The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: JHelzer on September 29, 2017, 01:32:24 PM
-
I have started my Flight-time Flat Earth Map Project and will be starting a topic soon to share with ya'll. Before I do, I want to test out the premise of my map project here on a debate thread. Here it is...
If the surface of the Earth is flat and the surface of a piece of paper is flat, then it should be easy to make an accurate map.
Also, if the Earth is flat but the paper is curved, it should be problematic to make an accurate map.
Likewise, if the Earth is curved but the paper is flat, it should be problematic to make an accurate map.
Finally, if the Earth is curved and the paper is curved, it should be smooth sailing to make an accurate map.
When I begin my Map Project topic, I don't want it be a debate thread. So I thought I'd start here. Please join me in refining my premise here, before I begin the project.
-
GPS and other instruments assume a Round Earth coordinate system when computing distance between two points. Please tell us the distance between New York and Paris without using a method that assumes the earth is round.
-
That's a good point.
My 2nd premise for the project is that flight times are a good-enough measure of distance from one place to another.
I will not use the distances calculated by the airlines, just the raw flight times.
I am gathering several flights from different airlines going both ways and averaging them together.
This is a link to the data I have started collecting.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h0CpaBnQR-WEk6qJ8J2AgwVY4o5we0IzmSDtPPGvDpc/edit?usp=sharing
To my mind, the flight time that a passenger experiences is a raw, real-world measure. I would argue that it is not based on GPS systems, but rather, shortest path. Follow the money should be a principle that works to make this a good measurement.
-
1. In order to derive distance from time you would need to know how fast the plane is flying. The flight speed of a plane varies quite a bit throughout a flight. It's flying in mediums moving within mediums, not anything like vehicles on the ground.
2. The secondary concern is that an aircraft's groundspeed indicators may be made using Round Earth coordinates as plot points to calculate speed. Airspeed instruments are not really accurate and are not used in navigation.
3. It has been brought up that we should use a plane's listed cruising speed for this; but those are just averages, as it relates to point one, and the speeds actually vary throughout the flight. The average cruising speed may also have been computed with groundspeed, which may be in error if they are computed with RE coordinates, as mentioned in point two.
-
1. In order to derive distance from time you would need to know how fast the plane is flying. The flight speed of a plane varies quite a bit throughout a flight. It's flying in mediums moving within mediums, not anything like vehicles on the ground.
To solve this I'd like to let total average flight times of several flights from different airlines smooth all that out. Instead of a precise measure of distance, I want to convince you that an rough average of time is good enough for a general picture. I would argue that if I average all the flight paths then errors should be distributed evenly.
2. The secondary concern is that an aircraft's groundspeed indicators may be made using Round Earth coordinates as plot points to calculate speed. Airspeed instruments are not really accurate and are not used in navigation.
This is why I plan to use raw flight time. No calculated distances. I want to rely on the fact that all flights need to ascend, cruise and descend to skirt past the need for precise distance calculations. No distance, just the time a passenger experiences.
3. It has been brought up that we should use a plane's listed cruising speed for this; but those are just averages, as it relates to point one, and the speeds actually vary throughout the flight. The average cruising speed may also have been computed with groundspeed, which may be in error if they are computed with RE coordinates, as mentioned in point two.
I'd like to leave ground speed and air speed out of it. I don't believe that the differences in cruising speeds of jet powered airplanes averaged together can create enough effect that it would turn a flat earth into a round earth (or visa versa). I am asking that we recognize that there will be error, and the times will be averaged and fuzzy, but the data should be good enough to give a fuzzy picture of the layout of the continents on the Earth.
-
As an example, here is North America.
I traced it from a known round-earth model and gathered flight times from LA to New York to Miami to LA.
When I plotted the lines, I had to move Florida a little to make the flight times work. You can see my original Miami dot on there.
As I expand the map, I will redraw the continent lines to make them match my flight time data. With the flight time data, the map of the continents should reveal themselves.
If my 1st premise is true and a flat earth on a flat paper is easy, then I'll get this done.
(https://www.mytrexinc.com/g/fe/ft-northamerica.jpg)
-
I saw when you first presented this idea, and then as now I continue to agree it should produce a good map of the Earth. Whether it be round or flat, flight times should correspond well to a fair distance metric. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
-
As an example, here is North America.
I traced it from a known round-earth model and gathered flight times from LA to New York to Miami to LA.
When I plotted the lines, I had to move Florida a little to make the flight times work. You can see my original Miami dot on there.
As I expand the map, I will redraw the continent lines to make them match my flight time data. With the flight time data, the map of the continents should reveal themselves.
If my 1st premise is true and a flat earth on a flat paper is easy, then I'll get this done.
(https://www.mytrexinc.com/g/fe/ft-northamerica.jpg)
I predict that when you add a fourth city at some large-ish distance from the current three choices - and presuming you measure the length of both diagonals consistently - then the resulting figure will not be able to be drawn on a 2D map because one of the diagonals will be "too small".
I've already demonstrated that this definitely happens using published airline flight distances. I compared the airline's claimed long distance flight times (verified independently from 3rd party "On-Time flight" records) - and the distances they publish are a perfect fit for the published cruise speeds of the aircraft.
So the chain of reasoning is thus:
1) We know the flight times from examining the airline's schedules.
2) We know that they fly "on time" for the vast proportion of flights because multiple consumer watchdogs and government offices monitor them...so the published schedules are DEFINITELY CORRECT.
3) We can obtain the cruising speed of the airplanes from multiple sources - including both airlines and manufacturers.
4) We can infer the distances travelled from that.
5) We can compare that with the airlines published distances - and THEY AGREE.
6) We can find distances for four widely spaced cities laid out in a quadrilateral and construct two flat, 2D triangles using one of the two diagonals.
7) We can then calculate what the other diagonal distance should be if the world is flat.
8) We compare the calculated second diagonal distance with the airline route distances - and they DO NOT AGREE!!!
So one of these steps is broken...I contend it's that the world ISN'T flat - and when you work it out, the data we have is 100% consistent with a round earth.
The only FE "get out" is that Tom claims that the published cruise speeds of modern airliners is incorrect (assumption (3), above) and is therefore claiming that neither airlines nor airliner manufacturers are aware of the speeds that their planes actually fly(!!) - he seems to believe that they determine the practical cruise speeds of their planes by flying some long route with a stopwatch...which is...beyond crazy!
Since you're gathering flight TIMES (not actual distances) in the same basic way we did - your map will fall foul of the exact same critiques that our efforts did.
HOWEVER: There is a second part to this.
9) If (as Tom claims) the airliner cruise speeds that we have are (say) 20% too low - then all of the distances that the airlines are stating in their route maps are 20% larger than the airlines believe them to be.
10) This scales up my "quadrilateral of cities" diagram by 20% - but the diagonal calculations are still incompatible with the flat earth hypothesis.
So even if Tom is right - my disproof of the flat earth still works.
The ONLY way to escape my trap is to claim that the airlines deliberately vary the speeds that they fly in order to make it APPEAR as though the world is round, even though it's clearly not.
Since airliners fly most efficiently only at one particular speed - this would be costing them a TON of money every year. It seems highly unlikely that every airline around the entire world would keep the conspiracy silent.
Tom then deflected the conversation into arguments about GPS's and such.
Hence, it's largely a waste of time to try to create your map because it just leads down the exact same rabbit hole.
If the FE'ers adamantly refuse to accept any form of distance measurement whatever, they cannot make a good map.
But here's the thing: They don't WANT a good map!
Having no map is actually their defense against a whole slew of arguments. They know that the very moment they come up with an "official" map, I 100% guarantee that I can instantly debunk it - because their compass readings and positions of the Pole Star and Southern Cross cannot POSSIBLY agree with reality as observed by ship's captains and navigators for the past 1000 years or so...airliners will have to fly at Mach 2 on some routes and at 200mph on others.
The laws of topology are on the side of the RE'ers here. Mathematics doesn't tell lies and it doesn't take sides. Math says, clearly and unambigously that you can't make a flat earth map that reproduces the important features of a round earth map. It's called "The Hairy Ball Theorem" (or "The Hedgehog Theorem" in situations where "hairy balls" have an entirely unfortunate connotation!). You can look it up on Wikipedia.
According to hairy ball, you can't make a spherical map (a globe) without creating two points on the sphere that are "special" (for stellar cartography, the north and south geographic poles - for magnetic cartography, the north and south magnetic poles). Flat surfaces do not have this property - which means that 100% of all flat earth maps are doomed.
Basically - you're screwed.
-
Seems reasonable, as long as you pick flights within approximately the same range, because of the time proportionally spent at cruise speed, and the type of aircraft used.
I'd like to ask how the error bars are coming along (I'm using a mobile and can't open the spreadsheet).
Also, i'm curious to know how you're going to physically produce the actual map without going crazy ;D threads of different length?
-
Please tell us the distance between New York and Paris without using a method that assumes the earth is round.
It takes a while to get the data but I have added New York to Paris to my spreadsheet. You can find it in rows 37 - 43.
The distance between New York and Paris (for my map) is 7 hours and 34 minutes.
Here is another link to the spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h0CpaBnQR-WEk6qJ8J2AgwVY4o5we0IzmSDtPPGvDpc/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h0CpaBnQR-WEk6qJ8J2AgwVY4o5we0IzmSDtPPGvDpc/edit?usp=sharing)
-
I predict that when you add a fourth city ...
...Basically - you're screwed.
Yes, yes. I've checked your math and you are correct.
I am going to try this anyway.
-
I'd like to ask how the error bars are coming along (I'm using a mobile and can't open the spreadsheet).
Also, i'm curious to know how you're going to physically produce the actual map without going crazy ;D threads of different length?
Between New York and Paris all the west-bound flights took about an hour longer than the east-bound flights.
The fastest flight was 6:30 on a boeing 777 and the longest was 8:37 on a boeing 767. The average was 7:34. That gives an error of 14% and 12% for the extremes. That is higher than I'd like, but if I take the two mode flight times of 7:03 and 8:07 it is a 7% error up and down from the average.
Even with the large variances in the flight times, I still think this will work out by using the same averaging method between each of the cities I measure. I believe, and I want the community to agree, that averaging flights going both ways will remove jetstream issues.
As for producing the map without going crazy. I originally suggested using wires between rigid content to make the map. Instead I am going to just draw the lines on a flat piece of paper. When I need to move the edge of a continental shoreline, I will move it. (like I did with Florida in the posted example)
-
I'd like to ask how the error bars are coming along (I'm using a mobile and can't open the spreadsheet).
Also, i'm curious to know how you're going to physically produce the actual map without going crazy ;D threads of different length?
Between New York and Paris all the west-bound flights took about an hour longer than the east-bound flights.
The fastest flight was 6:30 on a boeing 777 and the longest was 8:37 on a boeing 767. The average was 7:34. That gives an error of 14% and 12% for the extremes. That is higher than I'd like, but if I take the two mode flight times of 7:03 and 8:07 it is a 7% error up and down from the average.
That route is especially hit by the Jet stream. East/West routes do need to be averaged each way to account for that...but there is a possibility that pilots may be choosing altitudes that do not "fight" the jet stream in one direction while deliberately "riding it" in the other. The intelligent thing to do is to use flight times to verify that the airline's distance measurements are not being methodically faked - and then to use them "as is" rather than trying to analyze jet stream influences.
For this reason, the Qantas flights are good choices because most of them are predominantly North/South and they are long enough to factor out takeoff and landing time wastages.
When you do the "quadrilateral cities" thing - you can pick routes that don't run along the course of the jet stream AND put them far enough apart that the "diagonal distance error" is so large as to be impossible to explain by these means. But map-making is more susceptible to problematic flights like this one.
Even with the large variances in the flight times, I still think this will work out by using the same averaging method between each of the cities I measure. I believe, and I want the community to agree, that averaging flights going both ways will remove jetstream issues.
Where the difference is this large, it's probable that pilots are flying at altitudes to avoid it in one direction - so choosing the longest of the two flight times (the unassisted one) would be more correct than averaging them.
As for producing the map without going crazy. I originally suggested using wires between rigid content to make the map. Instead I am going to just draw the lines on a flat piece of paper. When I need to move the edge of a continental shoreline, I will move it. (like I did with Florida in the posted example)
May I suggest establishing the general locations of the continents relative to each other FIRST - then picking a second route between each pair of continents to establish relative rotations. However, you're not at liberty to futz with things that screw up which way is North or South. People know those things rather well.
-
3DGeek, I suspect that I will get different results (different continent shapes) depending on what I make the center of my map.
If I start at LA - New York, the map will get more accurate in North America and more distorted the further away I get in all directions.
If I start in Europe, the same thing will occur with Europe being shaped correctly, but other contents distorted.
If this happens as you and I feel certain it will, I will have shown that the flat Earth is having problems mapping to a flat surface. According to my original premise in this topic that should not happen if they are both flat. if I get a wavy looking map. That is just my 7% error. Ok so it should be flat, but I messed up here and there and got it wavy. No big deal. If it impossible, well... that's another story. My uniformly spread 7% error shouldn't make it impossible.
-
1. In order to derive distance from time you would need to know how fast the plane is flying. The flight speed of a plane varies quite a bit throughout a flight. It's flying in mediums moving within mediums, not anything like vehicles on the ground.
2. The secondary concern is that an aircraft's groundspeed indicators may be made using Round Earth coordinates as plot points to calculate speed. Airspeed instruments are not really accurate and are not used in navigation.
3. It has been brought up that we should use a plane's listed cruising speed for this; but those are just averages, as it relates to point one, and the speeds actually vary throughout the flight. The average cruising speed may also have been computed with groundspeed, which may be in error if they are computed with RE coordinates, as mentioned in point two.
The good news Tom, we don't have to rely on aircraft's groundspeed indicators, GPS, or airspeed. We can see live ground speed in publicly available ATC live radar data.
I assume you are ready to prove that a round earth mile is not equivalent to a flat earth mile. Based on comments in the burden of proof thread, it's on you.
As junker has stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant. When you come to this forum and start making claims, we expect that you work to demonstrate your claims.
-
I have started my Flight-time Flat Earth Map Project and will be starting a topic soon to share with ya'll. Before I do, I want to test out the premise of my map project here on a debate thread. Here it is...
If the surface of the Earth is flat and the surface of a piece of paper is flat, then it should be easy to make an accurate map.
Also, if the Earth is flat but the paper is curved, it should be problematic to make an accurate map.
Likewise, if the Earth is curved but the paper is flat, it should be problematic to make an accurate map.
Finally, if the Earth is curved and the paper is curved, it should be smooth sailing to make an accurate map.
When I begin my Map Project topic, I don't want it be a debate thread. So I thought I'd start here. Please join me in refining my premise here, before I begin the project.
I attempted a similar project using Sketchup, a quite accurate free program that handles 3d geometry that's good enough that I've used it to draw plans for 2 small construction projects.
It didn't take long to see the errors pop up
See this post
Next stop...
Using the last example, I added a new point. Johannesburg. This is placed a the intersection of D and E.
Rio Moscow 7103 A
Moscow Sydney 8960 B
Sydney Rio 8520 C
Rio Johannesburg 4447 D
Moscow Johannesburg 5625 E
The model starts showing the errors here. It shows Johannesburg to Sydney at 4366 miles where the true distance is 6904.
-
1. In order to derive distance from time you would need to know how fast the plane is flying. The flight speed of a plane varies quite a bit throughout a flight. It's flying in mediums moving within mediums, not anything like vehicles on the ground.
2. The secondary concern is that an aircraft's groundspeed indicators may be made using Round Earth coordinates as plot points to calculate speed. Airspeed instruments are not really accurate and are not used in navigation.
3. It has been brought up that we should use a plane's listed cruising speed for this; but those are just averages, as it relates to point one, and the speeds actually vary throughout the flight. The average cruising speed may also have been computed with groundspeed, which may be in error if they are computed with RE coordinates, as mentioned in point two.
The good news Tom, we don't have to rely on aircraft's groundspeed indicators, GPS, or airspeed. We can see live ground speed in publicly available ATC live radar data.
I assume you are ready to prove that a round earth mile is not equivalent to a flat earth mile. Based on comments in the burden of proof thread, it's on you.
As junker has stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant. When you come to this forum and start making claims, we expect that you work to demonstrate your claims.
The thing is that to "fix" this problem you can't apply something uniformly. You can't fix it by saying "a mile is really 1.5 miles" or "the cruising airspeed of a 747 is 800mph".
You also can't build a flat map (for 100% sure) with the data we have.
The ONLY way to have a Flat Earth map is to have some "fix" that varies non-uniformly.
Rio Moscow 7103 A
Moscow Sydney 8960 B
Sydney Rio 8520 C
Rio Johannesburg 4447 D
Moscow Johannesburg 5625 E
The model starts showing the errors here. It shows Johannesburg to Sydney at 4366 miles where the true distance is 6904.
So doubling all of the distances (because airplanes fly twice as fast as we think - means that the error goes from 2,500 to 5,000) but halving them doesn't help either - there would still be a an error of 1,250.
You have to come up with a mechanism that SELECTIVELY shrinks the Johannesburg/Sydney route while leaving all of the other alone.
More precisely, you have to imagine some source of error that makes the flat earth work EXACTLY as if it was round.
That implies that whatever pilots fly Johannesburg/Sydney are very deliberately flying at around 60% of their airplane's designed cruising speed on that route.
Many FE theories are like this...the sun, moon, planets and stars CAREFULLY tippitoe around the world in some bizarre dance that seems to have no rhyme or reason EXCEPT to make it seem like the world is round.
It makes no sense. Why are all of these completely independent laws of nature all conspiring to camouflage the fact that the Earth is Flat - and to do so in a manner that makes it look PRECISELY as the Round Earth theory says it should?!
This is the thing that is crazy here...more than all of the other debunkery.
So with the airline flight times and distances - if the Earth is Flat then it can ONLY be that airliners are flying at different "cruise speeds" on different routes - with speeds very carefully calculated to convince everyone on board that the Earth is Round.
Since pilots have the ability to control the speed of the airplane - it could ONLY be that 100% of all airline pilots are conspiring to carefully tweak airplane speeds to make the earth look this way.
If the Earth is flat, it isn't just NASA that are doing this...it must include all airline pilots, all ship captains, etc. It would be impossible for them to disguise the extra fuel this would take - so the airlines themselves must be fully aware of it.
This conspiracy would have to spread until an enormous percentage of people in places like the USA and Europe would have to be aware of it.
-
1. In order to derive distance from time you would need to know how fast the plane is flying. The flight speed of a plane varies quite a bit throughout a flight. It's flying in mediums moving within mediums, not anything like vehicles on the ground.
To solve this I'd like to let total average flight times of several flights from different airlines smooth all that out. Instead of a precise measure of distance, I want to convince you that an rough average of time is good enough for a general picture. I would argue that if I average all the flight paths then errors should be distributed evenly.
If the groundspeed is based on RE coordinate points then you are just getting the RE version of the average speed.
This is why I plan to use raw flight time. No calculated distances. I want to rely on the fact that all flights need to ascend, cruise and descend to skirt past the need for precise distance calculations. No distance, just the time a passenger experiences.
That is fine. You will need a method of finding the speed that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system.
I'd like to leave ground speed and air speed out of it. I don't believe that the differences in cruising speeds of jet powered airplanes averaged together can create enough effect that it would turn a flat earth into a round earth (or visa versa). I am asking that we recognize that there will be error, and the times will be averaged and fuzzy, but the data should be good enough to give a fuzzy picture of the layout of the continents on the Earth.
Again, if the speed is based on the distance between Round Earth coordinates then you are getting the average RE speed, which would be invalid for your purposes.
Not so easy anymore.
-
The only FE "get out" is that Tom claims that the published cruise speeds of modern airliners is incorrect (assumption (3), above) and is therefore claiming that neither airlines nor airliner manufacturers are aware of the speeds that their planes actually fly(!!) - he seems to believe that they determine the practical cruise speeds of their planes by flying some long route with a stopwatch...which is...beyond crazy!
Average cruising speed is just an average. The plane isn't a locomotive. Its speed changes while in flight by large amounts. The plane is flying within mediums which move within mediums.
Average cruising speed is based on groundspeed, meaning that the system is using external reference based on ground coordinates in some manner. If those reference points are broadcasting Round Earth coordinates, then that speed was created using the Round Earth coordinate system.
This is all very unhelpful in attempting to map out a world which is not round.
-
1. In order to derive distance from time you would need to know how fast the plane is flying. The flight speed of a plane varies quite a bit throughout a flight. It's flying in mediums moving within mediums, not anything like vehicles on the ground.
To solve this I'd like to let total average flight times of several flights from different airlines smooth all that out. Instead of a precise measure of distance, I want to convince you that an rough average of time is good enough for a general picture. I would argue that if I average all the flight paths then errors should be distributed evenly.
If the groundspeed is based on RE coordinate points then you are just getting the RE version of the average speed.
This is why I plan to use raw flight time. No calculated distances. I want to rely on the fact that all flights need to ascend, cruise and descend to skirt past the need for precise distance calculations. No distance, just the time a passenger experiences.
That is fine. You will need a method of finding the speed that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system.
I'd like to leave ground speed and air speed out of it. I don't believe that the differences in cruising speeds of jet powered airplanes averaged together can create enough effect that it would turn a flat earth into a round earth (or visa versa). I am asking that we recognize that there will be error, and the times will be averaged and fuzzy, but the data should be good enough to give a fuzzy picture of the layout of the continents on the Earth.
Again, if the speed is based on the distance between Round Earth coordinates then you are getting the average RE speed, which would be invalid for your purposes.
Not so easy anymore.
Tom, he's not using speed at all. He's using flight time as a distance analogue. So there's no flight speed involved what so ever.
-
Tom, he's not using speed at all. He's using flight time as a distance analogue. So there's no flight speed involved what so ever.
Flight time is not able to get a distance without knowing speed.
-
Average cruising speed is just an average. The plane isn't a locomotive. Its speed changes while in flight by large amounts. The plane is flying within mediums which move within mediums.
Average cruising speed is based on groundspeed, meaning that the system is using external reference based on ground coordinates in some manner. If those reference points are broadcasting Round Earth coordinates, then that speed was created using the Round Earth coordinate system.
This is all very unhelpful in attempting to map out a world which is not round.
Tom: You really know very little about how modern airplanes work - you might want to stop talking authoritatively about things you clearly don't understand.
*ALL* modern airliners fly on autopilot for 99% of the time. They MIGHT come off autopilot for a few minutes on takeoff and landing, in emergency situations, that kind of thing...but most of the time the autopilot flies the plane on all long distance routes.
The autopilot controls the speed to very high precision - so you're really talking nonsense here - just as you did when you claimed that newly designed airplane speeds are measured by test pilots rather than being designed into the airplane at the outset.
We have a couple of people here who are airline pilots - and at least one person who's an expert on flight simulation (which is all about this stuff).
Airliners fly at VERY constant speeds - and the distinction between air speed and ground speed - while important - is cross-checked in half a dozen ways by the various flight instruments.
What you're saying might have been true 40 years ago (maybe)...but for sure it's not true now.
So - fine, go ahead and talk authoritatively about the Flat Earth if you wish - but every single time you've said *anything* about how airplanes work or how they are operated, you make an idiot of yourself.
-
*ALL* modern airliners fly on autopilot for 99% of the time. They MIGHT come off autopilot for a few minutes on takeoff and landing, in emergency situations, that kind of thing...but most of the time the autopilot flies the plane on all long distance routes.
The autopilot controls the speed to very high precision - so you're really talking nonsense here - just as you did when you claimed that newly designed airplane speeds are measured by test pilots rather than being designed into the airplane at the outset.
The autopilot controls the speed as it relates to groundspeed. Groundspeed relies on a Round Earth coordinate system. All groundspeed methodologies use a Round Earth coordinate system for ground references.
We have a couple of people here who are airline pilots - and at least one person who's an expert on flight simulation (which is all about this stuff).
Airliners fly at VERY constant speeds - and the distinction between air speed and ground speed - while important - is cross-checked in half a dozen ways by the various flight instruments.
It is not possible to accurately get speed without some kind of external reference like the ground. Any instrument which attempts to measure speed by measuring the amount of air passing by the craft is unreliable. There is no such thing as a reliable odometer for an airplane.
What you're saying might have been true 40 years ago (maybe)...but for sure it's not true now.
So - fine, go ahead and talk authoritatively about the Flat Earth if you wish - but every single time you've said *anything* about how airplanes work or how they are operated, you make an idiot of yourself.
You have provided zero rebuttal, other than "you are wrong".
-
*ALL* modern airliners fly on autopilot for 99% of the time. They MIGHT come off autopilot for a few minutes on takeoff and landing, in emergency situations, that kind of thing...but most of the time the autopilot flies the plane on all long distance routes.
The autopilot controls the speed to very high precision - so you're really talking nonsense here - just as you did when you claimed that newly designed airplane speeds are measured by test pilots rather than being designed into the airplane at the outset.
The autopilot controls the speed as it relates to groundspeed. Groundspeed relies on a Round Earth coordinate system. All groundspeed methodologies use a Round Earth coordinate system for ground references.
You **REALLY** are clueless about modern airplanes aren't you!
(http://jsgpanels.com/EASpecifications747-X06_fichiers/image031.jpg)
Notice that this 747 display shows both ground AND air speed - and position data from at least two different and unrelated sources.
-
*ALL* modern airliners fly on autopilot for 99% of the time. They MIGHT come off autopilot for a few minutes on takeoff and landing, in emergency situations, that kind of thing...but most of the time the autopilot flies the plane on all long distance routes.
The autopilot controls the speed to very high precision - so you're really talking nonsense here - just as you did when you claimed that newly designed airplane speeds are measured by test pilots rather than being designed into the airplane at the outset.
The autopilot controls the speed as it relates to groundspeed. Groundspeed relies on a Round Earth coordinate system. All groundspeed methodologies use a Round Earth coordinate system for ground references.
You **REALLY** are clueless about modern airplanes aren't you!
(http://jsgpanels.com/EASpecifications747-X06_fichiers/image031.jpg)
Notice that this 747 display shows both ground AND air speed - and position data from at least two different and unrelated sources.
That True Airspeed (TAS) indicator is used for things like making aircraft banking/stalling maneuvers, not for navigation. We have discussed this in previous threads:
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed) the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.
Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.
Read this quote from your link:
Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed
Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.
-
*ALL* modern airliners fly on autopilot for 99% of the time. They MIGHT come off autopilot for a few minutes on takeoff and landing, in emergency situations, that kind of thing...but most of the time the autopilot flies the plane on all long distance routes.
The autopilot controls the speed to very high precision - so you're really talking nonsense here - just as you did when you claimed that newly designed airplane speeds are measured by test pilots rather than being designed into the airplane at the outset.
The autopilot controls the speed as it relates to groundspeed. Groundspeed relies on a Round Earth coordinate system. All groundspeed methodologies use a Round Earth coordinate system for ground references.
We have a couple of people here who are airline pilots - and at least one person who's an expert on flight simulation (which is all about this stuff).
Airliners fly at VERY constant speeds - and the distinction between air speed and ground speed - while important - is cross-checked in half a dozen ways by the various flight instruments.
It is not possible to accurately get speed without some kind of external reference like the ground. Any instrument which attempts to measure speed by measuring the amount of air passing by the craft is unreliable. There is no such thing as a reliable odometer for an airplane.
What you're saying might have been true 40 years ago (maybe)...but for sure it's not true now.
So - fine, go ahead and talk authoritatively about the Flat Earth if you wish - but every single time you've said *anything* about how airplanes work or how they are operated, you make an idiot of yourself.
You have provided zero rebuttal, other than "you are wrong".
Where is the issue with measuring distances? Show how you would devise a system and what coordinate system we should be using.
Have you checked timeanddate.com yet?
-
Tom, he's not using speed at all. He's using flight time as a distance analogue. So there's no flight speed involved what so ever.
Flight time is not able to get a distance without knowing speed.
How are you not getting this? There is no distance being used or measured. The 'distance' between each city will be the flight time. Something like, 1 minute of flight time is 1 cm on his map/model. By using flight time averages from both directions, this should give a good rough distance analogue. But note, no distance in terms of miles or kilometers is being used.
-
Tom, he's not using speed at all. He's using flight time as a distance analogue. So there's no flight speed involved what so ever.
Flight time is not able to get a distance without knowing speed.
this is a proportion, not an absolute measure. He doesn't need to work out the actual distances.
Because equal flight times roughly equate equal distances, you can compare the former instead of the latter and avoid the problem of RE vs FE assumptions.
The only way* you can really object is by stating that airplanes fly at very different speeds in different parts of the planet. Is that what you are saying?
*EDIT: ok not the *only* way, but the other possible problems, if they really are relevant, will become readily apparent when he actually builds the map.
-
Tom, he's not using speed at all. He's using flight time as a distance analogue. So there's no flight speed involved what so ever.
Flight time is not able to get a distance without knowing speed.
How are you not getting this? There is no distance being used or measured. The 'distance' between each city will be the flight time. Something like, 1 minute of flight time is 1 cm on his map/model. By using flight time averages from both directions, this should give a good rough distance analogue. But note, no distance in terms of miles or kilometers is being used.
All planes are not the same, and planes do not travel at a set speed through the duration of their flight.
Tom, he's not using speed at all. He's using flight time as a distance analogue. So there's no flight speed involved what so ever.
Flight time is not able to get a distance without knowing speed.
this is a proportion, not an absolute measure. He doesn't need to work out the actual distances.
Because equal flight times roughly equate equal distances, you can compare the former instead of the latter and avoid the problem of RE vs FE assumptions.
The only way* you can really object is by stating that airplanes fly at very different speeds in different parts of the planet. Is that what you are saying?
*EDIT: ok not the *only* way, but the other possible problems, if they really are relevant, will become readily apparent when he actually builds the map.
See my above response.
-
All planes are not the same, and planes do not travel at a set speed through the duration of their flight.
Do you actually know this or are you making stuff up? Over long distances there is little variation in aircraft type and cruise speed. And I really don't know how you come up with the idea that planes should change speed by much during flights. Anyway, he's averaging the results to compensate. We'll see how the error bars are when he's finished.
If said error bars aren't horribly high, than the methodology holds.
-
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.
-
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.
You don't need to guess. You should be able to find out what airplane a particular airline flies on that route and look up the cruise speed on Wikipedia or some such. That's what I did when we worked through this before.
But as predicted, Tom won't agree to the distances you come up with however clever you are at finding them.
He'll keep claiming increasingly ridiculous things in order to try to defend the indefensible.
-
Tom, he's not using speed at all. He's using flight time as a distance analogue. So there's no flight speed involved what so ever.
Flight time is not able to get a distance without knowing speed.
How are you not getting this? There is no distance being used or measured. The 'distance' between each city will be the flight time. Something like, 1 minute of flight time is 1 cm on his map/model. By using flight time averages from both directions, this should give a good rough distance analogue. But note, no distance in terms of miles or kilometers is being used.
All planes are not the same, and planes do not travel at a set speed through the duration of their flight.
Irrelevant when taking an average, and incorrect when speaking about the vast majority of an intercontinental flight.
-
All planes are not the same, and planes do not travel at a set speed through the duration of their flight.
Irrelevant when taking an average, and incorrect when speaking about the vast majority of an intercontinental flight.
Tom, can we come to agreement that you are correct that all planes, do not travel at the same speed, but that this fact will be irrelevant to my project of making a rough map of the world? Do you agree that we can expect distortions because of the non-uniform air speeds, but that the distortions will not be enough to move entire continents?
-
All planes are not the same, and planes do not travel at a set speed through the duration of their flight.
Irrelevant when taking an average, and incorrect when speaking about the vast majority of an intercontinental flight.
Tom, can we come to agreement that you are correct that all planes, do not travel at the same speed, but that this fact will be irrelevant to my project of making a rough map of the world? Do you agree that we can expect distortions because of the non-uniform air speeds, but that the distortions will not be enough to move entire continents?
I wonder if Tom would accept it as close enough if we chose routes traveled by a certain model of aircraft? Say, we include ONLY those routes followed by Airbus A380, or Boeing 787? Knowing that an given model of airplane has a small envelope of best-fuel-efficiency operating speed, and knowing that airlines have a strong incentive (the profit motive) to fly their routes with as little fuel consumption as possible, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that all airlines would try to fly within that speed window as much as they could, and would plan their timetables accordingly. They CAN fly faster, of course, but would do so only when they have to (making up for late departures or trying to outrun the weather, for example).
-
I wish I got anywhere with my question about longitude in the Q&A forum, but nothing seems to come of the threads I post.
If you want to figure the distance from New York to Paris, can you use time and the motion of the sun or stars to figure it? That is, if you can measure distances in North America (e.g. by driving), and you can measure distances in Europe (again, by driving), and you can observe that the sun moves a certain number of degrees across the sky in a certain amount of time (15 degrees), then can you use a clock and just observe the angle of the sun to get a value for east/west distance across oceans?
-
Did the people here actually graduate elementary school or something?
-
Did the people here actually graduate elementary school or something?
Your going to be suspended with this type of low content.
Look this is the same 4-5 peeps that talk to themselves here with crazy hypothesis. They get a good little paycheck from the soon to be leader down under.
There are maps made throughout history, pick one and go sailing.
-
If you want to figure the distance from New York to Paris, can you use time and the motion of the sun or stars to figure it? That is, if you can measure distances in North America (e.g. by driving), and you can measure distances in Europe (again, by driving), and you can observe that the sun moves a certain number of degrees across the sky in a certain amount of time (15 degrees), then can you use a clock and just observe the angle of the sun to get a value for east/west distance across oceans?
Thanks douglips. That is an interesting idea for measuring distance along any specific latitude line. I'll use that to check my numbers.
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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)
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=673251) 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=673251) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://gadling.com/2011/06/08/airline-industry-best-and-worst-of-april-2011/) 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.
-
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.
no. Distance. Is. Needed.
Look up proportions in the dictionary.
He's comparing times.
He doesn't give a faq about distance.
-
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.
We don't care about the distance.
We don't care about the speed of the plane.
All we care about is the average (or perhaps mean depending) time it takes to get from LA to NY by plane.
This can be used as a distance 'replacement' or analogue so long as we simply use the actual times taken.
-
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.
We don't care about the distance.
We don't care about the speed of the plane.
All we care about is the average (or perhaps mean depending) time it takes to get from LA to NY by plane.
This can be used as a distance 'replacement' or analogue so long as we simply use the actual times taken.
Are we talking round earth hours?
-
Please tell us the distance between New York and Paris without using a method that assumes the earth is round.
Oh good grief Tom...you really think you can kill the debate with such a ridiculous challenge? Remember, we're smarter than you are.
In 1878, a 2,242 nautical mile cable was manufactured in England by Siemens Brothers. The cable was laid in June 1879 between Brest (France) and the island of Saint-Pierre (Newfoundland) by the cable ship "Faraday".
They didn't run out of cable along the way - but history does not recall whether they had any left over.
So we can be quite certain that Brest to Saint-Pierre is definitely no more than 2,242 nautical miles - which is 2,580 statute miles.
They then added another 827 nautical mile cable to reach Cape Code - so another 951 statute miles...AT MOST.
The distance from Cape Cod to New York has been measured (I'm quite sure) by MANY car odometers along Hwy 95 and comes out to 253 miles - and similarly, Paris to Brest is 364 miles and I'm sure that's been confirmed by large numbers of old-school mechanical odometers too.
So we KNOW that the furthest it could possibly be between NY and Paris is 2,580+951+253+364 = 4,148 miles. This is clearly not the shortest route, so the true number must be less than this. Saint-Pierre is about 100 miles North of the ideal Great circle route - so we know that at least 100 miles of cable was wasted in that detour.
But this number does avoid any reliance on any new-fangled technology that scares the bejeezus out of Tom...and it's hard to see how he could argue that it's wrong.
The scary, new technology distance is shorter (no real surprise there) and comes out to be 3,631.16 miles...so the modern approach cannot possibly be inaccurate by more than 517 miles...and allowing for the Saint-Pierre detour, the modern measure agrees to within about 10%.
Since we can be sure that the route the cable took via Newfoundland was not optimal - and the vagiaries of the wiggly roads between Paris/Brest and CapeCod/NewYork must add considerably to the distance - the precision of the modern measurement is clearly MUCH better than 10%...but that's hard to prove.
-
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.
We don't care about the distance.
We don't care about the speed of the plane.
All we care about is the average (or perhaps mean depending) time it takes to get from LA to NY by plane.
This can be used as a distance 'replacement' or analogue so long as we simply use the actual times taken.
I don't know how to make it any simpler than what Curious Squirrel is saying here.
I don't care about calculating distances.
I am not using V = D/T or D = VT
I am making a very simple layout of the earth based on the times that people experience from liftoff to touchdown on commercial airliners.
It is simple. It is easy. It will produce a general picture of what the earth looks like.
It will not be precise, it will be an approximate representation.
-
This won't work.
Lets look at this rationally. Anyone who has ridden a plane knows that it takes off and then goes to a certain altitude, and during that time accelerates to speed vc. This takes time t. During time t, v is increasing from v0 to vc at some rate, which we don't know. But lets say for the sake of argument- that it's always 30 min to get to altitude and its always 30 min to land, and during that hour speed is always less than vc. Lets say this distance traveled during this approximately and hour is constant (which its not, but for ease of calculation) and call it X. Otherwise we'll have to deal with integrals, and I don't want to do that here.
So in a 10 hour flight, 9 hours are at cruising speed vc, but in a 4 hour flight only 3 hours are at vc. This is 90% and 75% of the flight respectively. Which means when you compare 2 non-similar lengths, the ratio will be severely skewed.
Next, lets take short flights vs. long flights. Flights of different lengths usually have different planes, which have different cruising speeds.
So if you want to make a map using only this information and not the speed themselves, then you have to have an adjustment factor, I, to adjust the time by the ratio of speeds between Plane 1 and Plane 2 (v1/v2). It's easiest to pick a single base plane and set that as I=1 and compare all the rest to that. So now your times will be comprable.
So, a barely reasonable formula might be ((t-1)*vc)*I+X.
Now you also have to account for prevailing wind speed, which will change the speed of the plane- +w for tailwinds and -w for headwinds. You have to adjust the speed w to account for the fact that it might not be perfectly parallel to the plane, which we can find by taking the angle between the direction of travel and the direction of wind-Theta.
This gives ((t-1)*(vc)+w cos (theta))*I+X
Then, you also have to account for general human elements, that might change a flight- usually the planes will go a little faster or slower to make sure that they arrive in a particular time window so that there is a gate available. Your presumption that planes always travel the perfect speed is wrong. My car has a listed cruising speed of 60mph, but I'll push it to 80mph if I'm late, and slow down to 40mph if the weather is bad. Planes also have different cruising speeds at different altitudes. This is because the oxygen content in the air changes and the engine has to maintain sufficient flow through it, etc. etc. So all of these things together add an error of lets say- extrememly conservatively 10%.
So to find the distance between two seperate line segments since we don't believe in maps or modern technology such as GPS-you want the ratio between two distances which would be sufficient to draw an unscaled map- you can calculate:
((t1-1*h)*(v1c)+w1 cos (theta1))*I1+X/ ((t2-1h)*(v2c)+w2 cos (theta2))*I2+X.
It might seem that X would cancel, but it won't. We also need to adjust that by I because I is the term that adjusts based on vc. We can adjust X by dividing by I (since we will cover distance X faster if vc is faster. But we also need to adjust X by an additional factor-h that takes into account 2 things- the altitude we are at before we hit vc, and the time it takes to get there-
((t1-1h)*(v1c)+w1 cos (theta1))*I1+(X*(h2/h1/I) / ((t2-1h)*(v2c)+w2 cos (theta2))*I2+(X*(h1/h2/I) +/- 10%.
This would give you a minimimally accurate ratio that you can calculate using the information you have at hand. You can not do any less, because you are talking about making a map afterall. Not just guesstimating how far it is. You could do this all in Excel. Only from flight aware you also need to grab the type of plane, and maybe the windspeed from there or somewhere else. The +/- 10% is also critical.
You also have to remove the additional distance that the planes fly because they think they are travelling along a curved earth. I've got to get back to work, but you can find the math here- https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/830413/calculating-the-arc-length-of-a-circle-segment
Basically if you fly from Paris to NYC you have to figure out what that distance would be on a round earth- and divide the arc length by the line segment length to come up with a ratio. This would be a correction factor. This correction factor, A, grows in significance the longer the distance- to a maximum of pi/2*d where d is the diameter of a supposedly round earth. Since you are using flights that go across most the world, or at least across the country, this becomes pretty important. You can find it by multiplying the change in Latitude squared + the change in latitude squared to the 1/2 power (pythagoras' theorom). (ΔLat2 + ΔLong2)(1/2)- thats your round Earth distance in Lat/Long- convert that to miles (since our speeds are in miles)- and then divide that by d. Thats your Round Earth distance traveled. To Calculate the Flat Earth Equivalent is tougher. I'd have to think about that. but it would be:
FEE/RDE * ( ((t1-1h)*(v1c)+w1 cos (theta1))*I1+(X*(h2/h1/I) / ((t2-1h)*(v2c)+w2 cos (theta2))*I2+(X*(h1/h2/I) ) +/- 10%.
So, most of the eq. is:
Flat Earth Eq. / ((ΔLat2 + ΔLong2)(1/2)) * ( ((t1-1h)*(v1c)+w1 cos (theta1))*I1+(X*(h2/h1/I) / ((t2-1h)*(v2c)+w2 cos (theta2))*I2+(X*(h1/h2/I) ) +/- 10%.
Just leaving you one piece to find yourself. You should be able to do it from there.
-
there should be closed parentheses after the h term before /I in the adjustment term. It gets hard to read with all the markup it took to document that semi-correctly and it won't let me edit.
-
-math snipped for brevity of reply-
I get where you're coming from here, but once again: Distance is not being calculated here. We're not looking for an incredibly accurate map.
These are the parameters/assumptions:
1) Flight times between two locations are the same within a reasonable margin of error so long as it's the same model plane.
2) The distance between two points doesn't change randomly.
3) Planes will always attempt to fly the shortest distance between two points.
4) Flight times in one direction can be combined with flight times in the other direction for an average flight time within a reasonable margin of error.
5) Flight times can thus be used as a reasonable approximation for distance, and should reveal the shape of the Earth if plotted out.
6) Flight times should not be skewed enough to make a flat Earth appear round, nor a round Earth appear flat.
Now, we'll see how well 1 and 4 turn out for margins of error, but I see nothing wrong with the rest of these otherwise. Once again, no distance in miles or kilometers is being calculated, nor is there an attempt to calculate said distances being made. This is about plotting air flight times onto a map, and seeing what shape the flight times dictate the map to be.
-
there should be closed parentheses after the h term before /I in the adjustment term. It gets hard to read with all the markup it took to document that semi-correctly and it won't let me edit.
you could have spared the effort ;D
The first half of the post is partly taken care of a priori, and partly by the averages. We'll see how those error bars look like. The second half is irrelevant, because no one cares about the actual distances, only the ratio is relevant.
Did you read the thread before writing that wall of formulae? :P
-
Please tell us the distance between New York and Paris without using a method that assumes the earth is round.
Oh good grief Tom...you really think you can kill the debate with such a ridiculous challenge? Remember, we're smarter than you are.
In 1878, a 2,242 nautical mile cable was manufactured in England by Siemens Brothers. The cable was laid in June 1879 between Brest (France) and the island of Saint-Pierre (Newfoundland) by the cable ship "Faraday".
They didn't run out of cable along the way - but history does not recall whether they had any left over.
So we can be quite certain that Brest to Saint-Pierre is definitely no more than 2,242 nautical miles - which is 2,580 statute miles.
They then added another 827 nautical mile cable to reach Cape Code - so another 951 statute miles...AT MOST.
The distance from Cape Cod to New York has been measured (I'm quite sure) by MANY car odometers along Hwy 95 and comes out to 253 miles - and similarly, Paris to Brest is 364 miles and I'm sure that's been confirmed by large numbers of old-school mechanical odometers too.
So we KNOW that the furthest it could possibly be between NY and Paris is 2,580+951+253+364 = 4,148 miles. This is clearly not the shortest route, so the true number must be less than this. Saint-Pierre is about 100 miles North of the ideal Great circle route - so we know that at least 100 miles of cable was wasted in that detour.
But this number does avoid any reliance on any new-fangled technology that scares the bejeezus out of Tom...and it's hard to see how he could argue that it's wrong.
The scary, new technology distance is shorter (no real surprise there) and comes out to be 3,631.16 miles...so the modern approach cannot possibly be inaccurate by more than 517 miles...and allowing for the Saint-Pierre detour, the modern measure agrees to within about 10%.
Since we can be sure that the route the cable took via Newfoundland was not optimal - and the vagiaries of the wiggly roads between Paris/Brest and CapeCod/NewYork must add considerably to the distance - the precision of the modern measurement is clearly MUCH better than 10%...but that's hard to prove.
How do we know that they were not using a Round Earth Coordinate system for measuring those miles out when traveling on their ship?
How do we know that they only brought along the exact amount of cable needed rather than giant spools of it?
How do we know that they did not encounter any issues along the way in early ventures that caused them to revisit their cable laying strategies?
-
How do we know that they were not using a Round Earth Coordinate system for measuring those miles out when traveling on their ship?
The required amount of cable was of course calculated using Round Earth data - probably with a small margin for error - but the actual miles of the stuff that were manufactured must have been measured out in the factory.
What we KNOW is how much they manufactured.
How do we know that they only brought along the exact amount of cable needed rather than giant spools of it?
That's how much they MANUFACTURED - they may have needed less than that - but for 100% sure, they didn't have on yard more than that. Hence the distance is the MAXIMUM that it could have been.
How do we know that they did not encounter any issues along the way in early ventures that caused them to revisit their cable laying strategies?
Whatever they did, a cable of no more than that length ended up stretching from one side of the atlantic to the other.
I was reading about transatlantic cables in conjunction with a project I was doing...I *think* it was described in "Wiring the World: The Social and Cultural Creation of Global Telegraph Networks" (Columbia Studies in International and Global History) by Simone M. Müller ... but it might have been "A Thread Across the Ocean" - sorry, don't have that one on my bookshelf anymore.
I think both books are on Amazon if you want to get into it further. Wikipedia probably has something to back this up with the usual small mountain of references.
-
This won't work.
Lets look at this rationally. Anyone who has ridden a plane knows that ....
Here are two take-aways from this for me.
- You have proved that the error will never reach as high as 40% for any flight. This is great news because it means that the flight time data can't make a flat earth appear to be a globe, nor can it make a globe falsely look flat. I have been asking members of Flat Earth Society to join me in this assertion and you have created a very nice proof for this. Thank you.
- I will see if it is feasible to limit my flight times to 6 - 8 hr flights. If that's possible, my error goes down significantly.
-
Please tell us the distance between New York and Paris without using a method that assumes the earth is round.
Oh good grief Tom...you really think you can kill the debate with such a ridiculous challenge? Remember, we're smarter than you are.
In 1878, a 2,242 nautical mile cable was manufactured in England by Siemens Brothers. The cable was laid in June 1879 between Brest (France) and the island of Saint-Pierre (Newfoundland) by the cable ship "Faraday".
They didn't run out of cable along the way - but history does not recall whether they had any left over.
So we can be quite certain that Brest to Saint-Pierre is definitely no more than 2,242 nautical miles - which is 2,580 statute miles.
They then added another 827 nautical mile cable to reach Cape Code - so another 951 statute miles...AT MOST.
The distance from Cape Cod to New York has been measured (I'm quite sure) by MANY car odometers along Hwy 95 and comes out to 253 miles - and similarly, Paris to Brest is 364 miles and I'm sure that's been confirmed by large numbers of old-school mechanical odometers too.
So we KNOW that the furthest it could possibly be between NY and Paris is 2,580+951+253+364 = 4,148 miles. This is clearly not the shortest route, so the true number must be less than this. Saint-Pierre is about 100 miles North of the ideal Great circle route - so we know that at least 100 miles of cable was wasted in that detour.
But this number does avoid any reliance on any new-fangled technology that scares the bejeezus out of Tom...and it's hard to see how he could argue that it's wrong.
The scary, new technology distance is shorter (no real surprise there) and comes out to be 3,631.16 miles...so the modern approach cannot possibly be inaccurate by more than 517 miles...and allowing for the Saint-Pierre detour, the modern measure agrees to within about 10%.
Since we can be sure that the route the cable took via Newfoundland was not optimal - and the vagiaries of the wiggly roads between Paris/Brest and CapeCod/NewYork must add considerably to the distance - the precision of the modern measurement is clearly MUCH better than 10%...but that's hard to prove.
How do we know that they were not using a Round Earth Coordinate system for measuring those miles out when traveling on their ship?
How do we know that they only brought along the exact amount of cable needed rather than giant spools of it?
How do we know that they did not encounter any issues along the way in early ventures that caused them to revisit their cable laying strategies?
Tom, literally EVERYONE uses the round Earth coordinate system because IT WORKS. When are you flat Earthers going to understand this? If we relied on FET, no one would get anywhere over large distances because you can't even come up with a map. Actually, let me rephrase that, you refuse to come up with a map. It is very much on purpose. Once you have a map, you'd see that the Earth actually is a globe.
Yes Tom, they bring GIANT spools of cable. I'm sure they have thousands of miles of it just laying around. I don't know what you do for a living, but in the round world, we don't just buy hundreds of miles of extra cable for the heck of it. Having massive amounts of extra cable = wasted money. Hauling around thousands of pounds of unneeded cable = wasted money. Further, when you're on the ocean, they can't just overnight you an extra hundred miles of the stuff. These projects are planned out in advance. Economics dictate it.
-
Please tell us the distance between New York and Paris without using a method that assumes the earth is round.
Oh good grief Tom...you really think you can kill the debate with such a ridiculous challenge? Remember, we're smarter than you are.
In 1878, a 2,242 nautical mile cable was manufactured in England by Siemens Brothers. The cable was laid in June 1879 between Brest (France) and the island of Saint-Pierre (Newfoundland) by the cable ship "Faraday".
They didn't run out of cable along the way - but history does not recall whether they had any left over.
So we can be quite certain that Brest to Saint-Pierre is definitely no more than 2,242 nautical miles - which is 2,580 statute miles.
They then added another 827 nautical mile cable to reach Cape Code - so another 951 statute miles...AT MOST.
The distance from Cape Cod to New York has been measured (I'm quite sure) by MANY car odometers along Hwy 95 and comes out to 253 miles - and similarly, Paris to Brest is 364 miles and I'm sure that's been confirmed by large numbers of old-school mechanical odometers too.
So we KNOW that the furthest it could possibly be between NY and Paris is 2,580+951+253+364 = 4,148 miles. This is clearly not the shortest route, so the true number must be less than this. Saint-Pierre is about 100 miles North of the ideal Great circle route - so we know that at least 100 miles of cable was wasted in that detour.
But this number does avoid any reliance on any new-fangled technology that scares the bejeezus out of Tom...and it's hard to see how he could argue that it's wrong.
The scary, new technology distance is shorter (no real surprise there) and comes out to be 3,631.16 miles...so the modern approach cannot possibly be inaccurate by more than 517 miles...and allowing for the Saint-Pierre detour, the modern measure agrees to within about 10%.
Since we can be sure that the route the cable took via Newfoundland was not optimal - and the vagiaries of the wiggly roads between Paris/Brest and CapeCod/NewYork must add considerably to the distance - the precision of the modern measurement is clearly MUCH better than 10%...but that's hard to prove.
How do we know that they were not using a Round Earth Coordinate system for measuring those miles out when traveling on their ship?
How do we know that they only brought along the exact amount of cable needed rather than giant spools of it?
How do we know that they did not encounter any issues along the way in early ventures that caused them to revisit their cable laying strategies?
Had you read the post you would have known the answers to all three questions. You are really just getting silly now. Why are you so afraid of a map?
-
The required amount of cable was of course calculated using Round Earth data - probably with a small margin for error - but the actual miles of the stuff that were manufactured must have been measured out in the factory.
What we KNOW is how much they manufactured.
Really? How do you KNOW that?
That's how much they MANUFACTURED - they may have needed less than that - but for 100% sure, they didn't have on yard more than that. Hence the distance is the MAXIMUM that it could have been.
Do you have a source on that? Do you own the manufacturing company?
Whatever they did, a cable of no more than that length ended up stretching from one side of the atlantic to the other.
I was reading about transatlantic cables in conjunction with a project I was doing...I *think* it was described in "Wiring the World: The Social and Cultural Creation of Global Telegraph Networks" (Columbia Studies in International and Global History) by Simone M. Müller ... but it might have been "A Thread Across the Ocean" - sorry, don't have that one on my bookshelf anymore.
I think both books are on Amazon if you want to get into it further. Wikipedia probably has something to back this up with the usual small mountain of references.
Please provide a source that shows that the cable perfectly matched the Round Earth distance, and not any more and not any less. You seem so forgetful in citing your sources when you make your numerous claims.
-
The required amount of cable was of course calculated using Round Earth data - probably with a small margin for error - but the actual miles of the stuff that were manufactured must have been measured out in the factory.
What we KNOW is how much they manufactured.
Really? How do you KNOW that?
That's how much they MANUFACTURED - they may have needed less than that - but for 100% sure, they didn't have on yard more than that. Hence the distance is the MAXIMUM that it could have been.
Do you have a source on that? Do you own the manufacturing company?
Whatever they did, a cable of no more than that length ended up stretching from one side of the atlantic to the other.
I was reading about transatlantic cables in conjunction with a project I was doing...I *think* it was described in "Wiring the World: The Social and Cultural Creation of Global Telegraph Networks" (Columbia Studies in International and Global History) by Simone M. Müller ... but it might have been "A Thread Across the Ocean" - sorry, don't have that one on my bookshelf anymore.
I think both books are on Amazon if you want to get into it further. Wikipedia probably has something to back this up with the usual small mountain of references.
Please provide a source that shows that the cable perfectly matched the Round Earth distance, and not any more and not any less. You seem so forgetful in citing your sources when you make your numerous claims.
On page 38 of this book (https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UDXnCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=The+Invisible+Weapon:+Telecommunications+and+International+Politics&ots=ulg2X8gINA&sig=ckR9tRVpOjK80EnbPiEP9GED0zc#v=onepage&q&f=false) there is a list of cables and their lengths. The New York - Paris cable is listed with a length of just over 4000 miles.
It took me <5 minutes of googling to look this up. If you spent half as much energy trying to learn anything as you do on denialism, you might learn anything at all ever.
-
The required amount of cable was of course calculated using Round Earth data - probably with a small margin for error - but the actual miles of the stuff that were manufactured must have been measured out in the factory.
What we KNOW is how much they manufactured.
Really? How do you KNOW that?
That's how much they MANUFACTURED - they may have needed less than that - but for 100% sure, they didn't have on yard more than that. Hence the distance is the MAXIMUM that it could have been.
Do you have a source on that? Do you own the manufacturing company?
Whatever they did, a cable of no more than that length ended up stretching from one side of the atlantic to the other.
I was reading about transatlantic cables in conjunction with a project I was doing...I *think* it was described in "Wiring the World: The Social and Cultural Creation of Global Telegraph Networks" (Columbia Studies in International and Global History) by Simone M. Müller ... but it might have been "A Thread Across the Ocean" - sorry, don't have that one on my bookshelf anymore.
I think both books are on Amazon if you want to get into it further. Wikipedia probably has something to back this up with the usual small mountain of references.
Please provide a source that shows that the cable perfectly matched the Round Earth distance, and not any more and not any less. You seem so forgetful in citing your sources when you make your numerous claims.
On page 38 of this book (https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UDXnCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=The+Invisible+Weapon:+Telecommunications+and+International+Politics&ots=ulg2X8gINA&sig=ckR9tRVpOjK80EnbPiEP9GED0zc#v=onepage&q&f=false) there is a list of cables and their lengths. The New York - Paris cable is listed with a length of just over 4000 miles.
It took me <5 minutes of googling to look this up. If you spent half as much energy trying to learn anything as you do on denialism, you might learn anything at all ever.
(https://i.imgur.com/YFp3pHI.png)
-
lol oh man. not sure why I can see it if you can't. attached a snip
distance is in km
-
The required amount of cable was of course calculated using Round Earth data - probably with a small margin for error - but the actual miles of the stuff that were manufactured must have been measured out in the factory.
What we KNOW is how much they manufactured.
Really? How do you KNOW that?
That's how much they MANUFACTURED - they may have needed less than that - but for 100% sure, they didn't have on yard more than that. Hence the distance is the MAXIMUM that it could have been.
Do you have a source on that? Do you own the manufacturing company?
Whatever they did, a cable of no more than that length ended up stretching from one side of the atlantic to the other.
I was reading about transatlantic cables in conjunction with a project I was doing...I *think* it was described in "Wiring the World: The Social and Cultural Creation of Global Telegraph Networks" (Columbia Studies in International and Global History) by Simone M. Müller ... but it might have been "A Thread Across the Ocean" - sorry, don't have that one on my bookshelf anymore.
I think both books are on Amazon if you want to get into it further. Wikipedia probably has something to back this up with the usual small mountain of references.
Please provide a source that shows that the cable perfectly matched the Round Earth distance, and not any more and not any less. You seem so forgetful in citing your sources when you make your numerous claims.
OMG, you take the word of a known con man from 150 years ago and discount the records of a company laying cable. Very odd man.
-
Setting cable lengths and our abilities to search the internet aside....
Does anyone have anything else to add to the flight time map discussion?
- We have established that care needs to be taken when comparing short flights to long flights because a larger percentage of the flight is take up in ascending and descending from cruising altitude and speed.
- We have established that the purpose of the project is not to calculate distances, but to layout the general size and relative location of continents
- We have established that the margin of error is not great enough to change a flat earth into a globe or to change a globe into a flat earth.
-
The required amount of cable was of course calculated using Round Earth data - probably with a small margin for error - but the actual miles of the stuff that were manufactured must have been measured out in the factory.
What we KNOW is how much they manufactured.
Really? How do you KNOW that?
That's how much they MANUFACTURED - they may have needed less than that - but for 100% sure, they didn't have on yard more than that. Hence the distance is the MAXIMUM that it could have been.
Do you have a source on that? Do you own the manufacturing company?
Whatever they did, a cable of no more than that length ended up stretching from one side of the atlantic to the other.
I was reading about transatlantic cables in conjunction with a project I was doing...I *think* it was described in "Wiring the World: The Social and Cultural Creation of Global Telegraph Networks" (Columbia Studies in International and Global History) by Simone M. Müller ... but it might have been "A Thread Across the Ocean" - sorry, don't have that one on my bookshelf anymore.
I think both books are on Amazon if you want to get into it further. Wikipedia probably has something to back this up with the usual small mountain of references.
Please provide a source that shows that the cable perfectly matched the Round Earth distance, and not any more and not any less. You seem so forgetful in citing your sources when you make your numerous claims.
I didn't say they matched any LESS - only MORE. You can read the Wikipedia article or buy the books - or just call me a liar without checking...your choice.
-
Setting cable lengths and our abilities to search the internet aside....
Does anyone have anything else to add to the flight time map discussion?
- We have established that care needs to be taken when comparing short flights to long flights because a larger percentage of the flight is take up in ascending and descending from cruising altitude and speed.
- We have established that the purpose of the project is not to calculate distances, but to layout the general size and relative location of continents
- We have established that the margin of error is not great enough to change a flat earth into a globe or to change a globe into a flat earth.
You should certainly avoid using short flights - but for longer flights, the additional takeoff/landing times don't affect the result by much. You're not going to need short-distance flights (under a couple of hours of flight time) anyway - you're constructing a map of the world, not of a single country.
I'm quite sure that even with HUGE errors (like 20%) you'd be able to show that there is no way to flatten out the results.
But I'm sorry to say that the Flat Earthers simply won't accept your results - they're just going to carp on and on about how we don't know DISTANCES - and their poor little brains aren't sharp enough to understand that what you're doing is sufficient proof.
The only things they trust for distances are things like car odometers (and I bet they'd discount those if we found a proof involving them!).
-
Setting cable lengths and our abilities to search the internet aside....
Does anyone have anything else to add to the flight time map discussion?
- We have established that care needs to be taken when comparing short flights to long flights because a larger percentage of the flight is take up in ascending and descending from cruising altitude and speed.
- We have established that the purpose of the project is not to calculate distances, but to layout the general size and relative location of continents
- We have established that the margin of error is not great enough to change a flat earth into a globe or to change a globe into a flat earth.
I think its a good idea. Use major cities as points. It should give us a rough shape.
-
-math snipped for brevity of reply-
I get where you're coming from here, but once again: Distance is not being calculated here. We're not looking for an incredibly accurate map.
These are the parameters/assumptions:
1) Flight times between two locations are the same within a reasonable margin of error so long as it's the same model plane.
3) Planes will always attempt to fly the shortest distance between two points.
4) Flight times in one direction can be combined with flight times in the other direction for an average flight time within a reasonable margin of error.
5) Flight times can thus be used as a reasonable approximation for distance, and should reveal the shape of the Earth if plotted out.
6) Flight times should not be skewed enough to make a flat Earth appear round, nor a round Earth appear flat.
Now, we'll see how well 1 and 4 turn out for margins of error, but I see nothing wrong with the rest of these otherwise. Once again, no distance in miles or kilometers is being calculated, nor is there an attempt to calculate said distances being made. This is about plotting air flight times onto a map, and seeing what shape the flight times dictate the map to be.
Point 1- We don't have the model of plane.
Point 3- This is flat out wrong. Like the assumption that planes ALWAYS fly their cruising speeds. This is wrong because planes can't fly the shortest distance between 2 points. There are federally mandated rules on flight paths. This is so planes don't hit each other.
Also, planes fly curved paths. Even if you pretend the earth is flat, its still a curved path.
Point 4- I know from experience 4 is untrue. I fly back and forth between CLT and DFW very often. I know that the flight from CLT to DFW is always 20 minutes shorter than the flight there. I have taken this trip many many times.
Point 5- If you have your stated acceptable error of 40% you can't make a map of shit. Period.
Point 6- people on this site always lose sight of scale. They think that a spherical earth must mean a small earth and a flat earth means the same. An 8 hour flight is ~1500 -2400 miles. Diameter of a spherical earth is listed as 8,000 miles- or 24,800 miles in circumference. This means that the distance if the earth was flat, vs. if the earth was round would be only about 7%, WAY below the error you "allow".
This is besides the fact that any distance this way is still the same. This is perhaps the very MOST IMPORTANT fact. Imagine an ant on a beach ball. If the Ant walks 8 inches on the beach ball or 8 inches on the sidewalk, he still walks.... wait for it... 8 inches!
So this is pointless anyway.
-
Setting cable lengths and our abilities to search the internet aside....
Does anyone have anything else to add to the flight time map discussion?
- We have established that care needs to be taken when comparing short flights to long flights because a larger percentage of the flight is take up in ascending and descending from cruising altitude and speed.
- We have established that the purpose of the project is not to calculate distances, but to layout the general size and relative location of continents
- We have established that the margin of error is not great enough to change a flat earth into a globe or to change a globe into a flat earth.
You should certainly avoid using short flights - but for longer flights, the additional takeoff/landing times don't affect the result by much. You're not going to need short-distance flights (under a couple of hours of flight time) anyway - you're constructing a map of the world, not of a single country.
I'm quite sure that even with HUGE errors (like 20%) you'd be able to show that there is no way to flatten out the results.
But I'm sorry to say that the Flat Earthers simply won't accept your results - they're just going to carp on and on about how we don't know DISTANCES - and their poor little brains aren't sharp enough to understand that what you're doing is sufficient proof.
The only things they trust for distances are things like car odometers (and I bet they'd discount those if we found a proof involving them!).
Well not so much- If you are accepting errors as high as they have stated- you could flatten anything out.
Its why you can draw North America on a cartesian projection and basically get away with it.
If you allow 20-40% error- well thats well above a cartesian error except at the very very highest latitudes. The math was tongue in cheek to show the absurdity of trying to make a valid measurement when you make assumptions on 95% of the dependent variables. Especially when you start with fundamentally faulty beliefs. I am not even getting into the shape of the world. I am talking about basic assumptions that all planes are the same, they fly the exact same speed, along the exact same path, at the same altitude, in perfectly straight lines, and that error, if it did exist, could just get averaged away (instead of magnified, like it would here- by giving a false sense of accuracy). When even 30 seconds on google would prove it otherwise. But then again, you wouldn't expect much math or science here... Which is why this is so fun. Fact free zone!
-
-math snipped for brevity of reply-
I get where you're coming from here, but once again: Distance is not being calculated here. We're not looking for an incredibly accurate map.
These are the parameters/assumptions:
1) Flight times between two locations are the same within a reasonable margin of error so long as it's the same model plane.
3) Planes will always attempt to fly the shortest distance between two points.
4) Flight times in one direction can be combined with flight times in the other direction for an average flight time within a reasonable margin of error.
5) Flight times can thus be used as a reasonable approximation for distance, and should reveal the shape of the Earth if plotted out.
6) Flight times should not be skewed enough to make a flat Earth appear round, nor a round Earth appear flat.
Now, we'll see how well 1 and 4 turn out for margins of error, but I see nothing wrong with the rest of these otherwise. Once again, no distance in miles or kilometers is being calculated, nor is there an attempt to calculate said distances being made. This is about plotting air flight times onto a map, and seeing what shape the flight times dictate the map to be.
Point 1- We don't have the model of plane.
Point 3- This is flat out wrong. Like the assumption that planes ALWAYS fly their cruising speeds. This is wrong because planes can't fly the shortest distance between 2 points. There are federally mandated rules on flight paths. This is so planes don't hit each other.
Also, planes fly curved paths. Even if you pretend the earth is flat, its still a curved path.
Point 4- I know from experience 4 is untrue. I fly back and forth between CLT and DFW very often. I know that the flight from CLT to DFW is always 20 minutes shorter than the flight there. I have taken this trip many many times.
Point 5- If you have your stated acceptable error of 40% you can't make a map of shit. Period.
Point 6- people on this site always lose sight of scale. They think that a spherical earth must mean a small earth and a flat earth means the same. An 8 hour flight is ~1500 -2400 miles. Diameter of a spherical earth is listed as 8,000 miles- or 24,800 miles in circumference. This means that the distance if the earth was flat, vs. if the earth was round would be only about 7%, WAY below the error you "allow".
This is besides the fact that any distance this way is still the same. This is perhaps the very MOST IMPORTANT fact. Imagine an ant on a beach ball. If the Ant walks 8 inches on the beach ball or 8 inches on the sidewalk, he still walks.... wait for it... 8 inches!
So this is pointless anyway.
1) That would be because he hasn't presented anything yet. I was stating paramaters for this to be legitimate.
3) Note the word 'attempt' here please. When possible planes are flying the shortest route they can.
4) Umm, how does this disprove the idea an average of direction A + direction B is a decent approximation of time taken if the Earth didn't move? Sounds more like a proof to me.
5) We have no idea what his actual error will be.
6) You will have locations that can add up like that, correct. But depending on the FE map there will be two points that are farther away from one another than they are on a globe. Always. This is what will force the shape of the map.
6b) Take that up with Tom. He's the reason we're looking for ways that don't use 'round Earth distances' and can be used without having to find an actual distance in any way. I happen to agree with this point, but we're not making this for me.
-
There's also another thing to keep in mind: some of the distances in any flat earth map are going to be 2-3 times bigger than what we would expect. No error bar in these flight times can make up for the fact that in the bipolar map, to fly from Tokyo to los Angeles you'd have to cross all Asia, Europe, the Atlantic ocean and North America or that in the unipolar map to go from Sidney to Rio De Janeiro you'd have to cross all Asia, the Antarctic and all North and central America. A 40% error is peanuts, compared to this...
-
Well not so much- If you are accepting errors as high as they have stated- you could flatten anything out.
Its why you can draw North America on a cartesian projection and basically get away with it.
If you allow 20-40% error- well thats well above a cartesian error except at the very very highest latitudes. The math was tongue in cheek to show the absurdity of trying to make a valid measurement when you make assumptions on 95% of the dependent variables. Especially when you start with fundamentally faulty beliefs. I am not even getting into the shape of the world. I am talking about basic assumptions that all planes are the same, they fly the exact same speed, along the exact same path, at the same altitude, in perfectly straight lines, and that error, if it did exist, could just get averaged away (instead of magnified, like it would here- by giving a false sense of accuracy). When even 30 seconds on google would prove it otherwise. But then again, you wouldn't expect much math or science here... Which is why this is so fun. Fact free zone!
I feel like a kid who cleaned his room and then mom came and said, "You call this clean!?". I just want to say, "You should have seen it before I started!"
There's also another thing to keep in mind: some of the distances in any flat earth map are going to be 2-3 times bigger than what we would expect. No error bar in these flight times can make up for the fact that in the bipolar map, to fly from Tokyo to los Angeles you'd have to cross all Asia, Europe, the Atlantic ocean and North America or that in the unipolar map to go from Sidney to Rio De Janeiro you'd have to cross all Asia, the Antarctic and all North and central America. A 40% error is peanuts, compared to this...
altman42, Like Ga_x2 says in here, a 40% error is nothing compared to what the Flat Earth Society is claiming on their currently accepted maps.
You said yourself, that 20-40% error is well above a cartesian error except at the very very highest latitudes. That is a HUGE except.
Again. I am not trying to make an exact map. It is not to be used for navigation. I am not submitting it as a scientific proof. I am just trying to draw the continents in their place on the Earth. A 20-40% error will be acceptable for that goal. My error will be more like 7%.
All, please remember the original premise of this topic. If the world really is flat, drawing it on a flat piece of paper will be easy. Flat to Flat = easy.
This is the main point of the exercise, not the actual map.
-
The point to remember here is that the Flat Earther maps always seem to fall into the same hole:
In an effort not to freak people out with horribly distorted continents - they push all of the error into the oceans.
So while they might have gotten away with relatively smaller distortions spread all over the world, they end up with pretty good representations of the continents with GIGANTIC errors over the oceans.
If desperate, and there have to be other big errors, they adjust the projection so the southern hemisphere takes all of the hit and the north looks relatively OK. This fits with the facts that most FE'ers are seemingly from Europe, the USA and Canada.
If there has to be an "Ice Wall" - we'll put it where not many people go!
You see similar things happening in their laws of physics - if there has to be a horrific error in how stars move - then we'll just shove it into the southern hemisphere and hope nobody notices.
Once you start noticing their northern-hemispheric bias, you see it everywhere.
The way to debunk tons of this stuff is to just use the magic words: "So what happens in the South Pacific and Australia?...Because that's where the most egregious errors occur.
-
Like Ga_x2 says in here, a 40% error is nothing compared to what the Flat Earth Society is claiming on their currently accepted maps.
I just printed sized a southern hemisphere globe projection to the same proportion of the tfes.org example flat-earth map and printed them.
The distance from the Southern tip of South America to the Southern tip of Africa is 3.4cm on the globe map and 10.0cm on the FE map.
The distance from the Southern tip of South America to the Southern tip of Australia is 4.4cm on the globe map and 14cm on the FE map.
When I printed the Northern Hemisphere of the globe map in the same proportion, the distance from India to Panama was 8.1 on both maps.
That is a difference of 294% for SA - Africa and a 318% for SA - Australia.
Remember that this passes as the most accepted map of the flat earth.
-
Like Ga_x2 says in here, a 40% error is nothing compared to what the Flat Earth Society is claiming on their currently accepted maps.
I just printed sized a southern hemisphere globe projection to the same proportion of the tfes.org example flat-earth map and printed them.
The distance from the Southern tip of South America to the Southern tip of Africa is 3.4cm on the globe map and 10.0cm on the FE map.
The distance from the Southern tip of South America to the Southern tip of Australia is 4.4cm on the globe map and 14cm on the FE map.
When I printed the Northern Hemisphere of the globe map in the same proportion, the distance from India to Panama was 8.1 on both maps.
That is a difference of 294% for SA - Africa and a 318% for SA - Australia.
Remember that this passes as the most accepted map of the flat earth.
This is why there will never be a flat map. There is no possible way you can draw a map with actual distances, flight times etc where it works. This is the Achilles Heel of FE and why Tom fights so hard with his derailing attempts. He knows that once he agreed to any sane way to draw a map he would lose instantly.
-
Like Ga_x2 says in here, a 40% error is nothing compared to what the Flat Earth Society is claiming on their currently accepted maps.
I just printed sized a southern hemisphere globe projection to the same proportion of the tfes.org example flat-earth map and printed them.
The distance from the Southern tip of South America to the Southern tip of Africa is 3.4cm on the globe map and 10.0cm on the FE map.
The distance from the Southern tip of South America to the Southern tip of Australia is 4.4cm on the globe map and 14cm on the FE map.
When I printed the Northern Hemisphere of the globe map in the same proportion, the distance from India to Panama was 8.1 on both maps.
That is a difference of 294% for SA - Africa and a 318% for SA - Australia.
Remember that this passes as the most accepted map of the flat earth.
This is why there will never be a flat map. There is no possible way you can draw a map with actual distances, flight times etc where it works. This is the Achilles Heel of FE and why Tom fights so hard with his derailing attempts. He knows that once he agreed to any sane way to draw a map he would lose instantly.
Yes, exactly: "We refuse to produce a map of our own - AND we refuse to accept any measure of distance to allow you to produce one."
Even when I produced a measurement made by physically laying a cable of known length between two points, Tom won't accept it.
Same deal with the "where do the photons go?" question - he KNOWS that his pet theory can't survive any solid answer to that question - so he simply doesn't answer it.
<sigh>
-
I have been working off and on for months gathering data to illustrate the quadrilateral problem (a lot more “off” than “on” to be honest). I want to connect the dots from four or more faraway cities with reliable nonstop service. I have identified several promising candidates (all maps below are using Web Mercator projection)
The first set is the “Santiago Quatro” of Santiago Chile (SCL), Auckland (AKL), Sydney (SYD), and Honolulu (HNL). One weakness of this set: Aukland and Sydney aren’t that far apart on a global scale, with an average flight time of only two and a half hours. This means this quad might not really prove much vis-a-vis the quadrilateral problem, but is nevertheless useful as a benchmark for east-west flight times across the South Pacific (AKL-SCL 10:30, SCL-AKL 12:30, SYD-SCL12:00, SCL-SYD 13:40).
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/40320CwzpJYluUS9CEU9Ju1cliTF7FtnwJEv3bSyW0P2cvkqgrnwa_mq5bNcAJ0ef1GLU0opyqjxV_QYT3p6K3-bGN1MlnUSuS0MGCaiVW6N4EWFvYvFkw_kvVWmXMAjBYHgA-V5cWh_85AshoiyTtrxbGXOQ9oG5YDHRbHZYoI8x833oA7x0Vk0jvEMkiy9IQxtoMWEHwLbZ2cRS0JE5fwmCB3S_H_9Fpy449_0ecXIRKq92a4ECDl_TCfU-Y5zdSY2Zc6ffJjwOla9apGc0LRjv9_UIvZ7lyk2qxr321gNVr36U_utL81pxXPhd5-ow9bl5bSLiJ-21UHTVlR-afM3smdVr6yPK7neJxYOy-qYpdQaoaJKJIDO7kkipjx98SyGDJnGo-ykcLSPb-HR_fjm1XiRkc1Hyz0DMq1GBhoH8rGiMIElhS-hxBzdy63cXV_05Lii2DG10YKHF3h1TutzfYtiJ5F5i3KX0q3zGv73qnhQ_ktp5BdK4QL2pDZo7CqEn5hgLOk4Mt6DSrINN5rsqTvPvSN12BhMeoqeDQCcGsod-sfwJW3R3lzHc38d1_ENvyDUyYMkWfTqXvSZxX80YLGHs6lBRHDJe9An98jMddPv1FW4jeUsAVdyl8ZX5ErHOTKfDDl4WJ1_xbN8IMkUTaZhjbPooYZR=w2820-h1178-no)
But it turns out we can do better than sets of four! On the east side of the South American continent we have the “São Paulo Cinco”, interconnecting the São Paulo airports (GRU and VCP) with Johannesburg (JNB), Dakar (DKR), Dubai (DXB), and New York (JFK). This one is not ideal due to the odd fact that direct service between Dakar and São Paulo is westbound only, preventing us from averaging out the jet stream.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VyKmhmeKlqwpfJZS9EEIfLjWZbKxEyEP6pObKJDQZTjxFTgrFVnkKlU9g5ESwu5Z3m4uaSvFj4HAar5gb70z0z05zVHS7blF9yvX32bwp6nlD7Gmw2RPrI2ewKwOrUn4eUI_BglSgv9R2d1EEctRcGyNY9PE1VBf8tI91_Ud7eMPyl_3cxlGM4AmpMslD_K5UaVp6IHVJaF2rDF0o2iyjPp1D9Xe7LZ_QNsiNDHtatcgrg6UCHJquPMcr9QwJbayXn630fuMNIrLjDDQ-lOMhnaDIPnXR4DZ6V4aDkwuiBrISRUPM7S5anBK8LH_3OC3mKyiRNCdC7JaF3RXHZhQoClgLa16WGzZIfsHWPRhI2O0McZkwGxCyjFUQh1D1a2Sc4c4uYER_aYgaOdsq5Z1PjurZWFKU8K3OzPRV8oqPBqJvCqvJ6P1X-Swq8V9kjpsD_oebXx6YZFe-Ten5-wTAB2VpgkLhIvDkwt76x6V4ZtIGED3ion1yfwhMZlVD8zwP4_W4LbrYVoyINFXhpDAk0BgohWYMs5WplAQrAdHcbHk5MP_2BfluOGJx4Xl5CzITZRVjL83F_brCnIeznuyhYG_spE15SkAB3zvGSRJjg8Y3VMnkLqQMQ3cY8WvXVkXRau5NHbR-dfl9ZR_-tMKcptG8Ah2U-OeXfVF=w2282-h974-no)
Having reached Africa, we find a set of six to connect that continent to Europe, South America, and North America (the set above skipped Europe): the Atlantic Six. This repeats the VCP-DKR-DXB triangle from the São Paulo Cinco and connects it to a third airport in Africa, Casablanca (CMN), plus Madrid (MAD) and Washington D.C. (DCA). (Africa is difficult. There are fewer airports, with fewer connections. Accra (ACC) connects to Dakar, Dubai, and Jo'burg but not Casablanca; Lagos (LOS) connects to Dubai, Jo’burg, Casablanca but not Dakar; Jo’burg and Casablanca mutually connect to far-flung places like São Paulo, Istanbul, and the US but not across their own continent to each other.)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WxBKyr5feb1LbHjDWWsbSH-yc2O-F0OddVS2xvin7ViRqDVCOwClsd76tCsBXGMeSFTD9mL-CRK10tnLxPBg4xcDvIl44SOA3KLzDrduHCcR6ktc8DlplysDpfvxwBLSWYCB7jpA4aZdh4qQ1l1y3Pwl9YdXqmyrHco2_12ba2cz2a3Nbi0csz9l8m_dVH4d7Oa94n_4u8cvV5KZswyxTMBuvN-C3BvF_xBy0A5EvKomzM-A9WJOm4pYyswsRu4odB03X-eiK9yaGN_oFOgK47R8jhzUV4un1EgjnjU0lLSzf26nTiZ-rBurEPCULB8t-sMDYMp1bvEIEV5TH-VY45BtLwcHTA-hJLUUcLF6wSwoxDtVmJgRvOKhS2B7W9NHW_DoF5E7TmS45Ez7I3jjrkJcG-Ua5WOrSQ80Z7t4qsM6ANUpkby8ZbsbbHibR9N3jfN0Y30NThOLYsHlykWBDbSMXcp6F0uOJLmwvLD8B_pJttwdAqmO3RRwBinP2VCdsqMwJGr-_4Q6foMi_c7rw8GZvadOH5rZRPQvLVyagEVWhecOyNjyOTAUoqGW7Tr2bUCv4WoufuwxfsOenWZob7L8KLH6kX0MwBz9QVjbLsH7uG_rAYbBmzTGJOcoRasiQwsSpzSZ4RfVgVvczW3X1KxzqJ2RNTQewYZl=w2262-h898-no)
Continuing eastward we start getting into a better-connected part of the southern hemisphere, where we find a six city set anchored to the São Paulo Cinco by virtue of sharing the JNB-DXB route: the Indian Ocean Six. The other four airports in the set are Mauritius (MTU), Perth (PER), Singapore (SIN), and Hong Kong (HKG).
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/RTXC0OHF9K9X8FoSpFCo3dgHAhmENSpeqEdp2zzi89zcFCjP72LOoN36Yl31Png5GmazUfs6JUCDEv9cuZ7UlIbprDYMRnyzp7fZlyVpFc0VVGwjGix8zR0xev3QxK6U_bfxpEMnVfG3KPCOrf3B25J7ApURG2MiuPtdYW_nzs3CYuQtmBdf7A9ptK5RXdZgsAn0GD7GPdsfm0RR7KjVYWvvsuYlGDrHZiiB7cBYTakwt9h_561paHbDIlmg06AKapleVbXgokbBA8lnKj7Vwegws0m7kiiUB0cknsFfHnAxrifP3mSKK4V8dMYZgg4_sYRKcNyimjr3bEmh8BFAdEWWu9vZl7KjsEce5s4VTRbLXkmuBBvfYULY8CKUkVPm1OZqC2L92ZIVICcrgQMI9vnQKH0ZcuwYAOZM0mIRDwT8dyyR6NrORAUKcQ4qr5WovK9MG2JCV-mIXOdP8_A3pWpiCWmLMoSq2ysA7ac7SzPczp54D5K1rCDrjjO2t0Jn8j7MLamGpYs3EsU2YA7ieUMVu6bvuZaZCSTX2g8J_JvYmEvZn3r5bsmzEdHbTU6MQV32FUA8-BRgJXKXqnKMyV5LIL2Z19cPrCql85ae1_S9BbunC84pfl7Iu-Oui_jgSwuVqrzLU3E8w7Qqcps2gHfNJEY2HtIZST9r=w1580-h988-no)
Once again, we bring connections from the previous set into a new one: the Aussie Six connects three cities from the Indian Ocean Six (Perth, Singapore, and Hong Kong) to three cities we’ve used before but never together: Sydney, Auckland, and Dubai.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jzNyuibOxeNmyKnd54DjtpfQXS9oD5psdLX2pubN1jXT41pX8nUk_keA8Vbk4B6k-nIhsojO0RLO8pKa-HtC8sM_TWtQbVlmoXgUG0is-d_jOrwIr5dSGiW5M4D3oX5qfrOA1u3gUkADD_6nKgyOLis6TWD3O6NOBodtsZLgyVY-AoKsv2AUyVVufWZ8qy6s0xnxz1VizZytVVAUGwhO5kcciua1I3UF9SiTFICw-CXYceg2TS-UXbecaU9rnZhg6od879BnHrF_mkYEOUbO9CZY21v-s1LSkfgLJNtnVrd88VBwmV0AcgY19vf2SQTZRcb2yEo5eHCoBGs7tk3PBUOMP4cvEObhCxp1a-fiM6jnPgfJ1c_J3zjP3B3jEMbizWRUC_GjUEpficy2PRVg3QWPg0XoaRsi4M4OsHSBnHU_gHpvO4EKjSy9NrQVd53_9-sORqTd0Is8l7qvHmLkBvd7aog7A0OetbSYKvaOsiWhWrk__rMwENZMgJ0pLpXdPWLpaoDGqMa7ZeNT3qoQzvlaq9F00nWWksC3jgZEiuNEPLMQZQqeguxFrUWIhOy1d0YZNCtYP5Oif2o76lk7I5uT8GqOW0wT18lZfvuAh8q7UTYBQaNnsoAHEpL5sE1o_L6yxbzaYHW9UCgUZwgsLKI0mnJdeKY4ycL1=w1328-h872-no)
All this focus on southern airports is making the Northern Hemisphere start to feel left out, so let’s connect to it from Singapore via the Helsinki-pore Seven! Yes, seven cities ALL connected to each other by nonstop passenger service: Singapore, Tokyo (NRT), Beijing (PEK), New Delhi (DEL), Helsinki (HEL), London (LHR), and Istanbul (IST). Why not Constantinople? Ask Intikam!
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_S1WaMnqa7vAIIWrUzgV9pWzf27F6oY65l-jhG-a2p_otQGr_nK7Pq9hKseUQQtMtUeBD1uK45kFA6spmDEiMew6tP6A1L_Oh-hRXJR3-AzkGzakB-mjXac9nVF21cE-ZEPQR_I5Nby3FeRgaqlE4dfSpH17l10lJ07V2M1UG1BKCr4LJJoFxH2pKYGeFEFkRN7HhlJ1DWJC27KSSiGgON8uXgSK1kfi4f9bhFtkm-CbErVQE947QsuaAjUj1l4uQSNX401XncG61ZESl-P6iNI9pfWgiefxS0nOlfJrR1pw3mt6NAP8-w05jFFS6XPzi87HH6xpV92oHQy4wBMjWFSAhZRPnucEVA4OPaSMiZzQtpCC1-lf0U-I-1vaBtBpLGOKdWbowmhnD0lRTgHRtNIfvwKTwy0sWWkjLEspfeXPqW-w-9oK5VRpNPvf3h62XqiBgecs3nyNMi0docgORPzqQSKf6-RUCA_HDV0KLxmf0yL_-pI8AInWZy8vTVhsjDXNHmoxvUilCPM3mWNFWMYiLrHXvAOLfI2L49rdJpnrmRL_RTrdNBVdqWTXG3WS-A6aHV_hHYph9v8FDWpvz8m_Cd8X6rbbIVQ0U2-_ZalOJXS7dZQzbZNJrte6eeX7iUhldn8AmvsVWQQoV1ww0rn87koPvKU8gdb7=w1454-h814-no)
We now return to the Pacific, for some even bigger sets. We start with another set of seven that pivots on Tokyo, adds three more Asian airports in Shanghai (PVG), Seoul (ICN), and Hong Kong (HKG), then reaches east to include Honolulu (HNL), Los Angeles (LAX) and surprisingly Dallas (DFW). We then find that this core of seven forms the east-west base for two different sets of eight: the North Pacific Eight connects Anchorage (ANC) to all of the other seven, while the South Pacific Eight connects Sydney (SYD) to the other seven.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/B7syiPlBZdJFrImCCJ299xme8p5mD0qJcvrm72067tLYIm1xS-EWmPjt6DDUlI4RYYrxG6Unk7XE73ZD_7K-1xVy3Lit4Af4Q-a8WMv7knLNOlzmUG-RWNCQciGeLyWQTPY0yMg2sWuq1jN6Rrff3HpxaCh2cd1B7VdH23xGV2Aprytb_ifphumP_PtCSyY7WpN8PcTT3xRH9dGMoowmVY_YqX85nb4nyHD9dpgGTpSQFN2b8wVtG7SS_V5x4dLqVQ0wBZCpra4yf1lpIS--CVQ_PLt_5a5VLZFRfNe8a2HcOmgnojC2f527xQNL9vPjtc5hFZMywRouTfD27so3MhdOHHC6Su81Wx4YIBRhWO7T8AY3hTkGTWKLqA-jlA6VmY8xyD6NXiI8fP__DAu_WVwuqw8SDQjPuqgZMpm62hi1bN1j_Jf_e7JcxX8uo-63Gw2yPhuA29bzR1JNb9bt2GrilLGK6RTDDEs9Z_6dfjyvZX6gUvzbwjRT33R2ol_F49S69WzXE2pfkU10rQSQYIVGFhbvbL4dHOSpGcGCFXZs0R33pReMW_rvXP2_6calVNYEv056xCcXOL98A9qX063mJk6cNAkwwdfscHggdaFQqQ3Dnk4yOGYAvby1OKid34yvBXcHm4pPNJ0uQ3vQkxz2b21rh1TlkP5G=w1312-h906-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/DhURhOfVPho_icrc2GRLgEb4Pp2uIbru9MZ1vHZtPiyqQXRyq9OsfDQs13Z4qO5yCG4xd5tB9S4hvDHob__CFrvgnuXdYk2xBvNvIn9bvMFQQWYBNPUclRuXC3MQbxM4uU0MTjOmn3ncvjLfPatSu0Jb7OBdr-LayqmU5irKq_91VesoDMWpP784Ls1I8oXWJeh0MJ5lxMZkYh6HjMvrL84zi75cVYR1hckxPd3XglakNqICYNqMCcwv0CY0EOjnndY2Ywt6vX931RYAUW-eMaIVLNl8lMfRiQyc-44rxYlGUqvDJUkHHExhosGW8zG0eiE5XfiXLlwSpukJ9b_e5G_rP81p7OcMJ9jReEPGAnfnbJdshFrWRvSU4dk2SkqT7SM7Ixm174pX2vFASlm1hJxoElBENw3f6xnjtbdnZWzaXmrHYGYIf7J7chewg1z-JPRNqlWlma742BEsfwokxJO4LJX1kIu5ri_va6oc5dmNRmeH8X3oeglcq6zTIugeIpV6dVDeCOo7e1ZVEK9RuHOcSlI4MEx3gaAqG2KdYK5WowMbU-jlnPcCFzNQO-CTiVlIgJuIP948P23fxGZkEAsZ-9TiRPx67L_WU9kvld6kvrTyL5_Y7TDPDCByOVhjw9O-arEu0pcdHSjjIhrD2R45gkTWPCp7m1T9=w1422-h1004-no)
One final eight city set: the South America Eight. This one takes the four best-connected airports I can find in South America, Santiago (SCL), Buenos Aires (EZE), São Paulo (GRU), and Bogota (BOG) and connects them to two North American airports in Mexico City (MEX) and New York (JFK), and two European ones in Madrid (MAD) and London (LHR).
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UWfq37khYv-SpGp24HpBJMP98LMQ4HLCcuiKOpKhSdd8ULA0s1U5GTZ0N7E_j9BUwyIrYuF26TM1s7EnYYDAUlHIrYl1Jajxgv7ihCdNuoaojUMk9wv25Y-D7locs0zHnRyZWkYJhFTwn_l-dSRH7V5Bmy1Tm3cJLWFkwaF8xtkRuCfnW5WLo-1ba2vsWs2bUue6bnlI-_jr6Stt0SSmVsluiyukj7w-ELqEkmWWO7h3FgWtWvK0vCJvsYamMjSCr8ebaGAkOTTAuhneWs91BmhtU1pG18Qr02vGdprYS4vQhK8tp1j2ol6jdqTp6vwyBT2e_qHbb1ap4_BguTqbrqQcRo0-tQQyMtPwHwEbeuAN7AgynKufotMxVievBFXzrAkFFhz19Pj6UwukRpOZlUNtC2j9E3joQo6UYUQCgVIK8Sm9iP0_2jDWEfyXY0RNPAxrQiKMuZhI1fM6aM9FLTQ6p4_Oh9p7cGJClWyK5NSRm-zi5nnw0fwVtGCcFFFlFowRJ5NjuvL7qYxQDP7q28Hagix9JYycbpm-qv5gR1k1C9tTPXcCBop3qJT5PCngrtNb6DSjdGYMWYw2uPjRx_0gNXX32kMZkdcYcd6GX38eGkjx0xpzzjWCHO0Gv-V7g17mlKME3ZtW9K9YQGfUUaN71OFDgBNDOA63=w1410-h934-no)
-
I have been working off and on for months gathering data to illustrate the quadrilateral problem (a lot more “off” than “on” to be honest). I want to connect the dots from four or more faraway cities with reliable nonstop service. I have identified several promising candidates (all maps below are using Web Mercator projection)
The first set is the “Santiago Quatro” of Santiago Chile (SCL), Auckland (AKL), Sydney (SYD), and Honolulu (HNL). One weakness of this set: Aukland and Sydney aren’t that far apart on a global scale, with an average flight time of only two and a half hours. This means this quad might not really prove much vis-a-vis the quadrilateral problem, but is nevertheless useful as a benchmark for east-west flight times across the South Pacific (AKL-SCL 10:30, SCL-AKL 12:30, SYD-SCL12:00, SCL-SYD 13:40).
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/40320CwzpJYluUS9CEU9Ju1cliTF7FtnwJEv3bSyW0P2cvkqgrnwa_mq5bNcAJ0ef1GLU0opyqjxV_QYT3p6K3-bGN1MlnUSuS0MGCaiVW6N4EWFvYvFkw_kvVWmXMAjBYHgA-V5cWh_85AshoiyTtrxbGXOQ9oG5YDHRbHZYoI8x833oA7x0Vk0jvEMkiy9IQxtoMWEHwLbZ2cRS0JE5fwmCB3S_H_9Fpy449_0ecXIRKq92a4ECDl_TCfU-Y5zdSY2Zc6ffJjwOla9apGc0LRjv9_UIvZ7lyk2qxr321gNVr36U_utL81pxXPhd5-ow9bl5bSLiJ-21UHTVlR-afM3smdVr6yPK7neJxYOy-qYpdQaoaJKJIDO7kkipjx98SyGDJnGo-ykcLSPb-HR_fjm1XiRkc1Hyz0DMq1GBhoH8rGiMIElhS-hxBzdy63cXV_05Lii2DG10YKHF3h1TutzfYtiJ5F5i3KX0q3zGv73qnhQ_ktp5BdK4QL2pDZo7CqEn5hgLOk4Mt6DSrINN5rsqTvPvSN12BhMeoqeDQCcGsod-sfwJW3R3lzHc38d1_ENvyDUyYMkWfTqXvSZxX80YLGHs6lBRHDJe9An98jMddPv1FW4jeUsAVdyl8ZX5ErHOTKfDDl4WJ1_xbN8IMkUTaZhjbPooYZR=w2820-h1178-no)
But it turns out we can do better than sets of four! On the east side of the South American continent we have the “São Paulo Cinco”, interconnecting the São Paulo airports (GRU and VCP) with Johannesburg (JNB), Dakar (DKR), Dubai (DXB), and New York (JFK). This one is not ideal due to the odd fact that direct service between Dakar and São Paulo is westbound only, preventing us from averaging out the jet stream.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VyKmhmeKlqwpfJZS9EEIfLjWZbKxEyEP6pObKJDQZTjxFTgrFVnkKlU9g5ESwu5Z3m4uaSvFj4HAar5gb70z0z05zVHS7blF9yvX32bwp6nlD7Gmw2RPrI2ewKwOrUn4eUI_BglSgv9R2d1EEctRcGyNY9PE1VBf8tI91_Ud7eMPyl_3cxlGM4AmpMslD_K5UaVp6IHVJaF2rDF0o2iyjPp1D9Xe7LZ_QNsiNDHtatcgrg6UCHJquPMcr9QwJbayXn630fuMNIrLjDDQ-lOMhnaDIPnXR4DZ6V4aDkwuiBrISRUPM7S5anBK8LH_3OC3mKyiRNCdC7JaF3RXHZhQoClgLa16WGzZIfsHWPRhI2O0McZkwGxCyjFUQh1D1a2Sc4c4uYER_aYgaOdsq5Z1PjurZWFKU8K3OzPRV8oqPBqJvCqvJ6P1X-Swq8V9kjpsD_oebXx6YZFe-Ten5-wTAB2VpgkLhIvDkwt76x6V4ZtIGED3ion1yfwhMZlVD8zwP4_W4LbrYVoyINFXhpDAk0BgohWYMs5WplAQrAdHcbHk5MP_2BfluOGJx4Xl5CzITZRVjL83F_brCnIeznuyhYG_spE15SkAB3zvGSRJjg8Y3VMnkLqQMQ3cY8WvXVkXRau5NHbR-dfl9ZR_-tMKcptG8Ah2U-OeXfVF=w2282-h974-no)
Having reached Africa, we find a set of six to connect that continent to Europe, South America, and North America (the set above skipped Europe): the Atlantic Six. This repeats the VCP-DKR-DXB triangle from the São Paulo Cinco and connects it to a third airport in Africa, Casablanca (CMN), plus Madrid (MAD) and Washington D.C. (DCA). (Africa is difficult. There are fewer airports, with fewer connections. Accra (ACC) connects to Dakar, Dubai, and Jo'burg but not Casablanca; Lagos (LOS) connects to Dubai, Jo’burg, Casablanca but not Dakar; Jo’burg and Casablanca mutually connect to far-flung places like São Paulo, Istanbul, and the US but not across their own continent to each other.)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WxBKyr5feb1LbHjDWWsbSH-yc2O-F0OddVS2xvin7ViRqDVCOwClsd76tCsBXGMeSFTD9mL-CRK10tnLxPBg4xcDvIl44SOA3KLzDrduHCcR6ktc8DlplysDpfvxwBLSWYCB7jpA4aZdh4qQ1l1y3Pwl9YdXqmyrHco2_12ba2cz2a3Nbi0csz9l8m_dVH4d7Oa94n_4u8cvV5KZswyxTMBuvN-C3BvF_xBy0A5EvKomzM-A9WJOm4pYyswsRu4odB03X-eiK9yaGN_oFOgK47R8jhzUV4un1EgjnjU0lLSzf26nTiZ-rBurEPCULB8t-sMDYMp1bvEIEV5TH-VY45BtLwcHTA-hJLUUcLF6wSwoxDtVmJgRvOKhS2B7W9NHW_DoF5E7TmS45Ez7I3jjrkJcG-Ua5WOrSQ80Z7t4qsM6ANUpkby8ZbsbbHibR9N3jfN0Y30NThOLYsHlykWBDbSMXcp6F0uOJLmwvLD8B_pJttwdAqmO3RRwBinP2VCdsqMwJGr-_4Q6foMi_c7rw8GZvadOH5rZRPQvLVyagEVWhecOyNjyOTAUoqGW7Tr2bUCv4WoufuwxfsOenWZob7L8KLH6kX0MwBz9QVjbLsH7uG_rAYbBmzTGJOcoRasiQwsSpzSZ4RfVgVvczW3X1KxzqJ2RNTQewYZl=w2262-h898-no)
Continuing eastward we start getting into a better-connected part of the southern hemisphere, where we find a six city set anchored to the São Paulo Cinco by virtue of sharing the JNB-DXB route: the Indian Ocean Six. The other four airports in the set are Mauritius (MTU), Perth (PER), Singapore (SIN), and Hong Kong (HKG).
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/RTXC0OHF9K9X8FoSpFCo3dgHAhmENSpeqEdp2zzi89zcFCjP72LOoN36Yl31Png5GmazUfs6JUCDEv9cuZ7UlIbprDYMRnyzp7fZlyVpFc0VVGwjGix8zR0xev3QxK6U_bfxpEMnVfG3KPCOrf3B25J7ApURG2MiuPtdYW_nzs3CYuQtmBdf7A9ptK5RXdZgsAn0GD7GPdsfm0RR7KjVYWvvsuYlGDrHZiiB7cBYTakwt9h_561paHbDIlmg06AKapleVbXgokbBA8lnKj7Vwegws0m7kiiUB0cknsFfHnAxrifP3mSKK4V8dMYZgg4_sYRKcNyimjr3bEmh8BFAdEWWu9vZl7KjsEce5s4VTRbLXkmuBBvfYULY8CKUkVPm1OZqC2L92ZIVICcrgQMI9vnQKH0ZcuwYAOZM0mIRDwT8dyyR6NrORAUKcQ4qr5WovK9MG2JCV-mIXOdP8_A3pWpiCWmLMoSq2ysA7ac7SzPczp54D5K1rCDrjjO2t0Jn8j7MLamGpYs3EsU2YA7ieUMVu6bvuZaZCSTX2g8J_JvYmEvZn3r5bsmzEdHbTU6MQV32FUA8-BRgJXKXqnKMyV5LIL2Z19cPrCql85ae1_S9BbunC84pfl7Iu-Oui_jgSwuVqrzLU3E8w7Qqcps2gHfNJEY2HtIZST9r=w1580-h988-no)
Once again, we bring connections from the previous set into a new one: the Aussie Six connects three cities from the Indian Ocean Six (Perth, Singapore, and Hong Kong) to three cities we’ve used before but never together: Sydney, Auckland, and Dubai.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jzNyuibOxeNmyKnd54DjtpfQXS9oD5psdLX2pubN1jXT41pX8nUk_keA8Vbk4B6k-nIhsojO0RLO8pKa-HtC8sM_TWtQbVlmoXgUG0is-d_jOrwIr5dSGiW5M4D3oX5qfrOA1u3gUkADD_6nKgyOLis6TWD3O6NOBodtsZLgyVY-AoKsv2AUyVVufWZ8qy6s0xnxz1VizZytVVAUGwhO5kcciua1I3UF9SiTFICw-CXYceg2TS-UXbecaU9rnZhg6od879BnHrF_mkYEOUbO9CZY21v-s1LSkfgLJNtnVrd88VBwmV0AcgY19vf2SQTZRcb2yEo5eHCoBGs7tk3PBUOMP4cvEObhCxp1a-fiM6jnPgfJ1c_J3zjP3B3jEMbizWRUC_GjUEpficy2PRVg3QWPg0XoaRsi4M4OsHSBnHU_gHpvO4EKjSy9NrQVd53_9-sORqTd0Is8l7qvHmLkBvd7aog7A0OetbSYKvaOsiWhWrk__rMwENZMgJ0pLpXdPWLpaoDGqMa7ZeNT3qoQzvlaq9F00nWWksC3jgZEiuNEPLMQZQqeguxFrUWIhOy1d0YZNCtYP5Oif2o76lk7I5uT8GqOW0wT18lZfvuAh8q7UTYBQaNnsoAHEpL5sE1o_L6yxbzaYHW9UCgUZwgsLKI0mnJdeKY4ycL1=w1328-h872-no)
All this focus on southern airports is making the Northern Hemisphere start to feel left out, so let’s connect to it from Singapore via the Helsinki-pore Seven! Yes, seven cities ALL connected to each other by nonstop passenger service: Singapore, Tokyo (NRT), Beijing (PEK), New Delhi (DEL), Helsinki (HEL), London (LHR), and Istanbul (IST). Why not Constantinople? Ask Intikam!
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_S1WaMnqa7vAIIWrUzgV9pWzf27F6oY65l-jhG-a2p_otQGr_nK7Pq9hKseUQQtMtUeBD1uK45kFA6spmDEiMew6tP6A1L_Oh-hRXJR3-AzkGzakB-mjXac9nVF21cE-ZEPQR_I5Nby3FeRgaqlE4dfSpH17l10lJ07V2M1UG1BKCr4LJJoFxH2pKYGeFEFkRN7HhlJ1DWJC27KSSiGgON8uXgSK1kfi4f9bhFtkm-CbErVQE947QsuaAjUj1l4uQSNX401XncG61ZESl-P6iNI9pfWgiefxS0nOlfJrR1pw3mt6NAP8-w05jFFS6XPzi87HH6xpV92oHQy4wBMjWFSAhZRPnucEVA4OPaSMiZzQtpCC1-lf0U-I-1vaBtBpLGOKdWbowmhnD0lRTgHRtNIfvwKTwy0sWWkjLEspfeXPqW-w-9oK5VRpNPvf3h62XqiBgecs3nyNMi0docgORPzqQSKf6-RUCA_HDV0KLxmf0yL_-pI8AInWZy8vTVhsjDXNHmoxvUilCPM3mWNFWMYiLrHXvAOLfI2L49rdJpnrmRL_RTrdNBVdqWTXG3WS-A6aHV_hHYph9v8FDWpvz8m_Cd8X6rbbIVQ0U2-_ZalOJXS7dZQzbZNJrte6eeX7iUhldn8AmvsVWQQoV1ww0rn87koPvKU8gdb7=w1454-h814-no)
We now return to the Pacific, for some even bigger sets. We start with another set of seven that pivots on Tokyo, adds three more Asian airports in Shanghai (PVG), Seoul (ICN), and Hong Kong (HKG), then reaches east to include Honolulu (HNL), Los Angeles (LAX) and surprisingly Dallas (DFW). We then find that this core of seven forms the east-west base for two different sets of eight: the North Pacific Eight connects Anchorage (ANC) to all of the other seven, while the South Pacific Eight connects Sydney (SYD) to the other seven.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/B7syiPlBZdJFrImCCJ299xme8p5mD0qJcvrm72067tLYIm1xS-EWmPjt6DDUlI4RYYrxG6Unk7XE73ZD_7K-1xVy3Lit4Af4Q-a8WMv7knLNOlzmUG-RWNCQciGeLyWQTPY0yMg2sWuq1jN6Rrff3HpxaCh2cd1B7VdH23xGV2Aprytb_ifphumP_PtCSyY7WpN8PcTT3xRH9dGMoowmVY_YqX85nb4nyHD9dpgGTpSQFN2b8wVtG7SS_V5x4dLqVQ0wBZCpra4yf1lpIS--CVQ_PLt_5a5VLZFRfNe8a2HcOmgnojC2f527xQNL9vPjtc5hFZMywRouTfD27so3MhdOHHC6Su81Wx4YIBRhWO7T8AY3hTkGTWKLqA-jlA6VmY8xyD6NXiI8fP__DAu_WVwuqw8SDQjPuqgZMpm62hi1bN1j_Jf_e7JcxX8uo-63Gw2yPhuA29bzR1JNb9bt2GrilLGK6RTDDEs9Z_6dfjyvZX6gUvzbwjRT33R2ol_F49S69WzXE2pfkU10rQSQYIVGFhbvbL4dHOSpGcGCFXZs0R33pReMW_rvXP2_6calVNYEv056xCcXOL98A9qX063mJk6cNAkwwdfscHggdaFQqQ3Dnk4yOGYAvby1OKid34yvBXcHm4pPNJ0uQ3vQkxz2b21rh1TlkP5G=w1312-h906-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/DhURhOfVPho_icrc2GRLgEb4Pp2uIbru9MZ1vHZtPiyqQXRyq9OsfDQs13Z4qO5yCG4xd5tB9S4hvDHob__CFrvgnuXdYk2xBvNvIn9bvMFQQWYBNPUclRuXC3MQbxM4uU0MTjOmn3ncvjLfPatSu0Jb7OBdr-LayqmU5irKq_91VesoDMWpP784Ls1I8oXWJeh0MJ5lxMZkYh6HjMvrL84zi75cVYR1hckxPd3XglakNqICYNqMCcwv0CY0EOjnndY2Ywt6vX931RYAUW-eMaIVLNl8lMfRiQyc-44rxYlGUqvDJUkHHExhosGW8zG0eiE5XfiXLlwSpukJ9b_e5G_rP81p7OcMJ9jReEPGAnfnbJdshFrWRvSU4dk2SkqT7SM7Ixm174pX2vFASlm1hJxoElBENw3f6xnjtbdnZWzaXmrHYGYIf7J7chewg1z-JPRNqlWlma742BEsfwokxJO4LJX1kIu5ri_va6oc5dmNRmeH8X3oeglcq6zTIugeIpV6dVDeCOo7e1ZVEK9RuHOcSlI4MEx3gaAqG2KdYK5WowMbU-jlnPcCFzNQO-CTiVlIgJuIP948P23fxGZkEAsZ-9TiRPx67L_WU9kvld6kvrTyL5_Y7TDPDCByOVhjw9O-arEu0pcdHSjjIhrD2R45gkTWPCp7m1T9=w1422-h1004-no)
One final eight city set: the South America Eight. This one takes the four best-connected airports I can find in South America, Santiago (SCL), Buenos Aires (EZE), São Paulo (GRU), and Bogota (BOG) and connects them to two North American airports in Mexico City (MEX) and New York (JFK), and two European ones in Madrid (MAD) and London (LHR).
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UWfq37khYv-SpGp24HpBJMP98LMQ4HLCcuiKOpKhSdd8ULA0s1U5GTZ0N7E_j9BUwyIrYuF26TM1s7EnYYDAUlHIrYl1Jajxgv7ihCdNuoaojUMk9wv25Y-D7locs0zHnRyZWkYJhFTwn_l-dSRH7V5Bmy1Tm3cJLWFkwaF8xtkRuCfnW5WLo-1ba2vsWs2bUue6bnlI-_jr6Stt0SSmVsluiyukj7w-ELqEkmWWO7h3FgWtWvK0vCJvsYamMjSCr8ebaGAkOTTAuhneWs91BmhtU1pG18Qr02vGdprYS4vQhK8tp1j2ol6jdqTp6vwyBT2e_qHbb1ap4_BguTqbrqQcRo0-tQQyMtPwHwEbeuAN7AgynKufotMxVievBFXzrAkFFhz19Pj6UwukRpOZlUNtC2j9E3joQo6UYUQCgVIK8Sm9iP0_2jDWEfyXY0RNPAxrQiKMuZhI1fM6aM9FLTQ6p4_Oh9p7cGJClWyK5NSRm-zi5nnw0fwVtGCcFFFlFowRJ5NjuvL7qYxQDP7q28Hagix9JYycbpm-qv5gR1k1C9tTPXcCBop3qJT5PCngrtNb6DSjdGYMWYw2uPjRx_0gNXX32kMZkdcYcd6GX38eGkjx0xpzzjWCHO0Gv-V7g17mlKME3ZtW9K9YQGfUUaN71OFDgBNDOA63=w1410-h934-no)
Awesome work!
Word of warning: Some of the routes around the southern parts of Asia and the middle east are inadmissible because they don't take the shortest routes. Politics mean that (for example) flights from India don't fly over Pakistan and US flights don't enter Russian airspace. So probably you're going to have to be a bit picky in those areas.
Your first image is also a poor choice for a quadrilateral of cities because Aukland (AKL) is too close to the SYD/SCL route to show a measurable error.
-
Awesome work!
Word of warning: Some of the routes around the southern parts of Asia and the middle east are inadmissible because they don't take the shortest routes. Politics mean that (for example) flights from India don't fly over Pakistan and US flights don't enter Russian airspace. So probably you're going to have to be a bit picky in those areas.
Thanks! Politics screws things up for ordinary people, go figure! And even setting that aside, the whole eastern part of the Helsinki-pore Seven has to go around (not over) the Himalayas. That will introduce some extra length errors as well.
Your first image is also a poor choice for a quadrilateral of cities because Aukland (AKL) is too close to the SYD/SCL route to show a measurable error.
Yup, which I acknowledged. It’s the only set I could find that reaches west from South America though. Really wish there was a flight between SCL and HNL, that would give us some really good data!