[Rama Set]

It’s weird, it’s almost like we have had equations for 400 years that describe the relationship between energy, mass and velocity.

[Tom Bishop]

It’s weird, it’s almost like we have had equations for 400 years that describe the relationship between energy, mass and velocity.

Engines are not lossless mathematical entites and their performance must be gauged in some way to how they are experienced to perform.

[Rama Set]

It’s weird, it’s almost like we have had equations for 400 years that describe the relationship between energy, mass and velocity.

Engines are not lossless mathematical entites and their performance must be gauged in some way to how they are experienced to perform.

Like a wind tunnel?

[StinkyOne]

What I have described is how cruising speeds are determined on airplanes. They fly a route on optimal performance and divide by time. The distance they use is, of course, based on the Round Earth coordinate system, and therefore the cruising speed calculated is based on that schema.

When you use that cruising speed against other Round Earth coordinate system distances you are flying based on a past experience, not a controlled truth.

Tom, cruise speed is closely approximated during the design process. I know you are not familiar with this topic, so here is a youtube video from an aeronautical engineer on the design process. It includes all formulas in case you want to work the math yourself. It also includes some of the regulatory requirements for designing a plane. (you can't just slap wings and an engine on a tube and sell it as a plane) This is for light aircraft, not airliners. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the requirements are a little more tight for a jumbo jet. Cruise speed has nothing to do with round Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnspsMprpa8

Any such analysis of new engines is comparing to past planes and past cruise speeds as a baseline.

You sure about that or are you just making things up again? The video I linked used straight mathematics for calculating the cruise speed. It didn't reference a table of past designs.

At it's simplest, cruise speed is nothing more than when thrust = drag. Manufacturers know the thrust the engines produce and they know the coefficient of drag of their aircraft.

It is abundantly clear that you know very little about aviation and I don't fault you for that. What I do take issue with is your baseless assertions. Either start showing some proof or let it go already.

[Tom Bishop]

You sure about that or are you just making things up again? The video I linked used straight mathematics for calculating the cruise speed. It didn't reference a table of past designs

You don't think its possible to create a mathematical equation to how an engine equates to a speed from such tables?

At it's simplest, cruise speed is nothing more than when thrust = drag. Manufacturers know the thrust the engines produce and they know the coefficient of drag of their aircraft.

Again, engines are not lossless mathematical entities and an experiment or experience must have been the basis for those equations.

It is abundantly clear that you know very little about aviation and I don't fault you for that. What I do take issue with is your baseless assertions. Either start showing some proof or let it go already.

Are you honestly arguing that engineers are designing these engines and coming up with equations with no knowledge of how engines perform and fly in the real world?

[Tom Bishop]

It’s weird, it’s almost like we have had equations for 400 years that describe the relationship between energy, mass and velocity.

Engines are not lossless mathematical entites and their performance must be gauged in some way to how they are experienced to perform.

Like a wind tunnel?

Like flying the airplane, which they obviously do when assessing the performance of the craft.

[StinkyOne]

It’s weird, it’s almost like we have had equations for 400 years that describe the relationship between energy, mass and velocity.

Engines are not lossless mathematical entites and their performance must be gauged in some way to how they are experienced to perform.

Like a wind tunnel?

Like flying the airplane.

If you think power is determined when they fly the plane, you're being more absurd than usual.

[StinkyOne]

Again, engines are not lossless mathematical entities and an experiment or experience must have been the basis for those equations.

I've not seen anyone make such a claim. Frictional losses are surely factored in.

Are you honestly arguing that a engineers are designing these engines and coming up with equations with no knowledge of how engines perform and fly in the real world?

Again, no one is making a claim that real world testing isn't used. Of course it is. The only way to validate a design is to test it.

Care to get back to your claims that airlines figure out cruising speeds by flying the aircraft and have no idea how far said planes have traveled??? lol

[Rama Set]

Are you honestly arguing that a engineers are designing these engines and coming up with equations with no knowledge of how engines perform and fly in the real world?

No that is what you are arguing. What has been counter-pointed is that there are multiple ways to corroborate real world flight data.

[mtnman]

Any such analysis of new engines is comparing to past planes and past cruise speeds as a baseline.

What is your source for that comment Tom?

[inquisitive]

There is no true way to know how fast you are flying through the air without relying on a Round Earth coordinate device.

Let's keep this to distances. Distances are the fundamental. There are numerous independent ways to calibrate, check, measure, and optimize the distances traveled by commercial aircraft. This is not a mystery. And it doesn't require any prior assumptions about the shape of the earth. Start flat. Start round. Start with anything. But accept the conglomerate testimony of the measurements. Thank you so much for hanging with this topic and with this forum.

Can you describe some of these independent methods which don't rely on assumptions about the shape of the earth?

Measurements over land OK, like across the US?

[fememo]

Until recently I believed completely in a round earth (like most people) but lots of things made me start to question this.

Rodents on mars



Engineer fixing mars rover.



Tom your answers can be vague (to me).  If the earth is flat then the distance from A to B is a very simple formula (much more simple that on a bulging spherical earth).  If the earth is flat I believe there are maps of the flat earth similar to the one provided below. 



Google maps taking pictures from above and making maps is real (I can zoom in on my house on satelite view) whether the ISS is real or not.

[Roger G]

The round earth coordinate system gives highly accurate positioning of anywhere on the planet and ties in absolutely with maps and charts available to everybody from professionals to amateurs. The round earth coordinates system is used simply because the earth is round, you know and I know it and so does everyone else with one iota of interest in the world about them. You can amuse yourself as much as you want with intellectual sparring and ignoring all the evidence going back centuries, but it works beautifully because it is correct. The round earth coordinates system is used accurately by millions of people across the GLOBEevery day simply because it is based on the real global planet not some fairy tale flat world claptrap. Nothing works out on a mythical flat world and you have zero evidence, not even a map to show that it does. Even you favoured Bedford Levels experiment by the conman Rowbotham will be revealed as rubbish during next year, as I live about 15 miles from the Bedford Levels and will be taking my own readings there to show what a load of rubbish that particular Rowbotham conclusion is.

As for aircraft design and flight planning, you obviously know little about it so I'l not bother to waste my time discussing it further :-)

Enjoying the game though,

Roger

[OrigamiBoy]

Until recently I believed completely in a round earth (like most people) but lots of things made me start to question this.

Rodents on mars



Engineer fixing mars rover.



Tom your answers can be vague (to me).  If the earth is flat then the distance from A to B is a very simple formula (much more simple that on a bulging spherical earth).  If the earth is flat I believe there are maps of the flat earth similar to the one provided below. 



Google maps taking pictures from above and making maps is real (I can zoom in on my house on satelite view) whether the ISS is real or not.

As a round earth believer, all those pictures are completely fake. I dont accept pictures and video as evidence because they are too easily photoshopped 

[StinkyOne]

Until recently I believed completely in a round earth (like most people) but lots of things made me start to question this.

Rodents on mars



Engineer fixing mars rover.



Tom your answers can be vague (to me).  If the earth is flat then the distance from A to B is a very simple formula (much more simple that on a bulging spherical earth).  If the earth is flat I believe there are maps of the flat earth similar to the one provided below. 



Google maps taking pictures from above and making maps is real (I can zoom in on my house on satelite view) whether the ISS is real or not.

Google pareidolia and get back to us.

[Rounder]

There is no true way to know how fast you are flying through the air without relying on a Round Earth coordinate device.

Let's keep this to distances. Distances are the fundamental. There are numerous independent ways to calibrate, check, measure, and optimize the distances traveled by commercial aircraft. This is not a mystery. And it doesn't require any prior assumptions about the shape of the earth.

Can you describe some of these independent methods which don't rely on assumptions about the shape of the earth?

Tom, your "we don't know how far apart things are" argument really is weak, and you know it.  You really can't think of an "independent method" for determining distances?  How about you drive a car from Chicago to Seattle.  Note the odometer reading.  Sure, the highway didn't follow the perfect shortest route, but it gives you a pretty good idea of the distance.  (My odometer has no idea what shape the earth is, by the way, just the shape of my tires.)

Need more data?  Okay, drive a car from Seattle to San Diego. 
From San Diego to Atlanta. 
From Atlanta to Minneapolis. 
From Minneapolis to City X.
From there to City Y.

This isn't hard.

[TomInAustin]

Like flying the airplane, which they obviously do when assessing the performance of the craft.

Exactly, they fly know a course and the speeds are checked by radar among other things.  The speeds are well known and easy to find.  Open your eyes.  Look around you.

[rumpelstilskin]

How do you suppose you would calculate that a Boeing plane would have a cruise speed of 550 miles per hour?

Here's one way: fly from LA to NY, or Sydney to Perth, or any other over land distance that is easily calibrated.  That gets us speeds of around 850-950km/h. Would you agree?

[devils advocate]

How do you suppose you would calculate that a Boeing plane would have a cruise speed of 550 miles per hour?

Here's one way: fly from LA to NY, or Sydney to Perth, or any other over land distance that is easily calibrated.  That gets us speeds of around 850-950km/h. Would you agree?

Also Birds migrate in summer/winter. We have birds in the UK that migrate to Africa :  http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/read-and-learn/fun-facts-and-articles/migration/which-birds-migrate.aspx we can see how fast these birds fly, we can tag them and find out how long their journey takes which gives us a general idea of the distance.

Also pigeon racers have accurately flown their birds up to 100 miles:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homing_pigeon from the point they release them (empirical) back to their lofts. These birds are tagged so easily identifiable. Their flying speed can be measured and this adds further weight to the fact that the distances from places on earth is not a mystery!

Once Tom has accepted that he can no longer dispute the fact that the globe earth distances are true we can get on with proving earth cannot be flat because it is impossible to plot these known distances on a flat map. Hence why he will never admit the distances are known, sad really.

[Tom Haws]

Sadly, we will never know how far it is from LA to NY, Lisbon to Shanghai, or Sydney to Perth. Do we know how far it is from Tom's hometown to the capital of his country or the source of his bananas?