The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Media => Topic started 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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
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...
-
a method for the correction of the incorrect distances.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
For you know how these workings will be united, i want to show a united drawing like this:
(https://i.imgsafe.org/21abdb7.jpg)
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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 .
-
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. :)
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The maps are accurate.
Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim?
-
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.
-
My claim is not outlandish. It is perfectly reasonable
I take it that your answer to my question is "no". Thank you for clarifying.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And how do you get around the problem that even some so-called "true flat earth believers" say "There is no flat earth map" ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.