The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Max_Almond on May 24, 2018, 11:33:35 AM
-
If the Earth is flat, Google Maps must be significantly incorrect. But we can check that very easily, and can even zoom in and see our own houses and trees in our street.
In southern hemisphere countries any discrepancies would be even more apparent.
So where is it wrong? Why has no one ever noticed a problem with the distances?
Surely the only answer is that it isn't inaccurate; that it fairly represents a spherical earth; and that the world isn't flat.
-
Perhaps Google's algorithms curve the pictures taken from space to shape them like a sphere.
-
Perhaps Google's algorithms curve the pictures taken from space to shape them like a sphere.
Begs the question as to why they would do that?
-
Perhaps Google's algorithms curve the pictures taken from space to shape them like a sphere.
That would seem a bit odd since the general FE belief about space travel is that it's a lie, so no photos from space could exist with a FE.
Besides, any curving of a flat surface would show distortion, which does not appear to happen. If it zoomed out to a flat plane, it would be distorted as is evident by every non-spherical projection of the globe.
-
You can get a US geodetic survey topo map telling you your latitude/longitude as determined by surveyors (ref geodetic marker), look up the wiki page for your city, use gps, get a sextant and use celestial navigation, airline nav aids, and compare the results. If they don't match, just show people and be famous. Do this in a second place. Check the google maps (and other, several map sites) for distance between them drive it in a car, or check airline schedules for matching time/speed/distance. Use flat plane formula to calculate distance and spherical geometry. Do this all over the world, especially in the southern hemisphere. Show how these don't match, or how RE math gives wrong answer.
If anything doesn't match RE, I will be your agent. Fame and $.
-
Google maps does not appear to be wrong in my opinion.
Google shows the road distance from Melbourne, Victoria, to Perth, Western Australia as 3,624 km
driving on the shortest route, National Highway A1. I've made that trip nine times—four outbound,
and five homeward, and I can confirm that distance within an accuracy of around +10km or -10km.
This is easy, because we have "Welcome To Perth" or "Welcome To Melbourne" highway markers to
use as measuring points. It was also consistent with two different vehicles, both with vehicle-maker
tyre specs.
I'm sure any distortion of the Google maps would point up a discrepancy above a mere 20km over
that sort of distance.
-
And many have made the drive across the US at about 3000 miles. Yet every map in the TFES faq shows Australia as significantly wider then US. GPS, airplane and ship navigation, geodetic survey, Eratosthenes, etc, all consistent with RE.
One FE claimed that NASA has secret odometer mods built into your car. Another said that the distances are all correct over land, but on waterm no one can know because zetetic, and you can't crawl across the ocean with a ruler, so you can never know the distance. He explained time/speed distance calculations matching RE by "anomalous winds aloft" Apparently these winds only occur over oceans and are stronger proportionate to their distance from the north pole.
I wonder why every reply here is RE. To have a discussion of these things any more, an RE has to describe the FExplanation. I think they have learned that "no answer" can't be rebutted or ridiculed.
-
Begs the question as to why they would do that?
Just for fun and because I figured an astute person like you would appreciate it.
People recently have been using "begs the question" the same way you did, so it's not "wrong." But it's not what that has meant until relatively recently.
"Begs the question" refers to a logical fallacy where the argument's premisses assume the conclusion. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question .)
A less ambiguous way of saying what you said might be "Raises the question." I think we can blame whomever named that fallacy for the confusion.
This ends today's lecture. (Tugs on bow tie.)
-
Begs the question as to why they would do that?
Just for fun and because I figured an astute person like you would appreciate it.
People recently have been using "begs the question" the same way you did, so it's not "wrong." But it's not what that has meant until relatively recently.
"Begs the question" refers to a logical fallacy where the argument's premisses assume the conclusion. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question .)
A less ambiguous way of saying what you said might be "Raises the question." I think we can blame whomever named that fallacy for the confusion.
This ends today's lecture. (Tugs on bow tie.)
Yes and no. I am modern. Therefore, according to your wiki citation, its usage fits with modern times. "In modern vernacular usage, however, begging the question is often used to mean "raising the question" or "suggesting the question"
Albeit, the phrase can cause confusion and consternation for those hung up on its supposed origin (Aristotle) and the direct and accurate translation of "petitio principii", "assume the conclusion".
All that aside, yeah, probably a turn-of-phrase that is best avoided. Thanks for bringing it up. I had no idea it is kind of a no-no and what it actually means in more learned circles.
-
Google maps shows Australia as around 4,040 km east to west, and around 3,185 km north to south.
And which I can confirm by having driven all around the continent.
But... The standard monopole flat earth map commonly used by the modern Flat Earth Society indicates
Australia is around three times as wide E—W as it is N—S.
So is Google maps wrong in its interpretation of geodetic positioning, or is FET wrong in its rendering?
I also note that signwriter Samuel Shenton's flat Earth map shows Australia as larger in area than the
North American land mass, which is obviously erroneous. But then Shenton had no scientific qualifications
of any sort, nor was he a cartographer, so his rendering can easily be dismissed.
-
So where is it wrong?
China.
Why has no one ever noticed a problem with the distances?
Your premise is false. It's rather common knowledge.
-
Are China's borders correct on Google? I am aware that like USSR, they intentionally make their maps inaccurate for fear of foreign invasions.
If so, the error is contained in China and the rest is correct? That doesn't say anything about the shape of the earth.
If not, the borders are wrong, so the maps of the surrounding countries are wrong. Where does that stop?
India knows where the border is, they have an armed standoff there. Russia knows where the border is, they fought the Japanese there before WW2. Taiwan knows where China is, they are quite aware of the exact geography. North Korea and South Korea know where the border is. Viet Nam knows where the border is. Tibet knows where the border used to be.
Where is the error?
-
Where is the error?
China. If you don't know, find out.
-
Is this what you are talking about?
https://www.serviceobjects.com/blog/why-gps-coordinates-look-wrong-on-maps-of-china/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Di-UVC-_4
These errors will not explain FE.
Can you give me more than "China, find out", maybe just a sentence, a little bit specific?
Seriously, if google maps distances are wrong, such that the distance from Sydney to LA is off by a thousand miles as shown on the FE map, I really want to know. I flew LA to Sydney, the airline schedule, google, time/speed/distance all matched RE. If I am wrong, I want to know, but I need a little more direction to search. Please?
-
There isn't actually any reliable way to measure the distance between two distant points. Planes and ships are liable to be behind or ahead, and pilots strategically use jet streams to reach distant points. Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams. The pilots travel between the coordinate points. And the coordinate points are based on the position of Polaris or time zones.
The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.
-
The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.
Incorrect. The technology is there today to make accurate distance measurements even in the middle of the worlds oceans.
-
The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.
Incorrect. The technology is there today to make accurate distance measurements even in the middle of the worlds oceans.
I think you mean that there is technology to get your coordinate position. Actually physically measuring distances over long distances is a lot harder.
-
There isn't actually any reliable way to measure the distance between two distant points. Planes and ships are liable to be behind or ahead, and pilots strategically use jet streams to reach distant points. Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams. The pilots travel between the coordinate points. And the coordinate points are based on the position of Polaris or time zones.
The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.
Most, if not all, of the long distance flights typically pointed out have return legs that are not aided by jetstreams. Pilots know the distance. That s how they know how much fuel they need and when they will arrive.
-
There are winds which travel both Eastwards and Westwards in both the North and the South. There is no such thing as not taking advantage of any winds for a control flight. The planes always try to take advantage of the winds when they fly. When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/1/18/Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png/1200px-Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png)
-
There are winds which travel both Eastwards and Westwards in both the North and the South. There is no such thing as not taking advantage of any winds for a control flight. The planes always try to take advantage of the winds when they fly. When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/1/18/Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png/1200px-Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png)
(my bold); Why do you invent these things? That, sir, is complete fabrication, and obvious to anyone who flies or watches a flight-tracking service.
Currently; ETH552, UAE9249, PLM999, MPH6161 for example; all travelling Europe-North America, and all mixed in with West-East traffic.
-
I think you mean that there is technology to get your coordinate position. Actually physically measuring distances over long distances is a lot harder.
And how, pray tell, do you think that technically works if it doesn’t know where all those coordinate positions are and how far apart they are? Your claims are getting increasingly ridiculous.
-
The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.
Incorrect. The technology is there today to make accurate distance measurements even in the middle of the worlds oceans.
I think you mean that there is technology to get your coordinate position. Actually physically measuring distances over long distances is a lot harder.
There are other technologies I’ve seen used on military ships (I can’t discuss) that can be used to measure the physical distances of the underlying land in the world’s oceans. It doesn’t matter much to anyone because GPS is available, and it’s been shown that the two methods of measurement correlate exactly. These days all you really need are the coordinates of two points on the earth and an accurate distance measurement can be determined.
-
There are winds which travel both Eastwards and Westwards in both the North and the South. There is no such thing as not taking advantage of any winds for a control flight. The planes always try to take advantage of the winds when they fly. When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/1/18/Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png/1200px-Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png)
I'm not sure where you got that notion, but it's absolutely incorrect. In reality, it's literally the exact opposite of what you claim. Or, apparently, BA did not get your memo. Here is a BA flight from JFK (NY) to LHR (London):
(https://i.imgur.com/CkCcYok.png)
Here is a return flight from LHR (London) to JFK (NY):
(https://i.imgur.com/3gbGH4p.png)
Bottom line, East to West. Top line, West to East. The exact opposite of what you claim:
(https://i.imgur.com/1sNJ414.png)
-
There are winds which travel both Eastwards and Westwards in both the North and the South. There is no such thing as not taking advantage of any winds for a control flight. The planes always try to take advantage of the winds when they fly. When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/1/18/Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png/1200px-Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png)
(my bold); Why do you invent these things? That, sir, is complete fabrication, and obvious to anyone who flies or watches a flight-tracking service.
Currently; ETH552, UAE9249, PLM999, MPH6161 for example; all travelling Europe-North America, and all mixed in with West-East traffic.
Incorrect. While the winds can shift around, there is generally a separation from the West-East traffic on the return flight.
See:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/29729/why-are-westbound-transatlantic-routes-located-hundreds-of-km-away-from-eastboun
Why are westbound transatlantic routes located hundreds of km away from eastbound routes?
Looking at flights between NY and London (click to see route):
BA 185 (https://i.stack.imgur.com/L2g7A.png) (EGLL - KEWR)
United 941 (https://i.stack.imgur.com/p4Awa.png) (EGLL - KEWR)
United 16 (https://i.stack.imgur.com/EEh3S.png) (KEWR - EGLL)
The FlightAware anticipated routes are quite similar in both directions, but the actual routes for past flights are really remote from each other:
(https://i.imgur.com/wsYL3XY.png)
The two westbound routes are either 800 km north or 1,000 km south of the eastbound route (the dotted line shows the shortest path).
Why are the two westbound routes different and so remote from each other? Why this difference of about 1,800 km?
Why BA 185 route seems to be composed of two arcs?
Did the pilots changed their mind in flight because of the jet streams? Is it related to ETOPS constraints, or alternate airport at Santa Maria? or something else?
Top Answer from the thread:
The reason this is done is due to the winds aloft. The Jet Stream is a powerful current of air that blows in a west to east direction. Airplanes crossing the Atlantic from west to east take advantage of the jet stream to get there faster and save fuel, so a course is chosen to stay in the stream as much as possible. Airplanes going from east to west will be slowed by the jet stream, using more fuel and taking longer to get across, so a course is chosen to avoid the strongest winds.
The difference can be very significant, I've been on flights from NYC to London which take 6h 30m, and ones from London to NYC that take almost 9 hours.
We can clearly see that the return flights on those routes do not follow the same path.
Bottom line, East to West. Top line, West to East. The exact opposite of what you claim:
What were the winds like on that day? Flights regularly optimize their routes on a daily basis, even multiple times a day, depending on conditions. In the graphic I provided above there was one plane which took a far +800km northern route from London to NYC and another plane which took a southern route over 1000 km below the middle route. The routes are clearly not overlapping. They are finding a route optimal for the journey and veer significantly away from the East-West traffic, and can span hundreds of km southward.
-
Bottom line, East to West. Top line, West to East. The exact opposite of what you claim:
What were the winds like on that day? Flights regularly optimize their routes on a daily basis. In the graphic I provided above there was one plane which took a far +800km northern route from London to NYC and another plane which took a southern route over 1000 km below the middle route. The routes are clearly not overlapping. They are finding a route optimal for the journey and veer significantly away from the East-West traffic, and can span hundreds of km southward.
I don't know what the winds were like that day. Sure, they can divert from a typical great circle due to winds, traffic too. You said, "When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds."
They can do that due to the aforementioned headwind issue, but you make it seem like that's the only way they can fly, which is not true.
You also said, "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." How is this true when flights from say LHR to JFK avoid jetstreams, so they are obviously able to fly long distances without a jetstream?
I guess, what's the point you are trying to make? That planes flying from JFK to LHR take advantage of the jetstream and flights from LHR to JFK try to avoid the jetstream? I would agree with that. It makes sense.
-
I don't know what the winds were like that day. Sure, they can divert from a typical great circle due to winds, traffic too. You said, "When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds."
They can do that due to the aforementioned headwind issue, but you make it seem like that's the only way they can fly, which is not true.
Actually the last graphic I provided shows a returning flight which did veer off significantly to the South. If you were expecting such a statement describing that planes fly significantly to the south to account for all possible wind conditions in the North which might provide a Northern path, you are mistaken. I said that planes take that longer southern way around, and they do.
The fact that two planes flying from London to NYC, with the same point of origin, can take wildly different paths to reach the same destination clearly demonstrates that the planes are flying an optimal route based on wind conditions and it is not a route primarily based on closest geometrical points. The dotted line in the image is the most optimal geometrical route for an RE and the planes fly nowhere near that. The fact is that the planes are highly reliant on the winds and there is no "control flight".
-
I don't know what the winds were like that day. Sure, they can divert from a typical great circle due to winds, traffic too. You said, "When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds."
They can do that due to the aforementioned headwind issue, but you make it seem like that's the only way they can fly, which is not true.
Actually the last graphic I provided shows a returning flight which did veer off significantly to the South. If you were expecting such a statement describing that planes fly significantly to the south to account for all possible wind conditions in the North which might provide a Northern path, you are mistaken. I said that planes that that long southern way around, and they do.
The fact that two planes flying from London to NYC, with the same destination and point of origin, can take wildly different paths clearly demonstrated that the planes are flying an optimal route based on wind conditions and it is not a set path based on closest geometrical points. The fact is the planes are highly reliant on the winds and that there is no "control flight".
I guess it depends on how you define "wildly". And there are many factors in addition to wind that are accounted for in route planning and execution.
The fact of the matter is, your statement, "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams.", is incorrect as flights avoid jetstreams when possible on these East to west routes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "control flight". What is that?
As far as these trans-Atlantic flights, here's an explainer on the routes generally used. 80% pass through a specific northerly airspace zone:
https://youtu.be/6pI77r3oAxw
Every day, between two and three thousand aircraft fly across the North Atlantic between Canada, the United States and Europe. Airspace across the North Atlantic is divided into six Oceanic Control Areas (or OCAs). These OCAs are controlled by Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) working at different locations in different Countries.
NATS, working with the IAA (Irish Aviation Authority), is responsible for providing the air traffic control service to the Shanwick OCA. The IAA service is provided from Shannon in Ireland, and the NATS service provided from Prestwick in Scotland (hence 'Shanwick').
The Shanwick OCA is the busiest of all North Atlantic Airspace regions. It is often referred to as 'the gateway to Europe' and around 80% of all North Atlantic Air Traffic passes through it, demonstrating the strategic importance of our Prestwick Centre and UK airspace.
This visualization shows Transatlantic traffic over a 24 hour period taken from a day in August last year and shows 2,524 flights crossing the North Atlantic, of which 1,273 pass through the Shanwick OCA. At its busiest traffic can peak at 1,500 flights a day in the Summer.
-
Irrelevant. The green diverging southern path in my last image is still in the North Atlantic and moves through that area.
And no, the return flights take much longer between London and NYC. The faster NYC to London flight is only possible because of the jetstream which has the quickest winds.
If you get on the wrong plane with insufficient fuel sometimes those "nonstop" return flights even have to stop for fuel:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203436904577152974098241982
Dozens of Continental Airlines flights to the East Coast from Europe have been forced to make unexpected stops in Canada and elsewhere to take on fuel after running into unusually strong headwinds over the Atlantic Ocean.
The stops, which have caused delays and inconvenience for thousands of passengers in recent weeks, are partly the result of a decision by United Continental Holdings Inc., the world's largest airline, to use smaller jets on a growing number of long, trans-Atlantic routes.
A "control flight" is in reference the the claim that pilots know how fast they are flying because sometimes they are not flying on the fastest route. They are always using winds to reach their destination, which is why there are two paths to the same destination in the previous image I provided despite significant differences from the optimal dotted line RE geographical route.
-
Irrelevant. The green diverging southern path in my last image is still in the North Atlantic.
It is at that. I still don't know what your point is.
And no, the return flights take much longer between London and NYC. The faster NYC to London flight is only possible because of the jetstream which has the quickest winds.
Yeah, we know the jestream makes east to west flights faster. So what?
Much longer? Looks about on average to be about an hour, hour and half difference - Is that "Much longer"?:
(https://i.imgur.com/T6Yneds.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XBizfz9.png)
Still, you said, "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." But of course they are possible because most flights don't use and try to avoid the jetstream east to west. They are doing so without the jetstream. So I don't know why you made that statement.
Sometimes those "nonstop" flights even have to stop for fuel:
Flights Stop for Fuel (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203436904577152974098241982)
By SUSAN CAREY And ANDY PASZTOR
January 11, 2012
From your article:
(https://i.imgur.com/lpN3O1d.png)
It seems Continental was using 757's back in 2012 for trans-atlantic flights. So what?
Perhaps a bad choice on their part. All of the BA flights listed above use 777's...In 2021.
- The 757-200's maximum range is 3,900 nautical miles (7,220 km)
- The 777-200's maximum range is 9,420 nautical miles (17,446 km)
A "control flight" is in reference the the claim that pilots know how fast they are flying because sometimes they are flying against the fastest route. They are always using winds to reach their destination, which is why there are two paths to the same destination in the previous image I provided despite significant differences from the optimal dotted line RE geographical route.
So flight planners use the jetstream to their advantage and avoid it when it's not their advantage. So what? What's your point?
-
Pilots always know exactly how fast over the ground they are flying. They also know the exact distance between the two airports they are flying between. What isn’t known is the exact optimal route they need to fly when winds are taken into consideration. Airline companies have, or hire, flight planning personnel to design the optimal flight route. Computers are used along with all the available wind & temperature data to plan the best route to minimize the flight times and/or fuel burn for the individual aircraft. Once an aircraft departs conditions can change. On a short flight the differences are insignificant. If a flight is 15 hours long, then obviously things can change a lot while enroute. New flight plans can be sent to the airplane and/or the pilot in command can make some alterations in the route. An airliner flying at 40,000 feet on a 5000-mile flight would also need to fly an additional 9.5 miles more than the exact distance on the ground between the two airports. When you add an additional 7.5 miles to the radius of the curve you will have a longer path.
-
Yeah, we know the jestream makes east to west flights faster. So what?
Much longer? Looks about on average to be about an hour, hour and half difference - Is that "Much longer"?:
If you found recent flights between London and NYC taking under 7 hours, it is just more evidence that the particular nature of the winds and nature of the weather is to blame. The hour difference from the main jet stream route that you found is also evidence that the return winds can be going almost as fast as the main jet stream.
It is easy to find that airliners have reported the duration from London to NYC to be nine and a half hours:
https://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-LCY/to-JFK/
(https://i.imgur.com/993N17k.png)
Meanwhile flights from New York to London have been achieved in under five and a half hours. This is a rather significant difference.
It seems Continental was using 757's back in 2012 for trans-atlantic flights. So what?
So if your airliner is stingy and gives you the wrong plane with insufficient fuel you might find that your nonstop flight makes stops. The point again is that the planes are highly reliant on the weather to reach their destination.
Still, you said, "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." But of course they are possible because most flights don't use and try to avoid the jetstream east to west. They are doing so without the jetstream. So I don't know why you made that statement.
In these FE discussions there is heavy emphasis on flight times, and the flights pointed out are typically the fastest route in the fastest winds. They can't make the same time without the jet streams, or even the same path. If you point out any particular flight as some sort of proof you need to separate out the winds. This is another element to the assumptions.
-
Yeah, we know the jestream makes east to west flights faster. So what?
Much longer? Looks about on average to be about an hour, hour and half difference - Is that "Much longer"?:
If you found recent flights between London and NYC taking under 7 hours, it is just more evidence that the particular nature of the winds and nature of the weather is to blame. It is easy to find that airliners have reported the duration from London to NYC to be 9 and a half hours:
I'm sure it happens for a multitude of reasons. It's happened to me on a long haul east to west flight. So what?
https://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-LCY/to-JFK/
Well, your site is irrelevant because there are no non-stops between LCY and JFK currently.
Meanwhile flights from New York to London have been achieved in 5 hours and fifteen minutes. This is a rather significant difference.
Sure is fast. Obviously not the norm. Just like sometimes east to west flights are only 45 minutes slower than norm and sometimes hours slower than norm. I still don't see what point you are trying to make.
It seems Continental was using 757's back in 2012 for trans-atlantic flights. So what?
So if your airliner is stingy and gives you the wrong plane with insufficient fuel you might find that your nonstop flight makes stops. The point again is that the planes are highly reliant on the weather to reach their destination.
Sure, planes are reliant on weather. And traffic. And ATC. And Gate access. And route planning. So what? No one is disputing that wind, weather play a significant role in the airline industry.
You started out with "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." Well, it's been shown that obviously, they do. Quite often in fact. Is all this meant to be something akin to some notion you have that we don't know the distance between NYC and London? Is this the point you are trying to make?
Still, you said, "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." But of course they are possible because most flights don't use and try to avoid the jetstream east to west. They are doing so without the jetstream. So I don't know why you made that statement.
In these FE discussions there is heavy emphasis on flight times, and the flight pointed out is typically the fastest route over the fastest winds. They can't make the same time without the jet streams, or even the same path. If you point out any particular flight as some sort of proof you need to separate out the winds. This is another element to the assumptions.
Yeah, it seems that most east to west flights try to avoid the headwinds accompanying jetstreams. That doesn't mean that they don't encounter headwinds.
It's not necessarily all about flight times. You realize that fuel is the biggest cost in the industry? And that calculations are done before every flight to have the right amount of fuel for the route? Do you think the industry isn't hyper diligent about that aspect? And how do you think they calculate the fuel required for a route?
-
Well, your site is irrelevant because there are no non-stops between LCY and JFK currently.
So, when COVID-19 led to a significant reduction of flights from LCY, did that somehow change physics? If not, pray tell, why did those flights become irrelevant?
-
You started out with "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." Well, it's been shown that obviously, they do. Quite often in fact.
Incorrect. They do not. The same flight times and flight routes are not possible for the return flight. There is a time and a path difference.
If a taxi goes directly through a city to take me to my destination and on the return trip the taxi wants to take me on a scenic route which goes around a city it is most certainly not the same route.
Well, your site is irrelevant because there are no non-stops between LCY and JFK currently.
A lot of flights are shut down right now due to Covid. This is irrelevant. Airliners have reported nine and a half hours.
Sure, planes are reliant on weather
Which inserts additional variables and requires the analyses in these discussions to know the properties of the winds.
-
You started out with "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." Well, it's been shown that obviously, they do. Quite often in fact.
Incorrect. They do not. The same flight times and flight routes are not possible for the return flight. There is a time and a path difference.
If a taxi goes directly through a city to take me to my destination and on the return trip the taxi wants to take me on a scenic route which goes around a city it is most certainly not the same route.
I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I never said they take the same route. Just said they don’t always route 1000 miles south like you said.
Well, your site is irrelevant because there are no non-stops between LCY and JFK currently.
A lot of flights are shut down right now due to Covid. This is irrelevant. Airliners have reported nine and a half hours.
And I agreed with you. I’ve personally been subjected to longer than average east-west trans Atlantic flights before. I still don’t know what relevance you’re trying to tease out because one way is faster than the other. That wind is involved? Yeah, I agree, wind is involved, along with other factors already mentioned.
Sure, planes are reliant on weather
Which inserts additional variables and requires the analyses in these discussions to know the properties of the winds.
Ok, so I think I see what you’re getting at. Kinda like what I mentioned before. You’re somehow using the wind thing to say that we really don’t know these distances? Even though they are logged and reported, fuel calculations are dependent on these variables, pilots need to know how far they are flying and know where they are mid flight and how far away they are from stuff and ATC needs to know and monitor all of those things as well.
-
Right.
So the OP asked where Google Maps is wrong. Pete said China. I looked that up and while he is correct it’s not really relevant to what the OP is talking about. China use a different GPS standard which means that there is an issue with Google’s data which needs some correction. But it’s not like Google think China is a completely different size of shape to reality - those are the sorts of issues the OP is talking about. Do any exist?
And then we have Tom talking about various reasons flight times may be different from average. Again, true, but irrelevant to the OP. So unusual winds may mean planes have a faster or slower ground speed than usual. Is the suggestion that planes don’t know how far or fast they’re flying and they just get there when they get there? Vaguely true in the very early days of aviation, certainly not true now and hasn’t been for decades.
The point of the OP is this, and it’s a point which has been made on here before. IF the earth is flat then it should be possible to make a map which accurately represents the entire earth. Distances between places should be accurate, land mass shapes and sizes and the relative distances between them should be accurate. Flight paths should make sense on this flat map. But none of that is true. There is no agreed FE map which accurately represents the whole earth.
There is, however, geolocation data which claims to represent a globe earth which seems to do a pretty good job of telling people where they are and how far places are apart. That data can be easily checked.
Tom agreed above that technology exists to accurately tell you your coordinates. I asked him how he thinks that technology works if the location of those coordinates and the distances between them is not known accurately. It’s notable that he ignored that and has continued his diversion about flight times.
-
Hi,
Air Traffic Controller from the UK here.
Using LCY - JFK flights to illustrate journey time is not ideal for a few reasons.
It used the Airbus A318 aircraft which is usually a short haul aircraft (cruising speed of around Mach 0.78 compared to 777 or 787s at Mach 0.82 etc).
The flight would fly LCY to Shannon in Ireland, where it would refuel and the passengers would disembark and clear US customs so when they’d arrive in JFK it would be as a domestic flight.
The runway length at LCY was too short to allow an A318 to depart with enough fuel to get to JFK.
The return flight from JFK to LCY was direct without stopping.
-
Thanks for that, Gonzo, that seems to tie this loose end up nicely.
One small thing that bothers me, though - why does the plane need to refuel in Ireland for the outbound flight, but doesn't need a similar pit stop during the return flight?
-
I’m going to guess it’s because:
The runway length at LCY was too short to allow an A318 to depart with enough fuel to get to JFK.
Which wouldn’t be true at JFK.
(LCY is brilliant by the way, it’s relatively close to me and small so you can get through security quickly)
-
Ah, yes. Apparently reading isn't my strongest suit. Personally, I'm satisfied with this explanation.
-
A "control flight" is in reference the they claim that pilots know how fast they are flying because sometimes they are not flying on the fastest route. They are always using winds to reach their destination, which is why there are two paths to the same destination in the previous image I provided despite significant differences from the optimal dotted line RE geographical route.
It’s important to understand that wind speed is not some unknown quantity to pilots. Wind speed can be derived from a number of sources, and many of them make no assumptions at all about the shape of the earth. Inertial navigation, technology that predates GPS, can give very good measurements of groundspeed, from which wind speed and direction can be calculated either manually or automatically from the aircraft’s airspeed data. Overland routes, or routes flying reasonably close to coastlines or islands can also derive groundspeed from DME or TACAN beacons, typically out to a range of 100nm or so. Neither of these require any presumption of a coordinate system, or earth shape, to function effectively.
The important point to hoist aboard is that, when compared with, say, GPS derived data, pilots aren’t presented with enormous differences, which would have to be the case if the known distances between points on the earth’s surface were radically different to the conventional RE model, as they must be if FET in any of its guises is true.
So trying to explain away the differences with vague terms like ‘anomalous winds’ is a deeply flawed argument, because pilots know what the wind is doing - and it never gets large enough to make the speed-distance-time calculations work for FET distances. Furthermore, all of the flight data is cross checked - distance to go, airspeed, groundspeed…and it always matches known distances.
-
For those interested, this article gives a good overview of flight planning considerations for a N. Atlantic flight.
https://ops.group/blog/nat-tracks-nil-an-experiment/
-
@Gonzo: although the numbers may vary, I think 'RE and FE are in broad agreement that eastbound transatlantic traffic gets a benefit from wind in terms of speed, range and fuel-burn. Tom's contention, however, is that traffic from Europe to North America also consistently gets a benefit from easterly winds. Any comment?
-
@Gonzo: although the numbers may vary, I think 'RE and FE are in broad agreement that eastbound transatlantic traffic gets a benefit from wind in terms of speed, range and fuel-burn. Tom's contention, however, is that traffic from Europe to North America also consistently gets a benefit from easterly winds. Any comment?
I'd go one further - Tom's contention appears to be that pilots and airline ops teams do not know how far their aircraft are flying, or what the wind is doing in the airspace they are operating in. That is an absurd suggestion, and is demonstrably false.
-
I saw this today which I thought was interesting
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60044065
Amazing image of the whole of the UK, taken from a satellite using radar - so not subject to clouds etc. It's a composite (remember, kids, composite != fake), the full image is something like 2Gb and you can see quite small scale features on it.
Be interested to hear a FE take on this.
-
I don't see what this has to do with Google Maps, but the FE "take" on electromagnetic acceleration doesn't change. You are viewing the image under the assumption that electromagnetic waves travel in straight lines, but they do not.
Of course, the composite nature of the image does weaken your case (look at you, you even felt the need to defensively twitch at how it "doesn't equal fake"!) since you can compose them any way you'd like.
-
I don't see what this has to do with Google Maps
Well, it doesn't really but it's an example of how we are able to map the earth accurately with the help of orbiting satellites. I wasn't sure it deserved its own thread.
the FE "take" on electromagnetic acceleration doesn't change. You are viewing the image under the assumption that electromagnetic waves travel in straight lines, but they do not.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. This is a composite of photos claimed to come from an orbiting satellite - so it would be looking straight down. What's EA got to do with it?
Of course, the composite nature of the image does weaken your case (look at you, you even felt the need to defensively twitch at how it "doesn't equal fake"!) since you can compose them any way you'd like.
Well sure. I said the "!= fake" because it's a FE claim I've seen a lot (more outside here than on here, to be fair). It's a weak claim though, any panorama you take is a composite, that doesn't mean you're not actually looking at the object you're taking photos of.
I guess the point of this thread - and the reason I put this in here - is that we have very accurate maps of the whole earth. In part because of a lot of surveying but now because we have orbiting satellites which can take photos with impressive resolution. One such satellite is claimed to have taken the photos which make up this composite. A common FE claim is that this is all fake - although I'd suggest that faking a map of the whole of the UK to this resolution would be a very difficult thing to do. From other threads you've indicated you don't see a contradiction between FE and orbiting satellites but I'm never clear how you square (globe?!) that circle.
-
any panorama you take is a composite, that doesn't mean you're not actually looking at the object you're taking photos of.
That is, of course, with the important caveat that the shape of objects in panoramas is significantly distorted when compared to their "naked eye" appearance.
so it would be looking straight down. What's EA got to do with it?
Looking straight down would only capture a single point at a time, rather than meaningful 2-dimensional photographs. This would make the composition even more arbitrary, since you'd be stitching them together pixel by pixel.
-
?
[mLooking straight down would only capture a single point at a time, rather than meaningful 2-dimensional photographs. This would make the composition even more arbitrary, since you'd be stitching them together pixel by pixel.
It’s a SAR image - they are built bit by bit as the satellite passes over. The movement creates the aperture - that’s the whole point. The entire thing is a composite of billions of data points - it’s not just the seven swathes. Each swathe is a composite. I don’t know whether this one fires directly down or at an angle, but the angle will be the same for each point.
-
That is, of course, with the important caveat that the shape of objects in panoramas is significantly distorted when compared to their "naked eye" appearance.
I suppose it depends on the panorama. Here's one:
(https://cdn-7.nikon-cdn.com/Images/Learn-Explore/Photography-Techniques/2011/Rod-Planck-Panoramas/Media/Rod-Planck-Panoramas-01.jpg)
I'm not seeing any visual distortion.
-
@Gonzo: although the numbers may vary, I think 'RE and FE are in broad agreement that eastbound transatlantic traffic gets a benefit from wind in terms of speed, range and fuel-burn. Tom's contention, however, is that traffic from Europe to North America also consistently gets a benefit from easterly winds. Any comment?
Winds over the N. Atlantic are generally westerly. I've never seen or heard of a consistent tailwind for a westbound transatlantic. Depending on the strength and position of the N. Atlantic jetstream, they may go to some considerable length to avoid it, running far south or north of the ideal great circle route: They're doing so to avoid a headwind, not take advantage of a tailwind.
-
@Gonzo: although the numbers may vary, I think 'RE and FE are in broad agreement that eastbound transatlantic traffic gets a benefit from wind in terms of speed, range and fuel-burn. Tom's contention, however, is that traffic from Europe to North America also consistently gets a benefit from easterly winds. Any comment?
I'd go one further - Tom's contention appears to be that pilots and airline ops teams do not know how far their aircraft are flying, or what the wind is doing in the airspace they are operating in. That is an absurd suggestion, and is demonstrably false.
Anyone invovled in aviation will know this contention is ridiculous. I am in my unit's Operations department, where we work on new procedures, equipment and liaise with airlines and other ATC organisations. I was on a call earlier today with representatives (including senior pilots) of a major global airline talking about sustainability. We were examining their fuel burn calculations from a recent flight, and how making one tweak in procedure had saved 30kgs of fuel, and another had saved 6kgs of fuel. We also looked at the readout each Captain gets of her/his environmental performance, and how efficient the flight planning and how accurate the fuel calculation prediction was for each flight plan. Differences of tens of kgs was remarked upon. Bear in mind that an A320 burns about 45kg of fuel per minute in the cruise. A Boeing 777 will burn over 100kgs of fuel per minute. If flying times were seemingly so variable and unpredictable, the margin of error on fuel calculations would be so wide such as to make long haul flying uneconomical and wildly unpredictable. Which is not the reality we experience.
-
It’s a SAR image - they are built bit by bit as the satellite passes over. The movement creates the aperture - that’s the whole point. The entire thing is a composite of billions of data points - it’s not just the seven swathes. Each swathe is a composite. I don’t know whether this one fires directly down or at an angle, but the angle will be the same for each point.
Indeed. I'm glad we agree.
I'm not seeing any visual distortion.
Sigh, of course you'd choose the narrowest angle possible. I weep for you.
But hey, let's roll with this. How have you determined whether this image appears distorted when referenced against a "naked eye" view of the scene? Pardon my cynicism, but I strongly suspect you haven't made the comparison at all.
-
It’s a SAR image - they are built bit by bit as the satellite passes over. The movement creates the aperture - that’s the whole point. The entire thing is a composite of billions of data points - it’s not just the seven swathes. Each swathe is a composite. I don’t know whether this one fires directly down or at an angle, but the angle will be the same for each point.
Indeed. I'm glad we agree.
Turns out the NovaSar look angle is between 16 and 25 degrees - https://bhoonidhi.nrsc.gov.in/imgarchive/bhoonidhi_videos_help/NOVASAR_PRODUCT_FORMAT_DOCUMENT_V2.pdf (https://bhoonidhi.nrsc.gov.in/imgarchive/bhoonidhi_videos_help/NOVASAR_PRODUCT_FORMAT_DOCUMENT_V2.pdf)
Leaving aside discussions around panorama photographs, I'm unclear as to what your EA-based argument is here. NovaSar, and indeed myriad other satellites, image the earth at a variety of angles and don't have any issues with light bending - if this was the case, then in the case of NovaSar then images taken at 16 degrees would generate different results from those at the other extreme, 25 degrees. But they do not do this - this is not a problem.
On a broader note, I'm fascinated to understand what FE proponents think is going on with systems like NovaSar. There is wealth of publicly available, and commercially useful, information regarding the satellite - see here, for example: https://research.csiro.au/cceo/novasar/novasar-introduction/novasar-1-user-guide/#satellite-specifications (https://research.csiro.au/cceo/novasar/novasar-introduction/novasar-1-user-guide/#satellite-specifications)
Look at the satellite orbit information - it simply could not work in the way described on a FE. Which then raises the question, what exactly do FE proponents think is happening here? Pete - thoughts?
-
NovaSar, and indeed myriad other satellites, image the earth at a variety of angles and don't have any issues with light bending - if this was the case, then in the case of NovaSar then images taken at 16 degrees would generate different results from those at the other extreme, 25 degrees. But they do not do this - this is not a problem.
Of course they do. They would do that if the Earth were round, too. The field of view dramatically affects the perceived shape of the Earth, either if we assume a round Earth and straight light rays, or a flat Earth and curved light rays. This is extremely basic geometry, not an "EA-based argument".
-
Satellites above a flat accelerating upwards earth would not be practical. A big supply of fuel would be necessary to keep them accelerating upwards to maintain a constant distance above the earth. Extremely basic physics. I would also think that all that burning fuel would distort pictures taken thru the hot exhaust gases.
-
NovaSar, and indeed myriad other satellites, image the earth at a variety of angles and don't have any issues with light bending - if this was the case, then in the case of NovaSar then images taken at 16 degrees would generate different results from those at the other extreme, 25 degrees. But they do not do this - this is not a problem.
Of course they do. They would do that if the Earth were round, too. The field of view dramatically affects the perceived shape of the Earth, either if we assume a round Earth and straight light rays, or a flat Earth and curved light rays. This is extremely basic geometry, not an "EA-based argument".
So your contention is that, for all transmission angles, and all altitudes above the earth's surface, the distances and incidence angles at the surface would be identical regardless of whether the earth was round and EM waves traveled in straight lines or if, instead, the earth was flat and the rays curved according to EA?
-
Satellites above a flat accelerating upwards earth would not be practical. A big supply of fuel would be necessary to keep them accelerating upwards to maintain a constant distance above the earth. Extremely basic physics. I would also think that all that burning fuel would distort pictures taken thru the hot exhaust gases.
Didn't you say this before? FET hypothesises that the earth itself shields the force which makes UA...A. That's why we don't accelerate upwards too - well, we do, but we're pushed upwards by the earth - which creates the effect which RE calls gravity.
But that shield only works up to a certain altitude which is why the earth doesn't accelerate into the stars, they are also being accelerated upwards. So if you could get a satellite into that region then it would be accelerated up along with the earth.
There are bunch of other problems, presumably you'd still need fuel to keep the satellite orbiting.
And of course there would have to be a big conspiracy amongst all the countries who launch satellites who claim that they're doing so based on all the maths to make this work on a RE. Which was kinda my point in my post which kicked this conversation off. We have a load of satellite data and photos from space. The image I posted would be extremely difficult to fake. The FE response to satellites confuses me in general. Some just shout "fake!" and run away, but this quality and quantity of data would be next to impossible to fake, and they have no actual evidence of that. Pete's response seems to be that satellites are possible on a FE but I'm not clear how that would work.
-
There are bunch of other problems, presumably you'd still need fuel to keep the satellite orbiting.
And of course there would have to be a big conspiracy amongst all the countries who launch satellites who claim that they're doing so based on all the maths to make this work on a RE. Which was kinda my point in my post which kicked this conversation off. We have a load of satellite data and photos from space. The image I posted would be extremely difficult to fake. The FE response to satellites confuses me in general. Some just shout "fake!" and run away, but this quality and quantity of data would be next to impossible to fake, and they have no actual evidence of that. Pete's response seems to be that satellites are possible on a FE but I'm not clear how that would work.
It's not just the question of how they stay up there - a more pressing issue is how to explain their movement. If you look in that link I posted earlier you can see the track of NovaSar - they are very open about it, and it is central to the commercial exploitation of the asset to be able to say where and when it will be. The tracks make no sense at all if you plot them on any of the proposed FE maps - even Tom's almost entirely blank dipole map. Hence my question above, and as you too are saying: what exactly do they think is going on? You can go to a satellite firm and say 'I see your satellite will be over this area at time/date xx, I'd like some SAR imaging please' - how exactly is that working, if the satellite isn't travelling around the globe in a predictable fashion? Who is conspiring, and who is deluded?
-
I believe that the flat earth beliefs involve the same thing that keeps the Sun and Moon orbiting and that is the barycenter argument. Of course, this contention can’t be supported. Even if it could there are all kinds of other difficulties that can’t be explained in a rational manner. One would be the necessity for the ‘dark energy’ to provide the exact push necessary to keep all the satellites accelerating upwards and at exactly the correct rate independently of their mass and surface area. This ‘dark energy’ would have to be extremely ‘smart’ in order to do this. All these things have been discussed in previous posts and no answers have come out of the flat earth aficionados. I don’t believe that there’s anything in the Wiki that could provide any detailed answers either.
-
So your contention is that, for all transmission angles, and all altitudes above the earth's surface, the distances and incidence angles at the surface would be identical regardless of whether the earth was round and EM waves traveled in straight lines or if, instead, the earth was flat and the rays curved according to EA?
No.
-
So your contention is that, for all transmission angles, and all altitudes above the earth's surface, the distances and incidence angles at the surface would be identical regardless of whether the earth was round and EM waves traveled in straight lines or if, instead, the earth was flat and the rays curved according to EA?
No.
At this point most reasonable people in a debate would clearly state what their contention actually is, in the interest of keeping a lively discussion going. Any chance you could do so?
-
At this point most reasonable people in a debate would clearly state what their contention actually is, in the interest of keeping a lively discussion going. Any chance you could do so?
I already stated my position. If you're going to devolve your rhetoric to the level of "sO wHaT yOu'Re SaYiNg iS <obvious strawman>", you exclude yourself from reasonable debate.
-
I'm not seeing any visual distortion.
Sigh, of course you'd choose the narrowest angle possible. I weep for you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "narrowest angle".
But hey, let's roll with this. How have you determined whether this image appears distorted when referenced against a "naked eye" view of the scene? Pardon my cynicism, but I strongly suspect you haven't made the comparison at all.
This is what Chicago looks like when I've been there, with the naked eye. I'm not seeing any distortion in this panorama:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Panorama_Chicago.jpg)
Are you saying that all panorama images are distorted?
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "narrowest angle".
I'm very sorry to hear that. Have you considered learning basic optics before debating its nuances?
This is what Chicago looks like when I've been there, with the naked eye. I'm not seeing any distortion in this panorama:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Panorama_Chicago.jpg)
Then you have proven yourself to be an entirely unreliable witness, since you are confidently testifying to something that's impossible. As you are well aware, you can't map a curved image onto a flat plane without introducing some degree of distortion, and yet you claim no such distortion was introduced. Similarly, by your testimony, the last time you observed Chicago with the naked eye, the buildings were not standing upright, and all of them were measurably leaning towards the centre of the image. I must say, I'm glad nobody lives in the Chicago you've imagined in your mind - they'd be in even worse a place than real Chicagoans!
And, once again, you failed to perform the relevant test. I don't care whether you think it looks distorted, or what your recollection of events is - the task is for you to compare two images. You're failing to observe the difference between the two images because you repeatedly choose not to observe one of the two images.
Are you saying that all panorama images are distorted?
Please, exercise the common courtesy of reading what I said before responding. If you don't even know what I said, you're horrendously unprepared to try and formulate a reasoned response.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "narrowest angle".
I'm very sorry to hear that. Have you considered learning basic optics before debating its nuances?
You wrote:
I'm not seeing any visual distortion.
Sigh, of course you'd choose the narrowest angle possible. I weep for you.
How would you know the composite panorama was shot with the "narrowest angle possible"?
This is what Chicago looks like when I've been there, with the naked eye. I'm not seeing any distortion in this panorama:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Panorama_Chicago.jpg)
Then you have proven yourself to be an entirely unreliable witness, since you are confidently testifying to something that's impossible. As you are well aware, you can't map a curved image onto a flat plane without introducing some degree of distortion, and yet you claim no such distortion was introduced. Similarly, by your testimony, the last time you observed Chicago with the naked eye, the buildings were not standing upright, and all of them were measurably towards the centre of the image. I must say, I'm glad nobody lives in the Chicago you've imagined in your mind - they'd be in even worse a place than real Chicagoans!
And, once again, you failed to perform the relevant test. I don't care whether you think it looks distorted, or what your recollection of events is - the task is for you to compare two images. You're failing to observe the difference between the two images because you repeatedly choose not to observe one of the two images.
I'm still not seeing any "significant distortion" as you claim.
(https://i.imgur.com/K8OW8vg.jpg)
Are you saying that all panorama images are distorted?
Please, exercise the common courtesy of reading what I said before responding. If you don't even know what I said, you're horrendously unprepared to try and formulate a reasoned response.
You wrote:
That is, of course, with the important caveat that the shape of objects in panoramas is significantly distorted when compared to their "naked eye" appearance.
I didn't want to assume you meant all panoramas, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Because there are obviously panoramas that aren't "significantly distorted".
-
How would you know the composite panorama was shot with the "narrowest angle possible"?
I didn't say anything about how it was shot. I will give you one last chance to catch up with what you're arguing against. If you can't process simple English, please stop wasting my time with non-sequitur responses.
I'm still not seeing any "significant distortion" as you claim.
I don't know how to help you, given that you completely ignored the geometric impossibility of your position (together with the very measurable evidence of why you're wrong), and followed up by posting a collage of pictures which were not taken from the same location, which do not accurately represent the naked eye experience, and which do not look remotely similar to the panorama (indeed, they exaggerate the distortion thanks to the terrible sample selection).
If you're unwilling to perform the comparison, well, you're a lazy so-and-so, but there's nothing forcing you to be a dishonest and obtuse lazy so-and-so.
Because there are obviously panoramas that aren't "significantly distorted".
This is the opposite of "obvious". It is geometrically impossible to map the surface of a sphere (or any part thereof that isn't just a point) to a flat surface without introducing distortion. If you think otherwise, you need to review things you should have learned around the age of 12. Preferably, you will do so without subjecting everyone else to your lacks in education.
-
I saw a youtube video of a couple sailing across the Atlantic. They used a sextant to shoot the sun at noon and calculate their position. The calculation came within a few miles of what they saw on their cell phone gps. People have been doing this since the invention of the chronometer. Here is how to do it:
https://princetonastronomy.com/2020/05/01/solar-observations-with-a-sextant/
Basically, the angle of the sun above the horizon gives your latitude, and the time (related to GMT) gives your longitude. This works on FE or RE the same way, although the numbers in the chart would be different.
I know a man who was in the Air Force and was a flight engineer on MATS cargo flights all over the world. When I told him that someone said "no one knows the distance or where you are over the ocean", he laughed. They flew regularly to the Azores, tiny islands in a very big Atlantic, you really want to get this right, or you have to swim hundreds of miles. The flight engineer was responsible for engine settings and fuel load. He needs this right, or you run out of gas in the Atlantic. He was cross trained as pilot and navigator to some degree.
They had several ways of knowing where they were:
1. Dead reckoning, least accurate, subject to wind error, as Tom Bishop says.
2. Triangulation with known radio stations and a directional antenna. You may have seen military aircraft with a circular antenna sicking out above the fuselage, that is what it is for.
3. Loran, the ground based predecessor of gps. check youtube videos for how it worked.
4. Sextant, as explained above. That is what the plexiglass bubble on top of the fuselage of military aircraft of the 1940s, C-47, B-17, B-24.
He said they always knew where they were, always successfully found their destination, many many times, never ran out of gas. He said the wind had some unknown impact on them, hence the importance of knowing where they were. He also said they knew roughly what the wind would be, needed for fuel load planning. Amazingly to Tom Bishop, all methods gave the same answer to within a few miles. Otherwise, you are in the middle of the Atlantic, short of fuel, and no idea where you are?
If Tom Bishop is right, I am never going to vacation in Hawaii. Does the pilot of an airliner take off for Hawaii knowing he has no idea how far it is, just points the plane in the same direction as last time and it always seems to get there? Amazing, especially with unknown winds that must be hundreds of mph to make the Sydney to Santiago flights work, perhaps in both directions at the same time, or maybe the flights are on different days of the week because they experienced the winds one way on Wed and the other way on Fri? What if the wind blows you off course north and south, seems like the wind would have to blow exactly towards your destination, or north south error.
There is astral navigation, radio navigation, dead reckoning, but per Tom Bishop, the only possible possible technique is "worked last time, cross your fingers". Are the insurance companies aware of this? Of course, it seems to be 100% reliable method, airliners always find Hawaii. Pretty small dot in a very bog ocean, with hundreds of mph winds going unknown directions.
And none of the pilots know, and none of them tell anyone? The pilot and navigator faked it and pretended when they told the flight engineer where they were? They always found the Azores, he never ditched out of fuel.
-
@Jimster; concur with 95% of your post, but could you clarify this "came within a few miles of what they saw on their cell phone gps"
Whilst I would find some novelty value in comparing my solar-calculated position with that on my cellphone (assuming pre-loaded with suitable mapping), I find it difficult to believe that a 21st Century transatlantic navigator would not be also be equipped with a dedicated marine-GPS as a reference source of navigation data.
Do you have a link to the You Tube video?
-
The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.
I drove from Perth to Darwin, and every single leg of that trip complied exactly with RET-based predictions. Just sayin'.
(Btw, same with Calgary - Key West - Toronto - Calgary).
-
Not gonna take the time to link to the video, sorry. It was a young couple in a 30-40 foot sailboat. The man was navigating with sextant only, did a noon sun shoot and calculated his position. Then he showed it to his wife, who checked gps on her cell phone. She then confirmed he was right to him - he wanted to navigate across the ocean without ever looking at gps. They edited in a chart showing the calculated and gps locations showing a few miles.
I make no claim to precision, but it doesn't take much precision to confirm that Australia is 2700 mi wide and US is 3000 mi wide and the FAQ map has Australia much wider than US. People on FE web sites frequently fixate on precision and miss entirely the point. It serves only to distract from the main point that proves the earth is round. For example here we could go off the rails to argue "round" vs "oblate spheriod".
Clearly people have been navigating the world successfully since 1700s. I flew on an airliner from Sydney Australia to LA. If you know how to do this, you know what the distances are, and hence the shape of the earth.
-
There are winds which travel both Eastwards and Westwards in both the North and the South. There is no such thing as not taking advantage of any winds for a control flight. The planes always try to take advantage of the winds when they fly. When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/1/18/Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png/1200px-Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png)
OK, so if there's a headwind going one way, then there's a tailwind going the other. So, do the round-trip and split the difference. The result (especially after a number of trips) is going to be a close estimate of the actual distance.
-
An interesting experiment might be to start as far north as possible in Google Earth (in a version that allows such scaling) and zoom in on a human being and note the fact that they can either be seen from directly overhead or from a slightly side view/angle from above. Then work slowly in a southerly direction and observe the human beings as you near the equator. Are they stood at the same or similar angles? And when it comes to Australia the human beings should be stood at the opposite angle (to the ground) to those in the far northern hemisphere. And am sure they will not be upside down :-) This isnt a joke by the way but it would be interesting to follow the globe from north to south and if there is any evidence of this. And if there isn't -well...:-)