
I take it that your answer to my question is "no". Thank you for clarifying.
Your interpretation of my reply is outlandish, that's for sure.

Consider the following: there is a very short list of vessels that have been lost at sea since 1800.  A very, VERY short list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missing_ships#High_Seas).  Even including those vessels which were clearly lost during wartime (a bunch of U-boats, for example) you still have only 64 ships lost on the high seas.  I wanted to compare this to the number of ocean voyages undertaken every year, but the closest statistic I could find was the size of the many and varied shipping fleets (https://www.statista.com/statistics/197662/chartered-ships-of-worldwide-leading-container-ship-operators-in-2011/), which number 1880 ships as of 2016.  That's the currently active inventory; over the year there have been many multiples of that number which have made at least one ocean voyage, and it will be a rare ship indeed that makes ONLY one voyage.  So over hundreds of years, with thousands of vessels active in any given year, each of them making probably a dozen voyages a year, we've lost fewer than 100.  EVER.  This record of successful ocean crossings is incompatible with the contention that these voyages were undertaken with incorrect maps.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 30, 2016, 04:01:56 PM
the contention that these voyages were undertaken with incorrect maps.
Do you know of anyone who claims that RE-based projections cannot successfully be used for navigation? I sure ain't one of them (generously assuming they even exist), and your response has nothing to do with my question. Sounds like my original interpretation was correct.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: rabinoz on December 01, 2016, 01:02:40 AM
the contention that these voyages were undertaken with incorrect maps.
Do you know of anyone who claims that RE-based projections cannot successfully be used for navigation? I sure ain't one of them (generously assuming they even exist), and your response has nothing to do with my question. Sounds like my original interpretation was correct.
This all seems more like "debate" or "Pure Nonsense". Surely İntikam's material is hardly fit for the Flat Earth Information Repository - not my problem, still here goes:

First minor point.
          As Junker and others have pointed out your earth is round, so you are the round earthers. We are the Globe Earthers - I know a lot on both sides mix them up.

Then the rest seems to be based on very strange logic!
All western navigation since maybe the 1700's has been based on projections of the Globe.

As far as I know, no flat earth maps are ever used for recent navigation, especially for intercontinental routes.

Whether or not the charts based on projections of the Globe are perfectly accurate, they are all we have.
So until you can show evidence of inaccuracies in any navigation charts that are related to the earth being a Globe,
          we can take it that navigation charts based on projections of the Globe are accurate.

Of course, there would be a few insurmountable problems with creating navigation charts based on the Flat Earth map!
                                        No-one knows what the Flat Earth map is!
Most seem to accept the "Ice-wall" map, but
         Tom Bishop claims to support the "Bi-Polar map",
         JRoweskeptic has his Dual earth "Map", with no details, and who knows what else.

And no-one has any Flat Earth map with anywhere enough detail to even find any city in Australia! And don't show me "Gleason's Map" - that is also a projection of the globe.

It's no wonder few take the idea of a Flat Earth seriously when even Flat Earthers themselves can't decide on the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Rounder on December 25, 2016, 05:38:50 AM
Do you know of anyone who claims that RE-based projections cannot successfully be used for navigation? I sure ain't one of them

Ok, so if the RE-based projections can be used for navigation, what then is outlandish about my claim that "the maps are accurate"?  Navigation is the purpose of a map, and successful navigation is as good a proof of accuracy as there is, maybe the ONLY proof there is.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 25, 2016, 11:19:10 AM
Ok, so if the RE-based projections can be used for navigation, what then is outlandish about my claim that "the maps are accurate"?
Things that can be used for a certain purpose aren't necessarily accurate. That's pretty much the core principle of engineering.

Navigation is the purpose of a map
Says who? Different maps have different purposes.

and successful navigation is as good a proof of accuracy as there is, maybe the ONLY proof there is.
Well, if we accept this as true (which I categorically don't, but let's humour you), then RE and FE maps are equally accurate.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: rabinoz on December 27, 2016, 03:17:27 AM
and successful navigation is as good a proof of accuracy as there is, maybe the ONLY proof there is.
Well, if we accept this as true (which I categorically don't, but let's humour you), then RE and FE maps are equally accurate.
I assume that you "categorically don't" accept that an "appropriate projection of the globe" is accurate for navigation.

Well, that's a bit odd, Captain Cook used "Globe maps" to find tiny places in the Pacific, such as Tahiti.
Sir Charles Kingsford Smith used "Globe maps" to find tiny refuelling stops, and his distances had to be fairly close, or he would run out of fuel.
QANTAS route planners use "Globe maps" to plan the Sydney to/from Santiago and to/from Johannesburg routes. Their distances have to be close, because they are not far from the safe range of the aircraft used.
In all the cases the distances on the "Ice-Wall" map is far in excess of the distance on the Globe and there is no hint that any of these used the "Bipolar Map".

So, maybe you could indicate where the Flat Earth map is more accurate than an appropriate projection of the globe.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: geckothegeek on January 18, 2017, 04:14:44 AM
And how do you get around the problem that even some so-called "true flat earth believers" say "There is no flat earth map" ?
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 05:09:02 PM
and successful navigation is as good a proof of accuracy as there is, maybe the ONLY proof there is.
Well, if we accept this as true (which I categorically don't, but let's humour you), then RE and FE maps are equally accurate.
I assume that you "categorically don't" accept that an "appropriate projection of the globe" is accurate for navigation.
No, I categorically don't accept that successful navigation is a good proof of accuracy (I quoted you saying it directly before disagreeing with you - this shouldn't be hard to figure out). I then continue to say that if it was a proof of accuracy, then both maps are proven to be accurate.

The rest of your post is based on a faulty assumption, so I'll save you the effort of reading through my responses.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: rabinoz on January 19, 2017, 01:30:07 AM
and successful navigation is as good a proof of accuracy as there is, maybe the ONLY proof there is.
Well, if we accept this as true (which I categorically don't, but let's humour you), then RE and FE maps are equally accurate.
I assume that you "categorically don't" accept that an "appropriate projection of the globe" is accurate for navigation.
No, I categorically don't accept that successful navigation is a good proof of accuracy (I quoted you saying it directly before disagreeing with you - this shouldn't be hard to figure out). I then continue to say that if it was a proof of accuracy, then both maps are proven to be accurate.

The rest of your post is based on a faulty assumption, so I'll save you the effort of reading through my responses.
This is hardly the place to start a debate. But if you like you start a thread in the General or Debate section, we could politely discuss how
QANTAS flights 27 and 28 manage ro fly non-stop Sydney to/from Santiago and
QANTAS flights 63 and 64 manage ro fly non-stop Sydney to/from Johannesburg.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 19, 2017, 02:33:58 AM
we could politely discuss how
QANTAS flights 27 and 28 manage ro fly non-stop Sydney to/from Santiago and
QANTAS flights 63 and 64 manage ro fly non-stop Sydney to/from Johannesburg.
I don't see how any of that is relevant to your claim that successful navigation is a measure of a map's accuracy.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: Rekt on January 26, 2017, 02:38:27 PM
We started to Asia with these cities:

moscow sheremetyevo
beijing capital
new delhi indira gandhi
astana int
dubai international


But we see that Beijing is in incorrect place and distances are so wrong. See how the planes going a wrong route when coming from Beijing to Delhi. They do not extend the road map faulty. So we extract out the beijing  from the list. I'll find another city instead of Beijing.

See these 4 photos to understand what is going on. It is enough to fly directly China to India but plane unnecessarily traveling around a lot of country. Look to 4th picture first.

(https://i.imgsafe.org/de9de49.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/dd68646.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/dc0f410.jpg)

(https://i.imgsafe.org/e02fc3d.jpg)

moscow sheremetyevo
new delhi indira gandhi
astana int
dubai international
Guangzhou Baiyun Int'l (instead of Beijing)

After that we see the globe map of the Asia completely wrong. The planned distances does not match with the flying distances. So we'll get "shortest" flying distances instead of "planning distances". Then we'll correct it by reducing 10 kms because of fixes statistic errors.

moscow sheremetyevo vs new delhi indira gandhi (planned 4367 kms)

4.440 km
4.540 km
4.513 km
4.598 km
4.509 km
4.497 km
4.551 km
4.484 km
4.744 km
4.567 km
4.480 km
4.451 km
4.614 km
4.616 km
4.519 km
4.517 km
4.510 km
4.503 km
4.700 km
4.658 km
4.595 km
4.586 km
4.503 km

minimum value is: 4.440 kms
statistic fix: -10kms

moscow sheremetyevo vs new delhi indira gandhi exact distance : 4.430 kms (by flying routes)
Those flight directions, such as avoiding certain countries, arise from politics and weather
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: TriangularEarth on April 27, 2017, 11:55:51 AM
Ok, so your using flight paths to determine distances. But, the thing is, did you measure it yourself or believe everything you see on the internet?

Have you ever thought that it would not help the airlines to lie about distances? What good would google get from using 'incorrect data'? Does google just pluck up a random number? Are you aware that not all flights are in a streight line? Why with Asia did you use a flight path that clearly wasn't straight? How does you saying "it's possible " validate it?
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: İntikam on May 01, 2017, 08:45:29 PM
Ok, so your using flight paths to determine distances. But, the thing is, did you measure it yourself or believe everything you see on the internet?

Have you ever thought that it would not help the airlines to lie about distances? What good would google get from using 'incorrect data'? Does google just pluck up a random number? Are you aware that not all flights are in a streight line? Why with Asia did you use a flight path that clearly wasn't straight? How does you saying "it's possible " validate it?

If you agree, we should measure distance from Beijing to New Delhi with a metre, instead of using internet, ok.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: 3DGeek on September 25, 2017, 02:05:20 PM
Using distances overland that cross national boundaries is a VERY unreliable method.   Aircraft routinely have to route around countries that are hostile to them in order to avoid political grief and the risk of being shot down.

Do your calculations over long transcontinental flights (predominantly over water) - and the results work out beautifully.
Title: Re: Flat Continents
Post by: ack1308 on January 21, 2018, 09:08:47 PM
I live in Australia.  I've flown from Sydney to LA (and back again) twice. 

A few facts:
The trip takes 13 hours 45 minutes, either way. 
The aircraft was a 747-400.
The distance from Sydney to LA is just over 12,000 km.
A 747-400 has a rated speed of 988 km/h.  Allowing a bit of wiggle room, that allows for a 13-14 hour trip.

However, by your map, the aircraft has a somewhat greater distance to travel, and would have to exceed the speed of sound to make the trip. 
The kicker?  The 747-400 is not a supersonic aircraft.  I'm interested in how this works, if the earth is not a globe.

Another good one:
Australia and New Zealand are close neighbours, geographically and politically speaking.  The distance from Sydney to Auckland via global measurement is 2,155 km.  This gets flown every day, and boats travel to and from on a regular basis.  Why is it that they don't use more fuel than they've allotted for that distance?  Again, I'm interested in how this works.

And then there's Antarctica.  Because you're aware, are you not, that there are several scientific outposts on the continent?  You weren't?  Australia actually controls a large chunk of it.  Interestingly enough, a friend of mine who used to be in the Army Reserve was actually posted there for a while.  His stories of the place involve lots of ice, a crapload of penguins ... and oddly enough, no edge of the world.
Oh, and by the way, he's long since left the military.  So there's zero chance he's still being paid to keep any secrets.
So how do you reconcile that with, well, any of what you're saying?

And finally:
Captain James Cook, who mapped the eastern coast of Australia (as well as a good chunk of the coast of New Zealand) with an accuracy that still holds good today, also sailed farther south to circumnavigate Antarctica.  Which he did.  To do so in your model would require travelling a distance of 60-80 thousand km, on a sailing ship that moves at maybe 10 km/h (just saying, they would've run out of food).  Oh, and then he went from New Zealand to Tierra del Fuego in five weeks.  With your map, how far is that and how fast would he have had to travel?  Let's not forget: sailing ship.

One of the many flaws of the flat earth concept, and the most easily proven, is the lateral distance problem.  The farther out you get from the north pole on a flat disk, the greater the distance between any two lines of longitude.  The trouble is, the farther south you go from the Equator, the closer these lines get together.  I cordially invite any believers to come to Australia, rent a car, check the odometer, then drive from Sydney to Perth along the Gunbarrel Highway.  Take careful note of the distance, then compare it to what your map says it should be.
(Spoilers: it won't be that far).
Go ahead.  I dare you.