[Tom Bishop]

Where is this evidence that "Ships always disappear below the horizon, distant landmarks are always partially obscured. And here's the point, they always disappear bottom first."? I don't see that you have provided any evidence at all. These are just statements.

Also, the type of curve that this effect is making may not be compatible with creating noticeable obscuration of something near the surface at 23 miles. Most of the examples of variable light curvature of a closer distance. As I have stated, I could either see the other shore or I could not. If light is bending it would need to be bent in a special and precise way to half-obscure a distant 23 mile landmass.

[BillO]

If the routes are different, I would expect you to post evidence of that. You didn't. As a matter of fact, however, the example you provided with Lindbergh is very much "essentially," the same as those taken today.

I'm finally felling better and have a minute or two.

Below is a map for air routes in the 1930s when celestial navigation was used.  As I said before, zigzagging to maximize time over land and minimize the hop distance since those planes had poor range.



Here is a modern day route from London to Johannesburg.  Not very much like to old route, is it?


The only similarities between modern routes and the old routes is that to fly to SOME destinations to the south, east, west or north, you head kind of south, east, west or north respectively.

Also, key factor, celestial navigation does not and cannot work on a flat earth.  https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.07491.pdf

[DuncanDoenitz]

Need to play Devil's advocate here BillO; the proof is not in this particular pudding. 

The reason for the 1920s/30s routing was, as you say, to accommodate the relatively short range of the aircraft involved (and incidentally goes some way to explaining the current hodge-podge of middle-east politics, as the British Empire ran roughshod over emirates and sheikhdoms in order to provide an air-route to British southern Africa and to India). 

Your Directflights map is not an air-route at all, its a travel agent's illustration of a hypothetical link between the 2 cities, in the same way that the London Underground Map joins Waterloo to Paddington.  Its not a navigational map.  If you look at a tracking site like Flightradar24 you'll find that the normal route is typically Balkans, eastern Med, Egypt, northern Red Sea, Ethiopea, Kenya, Tanzania, and all well to the east of a Great Circle.  The reason for this is to related to common sense as well as insurance requirements; most aviation insurance excludes flight over war-zones, rogue-states and specifically some countries such as North Korea, Libya, Yemen.  Hence, very similar to Imperial Airways, in fact, but in hours rather than days, and not a pith-helmet in sight. 

I agree 100% with your concept of modern air-routes generally being more direct, but you'll likely be looking at oceanic examples to get your point over.  Glad you're feeling better btw. 

[BillO]

I'm not trying to prove anything, other than the fallacy of Action80's claim that today's routes are essentially the same as when celestial navigation was used.

I agree 100% with your concept of modern air-routes generally being more direct, but you'll likely be looking at oceanic examples to get your point over.

Non-stop flights are great circle routes regardless of being over land or water.  That's what's shown in that directflights image.  There are route calculators out there and I used one to verify that fact.  However they do not produce single addressable images.

Glad you're feeling better btw.

Thanks.

[BillO]

Here is an example: https://www.greatcirclemap.com/?routes=LHR-JNB

[AATW]

Where is this evidence that "Ships always disappear below the horizon, distant landmarks are always partially obscured. And here's the point, they always disappear bottom first."? I don't see that you have provided any evidence at all. These are just statements.

I mean, this is a well known phenomenon. You have whole a Wiki page which attempts to explain why it happens on a Flat Earth.
I've also made personal observations of things like wind farms out to sea. It's noticeable how the distant turbines are obscured more. I've posted videos like the Turning Torso one - multiple observations made from different distances which show the effect. And you can find many timelapse videos on YouTube showing ships going out to sea or coming in to harbour which clearly show the effect.
Do you have an example of a timelapse or other observation where it does not occur?

Also, the type of curve that this effect is making may not be compatible with creating noticeable obscuration of something near the surface at 23 miles. Most of the examples of variable light curvature of a closer distance. As I have stated, I could either see the other shore or I could not. If light is bending it would need to be bent in a special and precise way to half-obscure a distant 23 mile landmass.

As a wise man once said, Where is this evidence that "The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore."? I don't see that you have provided any evidence at all. These are just statements.

And the point you are desperately trying to avoid is that you claim that "provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year.". Again, no evidence provided, just your statements. And yet on the aforementioned Wiki page you claim the effect is inconsistent.

[BillO]

If you look at a tracking site like Flightradar24 you'll find that the normal route is typically Balkans, eastern Med, Egypt, northern Red Sea, Ethiopea, Kenya, Tanzania, and all well to the east of a Great Circle.

Here is a non-stop flight that occurred today.  Virgin Atlantic flight VIR449 from London to Johannesburg.  With very slight endpoint deviation to allow for airport specific traffic patterns, follows a fairly precise great circle route.

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/VIR449/history/20240226/2235Z/EGLL/FAOR

Here's the same thing from Flightradar24:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/vs449#34273b21

[DuncanDoenitz]

Agreed on this example BillO, and refutes Action80's assertion that

It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged.

Examples are even more different in the southern hemisphere (Hemiplane?).  Witness Qantas QFA864 (B787, VH-ZNN), currently around 51S 60E en-route J'burg-Sydney; a route which didn't exist in the early 20th Century. 

[Action80]

snipped for brevity
Also, key factor, celestial navigation does not and cannot work on a flat earth.  https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.07491.pdf

How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?

You have nothing.

Even that paper is full of holes.

[BillO]

How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?

Ever since planes with the range have been available, and that matters squat because they do fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg and back and they don't fly the old routes anymore.  On the slight chance you are asking in earnest, the Boeing 707 was the first airliner that was capable of making the flight.  It was first flown in 1950.  So, the ability has been there for 74 years.

You have nothing.

You have to love the projection here.  Scintillating!

Even that paper is full of holes.

So surely you can point out a few of these "holes" with your detailed reasoning as to why they are "holes", to help us all understand, right?  Or are you just making baseless statements?

[Action80]

How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?

Ever since planes with the range have been available, and that matters squat because they do fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg and back and they don't fly the old routes anymore.  On the slight chance you are asking in earnest, the Boeing 707 was the first airliner that was capable of making the flight.  It was first flown in 1950.  So, the ability has been there for 74 years.

What slight chance?

They have not been making non-stop flights to Johannesburg from London for that long.

When you compare those routes when they started to what they fly now, they are essentially the same, as I stated.

You have nothing.

You have to love the projection here.  Scintillating!

In your original response, you chose to provide the route taken by Lindbergh, which...SURPRISE!!!...doesn't vary much from what is taken now. Projection?

Even that paper is full of holes.

So surely you can point out a few of these "holes" with your detailed reasoning as to why they are "holes", to help us all understand, right?  Or are you just making baseless statements?

Yeah, one of the holes is using the dimensions of a spherical earth to arrive at a conclusion.

[BillO]

They have not been making non-stop flights to Johannesburg from London for that long.

Where is your evidence for this?

Also, need I remind that your question was:

How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?

The 707 was able in 1950.  If you wanted a different answer, you should have asked a different question. 

When you compare those routes when they started to what they fly now, they are essentially the same, as I stated.

In what way is the route from London to Johannesburg the same today as it was in 1930?

In your original response, you chose to provide the route taken by Lindbergh, which...SURPRISE!!!...doesn't vary much from what is taken now. Projection?

No, not projection at all.  Is that another word you have trouble with?

Go back and read that post.  I specifically said it was like the route they take today.  I was using it as an example of one of the first great circle routes. Here's a reminder:

Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles.  Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.

Yeah, one of the holes is using the dimensions of a spherical earth to arrive at a conclusion.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, and not only is not a "hole" it proves their point as when they use a flat earth is does NOT work.

Your getting like Ranty now, working hard to prove the earth is round!!  Keep it up buddy!

[Action80]

They have not been making non-stop flights to Johannesburg from London for that long.

Where is your evidence for this?

Also, need I remind that your question was:

How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?

The 707 was able in 1950.  If you wanted a different answer, you should have asked a different question.

I already made my statement.

Long-distance travel routes have not varied significantly since their inception.

And they haven't.

Your own post showing Lindbergh's route clearly demonstrates that.

When you compare those routes when they started to what they fly now, they are essentially the same, as I stated.

In what way is the route from London to Johannesburg the same today as it was in 1930?

Introducing a prior multistop route into the discussion of a long-distance non-stop route is typical of the BS you try to interject into any examination of issues conducted in the threads on these boards. Your style is tiresome and weary and isn't worth the effort.

In your original response, you chose to provide the route taken by Lindbergh, which...SURPRISE!!!...doesn't vary much from what is taken now. Projection?

No, not projection at all.  Is that another word you have trouble with?


Go back and read that post.  I specifically said it was like the route they take today.  I was using it as an example of one of the first great circle routes. Here's a reminder:

Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles.  Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.

Confirming my response then. The long-distance routes today used by airliners have changed very little.
 

Yeah, one of the holes is using the dimensions of a spherical earth to arrive at a conclusion.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, and not only is not a "hole" it proves their point as when they use a flat earth is does NOT work.

Your getting like Ranty now, working hard to prove the earth is round!!  Keep it up buddy!

Not hardly, as the sphere that should be labeled as such by them is NOT the earth, but the celestial sphere above.

Try harder next time.

[BillO]

Nuh -uh!  I said stuff, I do not need data, I'm pretty sure I'm right!!

Now you're just trolling, and very weekly at that.
Hitchens's razor applies here.  You made a statement and provided no evidence.  It's worthless dribble.

Introducing a prior multistop route into the discussion of a long-distance non-stop route is typical of the BS you try to interject.. and I choose to ignore what I said myself.. and excuse me while I move the goalposts..

There were no long distance non-stop commercial flights in the celestial navigation days.  This is exactly the kind response I'd expect from someone that has absolutely no self awareness.

Not hardly, as the sphere that should be labeled as such by them is NOT the earth, but the celestial sphere above.

Very funny!  And I thought you had no sense of humor.  You are joking, right?


Enjoy your fishing trip.

[Action80]

There were no long distance non-stop commercial flights in the celestial navigation days.  This is exactly the kind response I'd expect from someone that has absolutely no self awareness.

The first non-stop flights made were all non-commercial.

Introducing that term is simply a diversionary tactic on your part.

The point is they were made using celestial navigation.

I am aware.

[BillO]

I am aware.

Apparently not.  You introduced the concept of "methods used for long-distance travel".  Remember?

One off flights like that of Lindbergh were not generally done for the purpose of "travel".  In his case he was trying to break a record and win a prize.  In fact, in all cases I can come up with, getting from A to B was not the intent.  You usually don't build one-off special aircraft to visit auntie Matilda.


You're good for a chuckle though.

As an aside (not part of the "discussion") it should also be noted that Lindbergh's "trip" actually began in San Diego, then on to St. Louis and New York before setting off over the Atlantic.  So, his "travel route" is distinctly not even close to a current non-stop flight from San Diego to Paris.  However, the Orteig Prize was only concerned with NY to Paris.  Fun fact.