[Curious Squirrel]

Do you actually know this or are you making stuff up? Over long distances there is little variation in aircraft type and cruise speed.

Incorrect.

And I really don't know how you come up with the idea that planes should change speed by much during flights.

In another thread we were looking at a live map of international flights and we saw the speeds of each aircraft fluctuating by large amounts on a minute by minute basis.

Anyway, he's averaging the results to compensate. We'll see how the error bars are when he's finished.

Averaging a groundspeed that is based on Round Earth coordinates will give you an average derived from Round Earth coordinates. Such an effort will  be invalid for determining whether the Round Earth coordinate system is correct.

Are you just willfully not understanding what's going on here? Or do you have an actual problem you can elucidate for us? Speed isn't a factor here. Time is all that matters. The time a flight takes is generally consistent between two points. There's not much variance to that data. This makes it a great metric to use in place of distance. Unless minutes on a FE are different too.

[Tom Bishop]

Are you just willfully not understanding what's going on here? Or do you have an actual problem you can elucidate for us? Speed isn't a factor here. Time is all that matters. The time a flight takes is generally consistent between two points. There's not much variance to that data. This makes it a great metric to use in place of distance. Unless minutes on a FE are different too.

Time alone is useless without knowledge of how fast the craft is traveling.

[Ga_x2]

Averaging a groundspeed that is based on Round Earth coordinates will give you an average derived from Round Earth coordinates. Such an effort will  be invalid for determining whether the Round Earth coordinate system is correct.

I understand that you desperately need a straw to grasp, but, again, speed doesn't enter in the equation. He's averaging times. There is literally no reference to the shape of earth there.
If you want to undermine this methodology, you have only a few options:
To say that planes fly at such different speeds that flight times don't mean anything, but that's not my experience in long distance flights, and this will be anyway readily apparent in the error bars.
To say that planes fly at different speeds in different areas of the planet, which is kinda dumb.
To say that planes fly complicated paths instead of the shorter route, which is also kinda dumb, except for some parts of the planet. (I predict that flight times around the middle East will be a bit skewed)

[Ga_x2]

Are you just willfully not understanding what's going on here? Or do you have an actual problem you can elucidate for us? Speed isn't a factor here. Time is all that matters. The time a flight takes is generally consistent between two points. There's not much variance to that data. This makes it a great metric to use in place of distance. Unless minutes on a FE are different too.

Time alone is useless without knowledge of how fast the craft is traveling.

have you aver heard the concept of proportions?

[Ga_x2]

Do you actually know this or are you making stuff up? Over long distances there is little variation in aircraft type and cruise speed.

Incorrect.

Here's a list of the aircrafts with the longest range, it took me 2 minutes with Google, I have no time for a more in-depth search.
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature-the-longest-range-airliners-in-the-world/
Look at the cruise speeds: they are within a 5% range.

I'd also like to see the reference for the huge variations midflight. Do you realize that it would be impossible for companies to schedule flights, if the speed varied constantly by much?

[Curious Squirrel]

Are you just willfully not understanding what's going on here? Or do you have an actual problem you can elucidate for us? Speed isn't a factor here. Time is all that matters. The time a flight takes is generally consistent between two points. There's not much variance to that data. This makes it a great metric to use in place of distance. Unless minutes on a FE are different too.

Time alone is useless without knowledge of how fast the craft is traveling.

Incorrect. Time taken can be used as an analogue of distance. Planes of the same model all take roughly the same amount of time to go from one airport to another. No matter how fast they're going, this means they are covering about the same amount of distance because cruising speeds don't vary that much, and they all have to slow down and speed up the same amounts for takeoff and landing. Therefore, since you can't agree on speeds, the time taken works as a rough analogue to distance. If nothing else it's going to be close enough it shouldn't be possible to make a flat Earth appear round nor a round Earth appear flat, except perhaps locally upon continents.

[3DGeek]

Do you actually know this or are you making stuff up? Over long distances there is little variation in aircraft type and cruise speed.

Incorrect.

Here's a list of the aircrafts with the longest range, it took me 2 minutes with Google, I have no time for a more in-depth search.
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature-the-longest-range-airliners-in-the-world/
Look at the cruise speeds: they are within a 5% range.

I'd also like to see the reference for the huge variations midflight. Do you realize that it would be impossible for companies to schedule flights, if the speed varied constantly by much?

Plus they all have autopilots that control speed to really high precision.

You could try to argue that there is a systemic error (eg all airplanes fly 20% faster or slower than they claim) - but that wouldn't alter the SHAPE of the map - only the overall scale of it.

If flight speeds varied randomly or at least inconsistently (which I think is what Tom implies) - then we would not be finding that over 80% of all flight (and as much as 93% for some airlines) are on-time.

But even if those speeds did vary in that way - it wouldn't explain why the speeds happen ALWAYS to be a good fit for a round earth.

So you have several possible hypotheses here:

* Airline cruise speeds are accurate to within (say) 10% as published - which allows a CLEAR disproof of FET because of the "quadrilateral cities" argument.
* Airline cruise speeds are consistently off by some fixed percentage - which still breaks FET and for the exact same reason - but would imply that the size of the round earth is not what we believe it to be.
* Airline cruise speeds are randomly varying - but average out to the published number over a typical route - which still breaks FET.
* Airline cruise speeds are randomly varying - but do NOT average out at all well - which would not explain the fact that flights arrive so close to their "on-time" arrivals so frequently.
* Airline cruise speeds are varying between routes but are always the same for a particular route - if this were the case then airlines would be very concerned about this because being on time and being fuel efficient are the two things that allow them to stay in business.  But for this to help FET, those speeds would have to vary in such a way as to make the airplane fly inefficiently but so as to make it LOOK like the Earth is Round even though it is not.

Really - the last of those is the only one which allows the Earth to be flat.  But it has serious problems too:

* On any map that you could ever come up with, some routes will ALWAYS require ordinary subsonic airplanes to fly faster than Concorde could fly.  (The Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile is the 'poster child' for this - but there are HUNDREDS of other routes we could find with similarly large errors).

* For the speeds to vary so precisely as to mimic a round earth - there would have to be some "intelligent design" explanation.  SOMEONE would have to be fritzing with the airplanes to make them fly faster than their published cruise speeds or slower than their efficient flight speeds to produce times to fool all of us into believing that the Earth is round.

* Fuel consumption figures would be all over the place on different routes.   The airlines would be onto this in a HEARTBEAT - fuel is about 40% of the price of an airline ticket.  If you're an airline and somehow your airplane could get there using 5% less fuel - you'd be able to knock $10 off of the price of a ticket and that's enough to beat your opposition.

So now FE'ers *have* to resort to conspiracy theories - because all other avenues of debate are now closed.

[Ga_x2]

Well 3dgeek, tbh you are still leaving out some possible sources of variance which might screw things up (I mentioned then above), but I'm willing to bet that he'll have only some parts of the map with inconsistent results (e.g. the middle east).
I'm curious to see how the data and margins of error turn out in the end.

[gizmo910]

Since man has been mapping the world, they've done so with simple observations. Ptolemy (150AD) was regarded as the first cartographer, mapping out the known world based on astronomical observations reported. If FET astronomy was accurate back then, one would assume a flat plane would be mapped out, as opposed to Ptolemy's suggested curved latitudes.

[TomInAustin]

Do you actually know this or are you making stuff up? Over long distances there is little variation in aircraft type and cruise speed.

Incorrect.

And I really don't know how you come up with the idea that planes should change speed by much during flights.

In another thread we were looking at a live map of international flights and we saw the speeds of each aircraft fluctuating by large amounts on a minute by minute basis.

Anyway, he's averaging the results to compensate. We'll see how the error bars are when he's finished.

Averaging a groundspeed that is based on Round Earth coordinates will give you an average derived from Round Earth coordinates. Such an effort will  be invalid for determining whether the Round Earth coordinate system is correct.

I noticed you dodged this before so I'll tell you again, The burden of proof is on you to show where a flat earth mile is not the same as a round earth mile.  Otherwise, stop trying to derail a productive thread.  What are you so afraid of?

[JHelzer]

Here's a list of the aircrafts with the longest range, it took me 2 minutes with Google, I have no time for a more in-depth search.
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature-the-longest-range-airliners-in-the-world/
Look at the cruise speeds: they are within a 5% range.

Tom,
I'd like to acknowledge your concern that all passenger jet-liners don't fly at the same speed.  This is certainly true.
What are your thoughts on my claim that the differences won't be significant enough to turn a flat earth round or a round earth flat.

Flight speeds differences may make my map a bit distorted, but it would not change the location of entire continents.
If you will acknowledge this claim, I'll feel good about proceeding.

With the link that Ga_x2 provided, we can see that cruising speeds are very similar for all the vehicles I have been using in my data collection.  This gives me more confidence in the process. 

I have asked Tom several times to acknowledge that the flight time data will not be perfect, but will be good enough to reveal the position of continents and be an acceptable representation of their layout on the Earth.  Also, I have asked him to acknowledge that the imprecise measurements will not introduce enough error to change a flat earth into a round ball.  I do not require Tom's approval to continue the project, but it is disappointing that he initially engaged me in analyzing this map making effort and is now ignoring my requests.

At this point in the discussion, I am more convinced than ever that the flight time data I am collecting will give a good representation of the shape of continents and their relationship to each other.  I will create my map project topic and track progress there.  Thanks everybody for all your input.

[3DGeek]

Here's a list of the aircrafts with the longest range, it took me 2 minutes with Google, I have no time for a more in-depth search.
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature-the-longest-range-airliners-in-the-world/
Look at the cruise speeds: they are within a 5% range.

Tom,
I'd like to acknowledge your concern that all passenger jet-liners don't fly at the same speed.  This is certainly true.
What are your thoughts on my claim that the differences won't be significant enough to turn a flat earth round or a round earth flat.

Flight speeds differences may make my map a bit distorted, but it would not change the location of entire continents.
If you will acknowledge this claim, I'll feel good about proceeding.

With the link that Ga_x2 provided, we can see that cruising speeds are very similar for all the vehicles I have been using in my data collection.  This gives me more confidence in the process. 

I have asked Tom several times to acknowledge that the flight time data will not be perfect, but will be good enough to reveal the position of continents and be an acceptable representation of their layout on the Earth.  Also, I have asked him to acknowledge that the imprecise measurements will not introduce enough error to change a flat earth into a round ball.  I do not require Tom's approval to continue the project, but it is disappointing that he initially engaged me in analyzing this map making effort and is now ignoring my requests.

At this point in the discussion, I am more convinced than ever that the flight time data I am collecting will give a good representation of the shape of continents and their relationship to each other.  I will create my map project topic and track progress there.  Thanks everybody for all your input.

The errors that all flat maps will inevitably produce are going to be huge - doubling or tripling the flight times over what we actually see.   So I have no doubt you'll produce a map that can only be round.

However, this exercise doesn't prove anything that the quadrilateral cities approach doesn't prove.

The fact that the FE'ers wouldn't swallow that one suggests you'll get similar results here.

[Tom Bishop]

Here's a list of the aircrafts with the longest range, it took me 2 minutes with Google, I have no time for a more in-depth search.
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature-the-longest-range-airliners-in-the-world/
Look at the cruise speeds: they are within a 5% range.

Cruising speed is defined "a speed for a particular vehicle, ship, or aircraft, usually somewhat below maximum, that is comfortable and economical."

This does NOT suggest that a plane will fly at its cruising speed for the entirety of the journey. Your car might have a comfortable "cruising speed" of 55 miles per hour, but that does not suggest that you spend significant time at that speed on your trip.

I'd also like to see the reference for the huge variations midflight. Do you realize that it would be impossible for companies to schedule flights, if the speed varied constantly by much?

They schedule the flights lenient enough that it is possible for them to come in quite early.

Here are some random quotes from airliners.net:

LHR-ORD - my BA flight departed ten minutes late and arrived 1 hour early. We went straight to a parking position, and about 30-45 minutes later I was on the subway.

I was flying IAD-LHR on UA back in October. We got in almost an hour early. Normally I wouldn't have minded but I was travelling in F and would have like to have had the extra hours sleep!!

I once flew COSAN-EWR on a red-eye flight that made it from lift-off to touch-down in four hours, fifteen minutes. We had been informed that it might be a bumpy, but we would hit some incredible tail winds.

9:30 PM to 5:30 AM...we arrived at 4:45 AM, a full 45 minutes ahead of schedule.

CGK - (SIN) - AMS

About an hour ahead of schedule.
We even had to wait for the gateway controller (sorry, forgot the actual name of the profession) to come and hook us up.

[Tom Bishop]

I noticed you dodged this before so I'll tell you again, The burden of proof is on you to show where a flat earth mile is not the same as a round earth mile.  Otherwise, stop trying to derail a productive thread.  What are you so afraid of?

Since you claim that GPS is accurate, the burden of proof for that is on you. That is a positive claim. The burden of proof is on he with the positive claim.

My claim that GPS may not be accurate and match up with the established definition for a mile is a position of skepticism. This is a negative claim, and does not need to be proven. To question the positive claims of other is a fundamental starting point. If you cannot justify your claims of accuracy in any way, then we should not "just assume" that it is completely accurate. Surely, if it were accurate, someone would have provided evidence to show that it is. It is your responsibility to find that data, and until you can do so, we cannot assume your position to be true without evidence.

[TomInAustin]

I noticed you dodged this before so I'll tell you again, The burden of proof is on you to show where a flat earth mile is not the same as a round earth mile.  Otherwise, stop trying to derail a productive thread.  What are you so afraid of?

Since you claim that GPS is accurate, the burden of proof for that is on you. That is a positive claim. The burden of proof is on he with the positive claim.

My claim that GPS may not be accurate and match up with the established definition for a mile is a position of skepticism. This is a negative claim, and does not need to be proven. To question the positive claims of other is a fundamental starting point. If you cannot justify your claims of accuracy in any way, then we should not "just assume" that it is completely accurate. Surely, if it were accurate, someone would have provided evidence to show that it is. It is your responsibility to find that data, and until you can do so, we cannot assume your position to be true without evidence.

Nice try.   No one said anything about GPS, dodge noted.    That said, we can make you a map.  Why does that scare you so badly?

[Curious Squirrel]

Here's a list of the aircrafts with the longest range, it took me 2 minutes with Google, I have no time for a more in-depth search.
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature-the-longest-range-airliners-in-the-world/
Look at the cruise speeds: they are within a 5% range.

Cruising speed is defined "a speed for a particular vehicle, ship, or aircraft, usually somewhat below maximum, that is comfortable and economical."

This does NOT suggest that a plane will fly at its cruising speed for the entirety of the journey. Your car might have a comfortable "cruising speed" of 55 miles per hour, but that does not suggest that you spend significant time at that speed on your trip.

I'd also like to see the reference for the huge variations midflight. Do you realize that it would be impossible for companies to schedule flights, if the speed varied constantly by much?

They schedule the flights lenient enough that it is possible for them to come in quite early.

Here are some random quotes from airliners.net:

LHR-ORD - my BA flight departed ten minutes late and arrived 1 hour early. We went straight to a parking position, and about 30-45 minutes later I was on the subway.

I was flying IAD-LHR on UA back in October. We got in almost an hour early. Normally I wouldn't have minded but I was travelling in F and would have like to have had the extra hours sleep!!

I once flew COSAN-EWR on a red-eye flight that made it from lift-off to touch-down in four hours, fifteen minutes. We had been informed that it might be a bumpy, but we would hit some incredible tail winds.

9:30 PM to 5:30 AM...we arrived at 4:45 AM, a full 45 minutes ahead of schedule.

CGK - (SIN) - AMS

About an hour ahead of schedule.
We even had to wait for the gateway controller (sorry, forgot the actual name of the profession) to come and hook us up.

All of which is completely irrelevant when using flight times for trips that have already happened. This data is available in bountiful supply all over. Not to mention the data suggests the vast majority of flights are within a slim error margin (5% or less) for time difference.

Once again, no distance is being used here, nor is any being calculated. Just the 'raw' data of flight time.

[Tom Bishop]

I noticed you dodged this before so I'll tell you again, The burden of proof is on you to show where a flat earth mile is not the same as a round earth mile.  Otherwise, stop trying to derail a productive thread.  What are you so afraid of?

Since you claim that GPS is accurate, the burden of proof for that is on you. That is a positive claim. The burden of proof is on he with the positive claim.

My claim that GPS may not be accurate and match up with the established definition for a mile is a position of skepticism. This is a negative claim, and does not need to be proven. To question the positive claims of other is a fundamental starting point. If you cannot justify your claims of accuracy in any way, then we should not "just assume" that it is completely accurate. Surely, if it were accurate, someone would have provided evidence to show that it is. It is your responsibility to find that data, and until you can do so, we cannot assume your position to be true without evidence.

Nice try.   No one said anything about GPS, dodge noted.    That said, we can make you a map.  Why does that scare you so badly?

Replace GPS in my response with "the distance between Round Earth latitude lines" if you prefer. If you are making a positive claim, the burden is on you.

[TomInAustin]

I noticed you dodged this before so I'll tell you again, The burden of proof is on you to show where a flat earth mile is not the same as a round earth mile.  Otherwise, stop trying to derail a productive thread.  What are you so afraid of?

Since you claim that GPS is accurate, the burden of proof for that is on you. That is a positive claim. The burden of proof is on he with the positive claim.

My claim that GPS may not be accurate and match up with the established definition for a mile is a position of skepticism. This is a negative claim, and does not need to be proven. To question the positive claims of other is a fundamental starting point. If you cannot justify your claims of accuracy in any way, then we should not "just assume" that it is completely accurate. Surely, if it were accurate, someone would have provided evidence to show that it is. It is your responsibility to find that data, and until you can do so, we cannot assume your position to be true without evidence.

Nice try.   No one said anything about GPS, dodge noted.    That said, we can make you a map.  Why does that scare you so badly?

Replace GPS in response with "the distance between Round Earth latitude lines" if you prefer. If you are making a positive claim, the burden is on you.

So your idea of deflecting my question is to put words in my mouth and then ask me to defend them?  Nice try, dodge noted,  again.

[Ga_x2]

Cruising speed is defined "a speed for a particular vehicle, ship, or aircraft, usually somewhat below maximum, that is comfortable and economical."

This does NOT suggest that a plane will fly at its cruising speed for the entirety of the journey. Your car might have a comfortable "cruising speed" of 55 miles per hour, but that does not suggest that you spend significant time at that speed on your trip.

you  are either entirely clueless on how companies work, or you are just grasping at straws, I don't know. Of course they try to fly as much as possible at cruise speed. It's a matter of money!

They schedule the flights lenient enough that it is possible for them to come in quite early.

Here are some [snip]

Of course there are margins. Of course some flight will come somewhat early, just as some will come somewhat late. That what's the averaging is for.
How much is the average margin? The error bars will tell, but I'm willing to bet under the 15%-20%, which is still more than enough to sink both maps proposed on the wiki. No company would knowingly waste flight time... time is money.

By the way, that the scheduled times are rounded up in excess is actually irrelevant, because that's done across the board,  and won't impact the proportions between flights.

[Tom Bishop]

All of which is completely irrelevant when using flight times for trips that have already happened. This data is available in bountiful supply all over. Not to mention the data suggests the vast majority of flights are within a slim error margin (5% or less) for time difference.

Do you have a source for that?

The worldwide rate of delayed flights is quite high. This article quotes the average airline industry rate of on-time arrivals is at 75%, and that is really just about planes which arrive late (about 25% will arrive late). It does not even consider how many planes arrive EARLY.

Once again, no distance is being used here, nor is any being calculated. Just the 'raw' data of flight time.

Please explain how we can know the distance between LA and New York by looking at the arrival times of airplanes without knowing anything about their speed.