Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - edby

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 51  Next >
41
[EDIT] As I write, check out BAW6B, San Francisco-London, currently over the Hudson Bay and heading directly for Greenland. Using the ‘measure distance’ function on Google maps, the flight appears to be on the great circle route.

[EDIT 2] And now, London time 12:28 (BST) BAW6B has neatly crossed the tip of Greenland and most of the North Atlantic, just approaching the coast of Ireland.  Scheduled to arrive at Heathrow 14:05. I live underneath the flight path so I will be able to see it come in.



this website shows that it didn't fly over greenland:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B

That very website shows it did fly over Greenland on 24 July, the date of my post.

Checking all the flights on that page suggest a wide variety of routes.

[edit] Also check out KL601 Amsterdam to Los Angeles, currently flying right over Greenland.

Also VIR681B, London to LA.

42
Flat Earth Theory / Re: from Buenos Aires to Melbourne
« on: July 26, 2020, 09:52:26 AM »
That issue is discussed on the wiki, which I link https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis without comment.

Theories include winds, mistakes about flight times.

43
Try flightradar which tracks planes as they fly.  https://www.flightradar24.com/DAL3323/250498fb

Click on any of the planes and it shows you the origin and destination airports, and a line showing the route. You see plenty flying over Greenland.

I can't find it now, but a year ago here I mapped the published average flight times between airports against the expected RE time and expected FE time in an X-Y chart. There was a strong correlation between the expected RE time and average published time. Correlation for FE was poor, particularly for the Southern part of the world, which had planes flying at multiples of speed of sound.

[EDIT] As I write, check out BAW6B, San Francisco-London, currently over the Hudson Bay and heading directly for Greenland. Using the ‘measure distance’ function on Google maps, the flight appears to be on the great circle route.

[EDIT 2] And now, London time 12:28 (BST) BAW6B has neatly crossed the tip of Greenland and most of the North Atlantic, just approaching the coast of Ireland.  Scheduled to arrive at Heathrow 14:05. I live underneath the flight path so I will be able to see it come in.

[EDIT 3] Sadly it landed 35 mins early so I missed it over lunch. I will check some other flights some other day. But in any case, the point of looking out of my window to see the actual plane is simply a Zetetic check to verify that the flight tracking software is not part of the overall conspiracy. If we all accept it can be relied upon, then visual checks not needed. (Of course, you could object that I am part of the conspiracy, which if true would lead you to doubt my assurances that I am not part of a conspiracy, but there is a limit to what we can verify for ourselves. Sometimes you have to accept things on trust).

44
This whole discussion about panoramas is a diversion. The moon tilt illusion observably happens. Surely what is relevant is why it happens and whether its explanation is a point for (or against) FET or RET.
The illusion happens for the same reason that parallel lines in a panorama (an uncorrected panorama, not using the form of correction that Tom refers to) appear to converge. The underlying phenomenon is the same.

45
That is very incorrect. Your link is talking about the 'General Panini Projection'. Panoramas do not all turn all lines into curves as a rule. Most people prefer their straight lines to stay straight.
So we take a panorama of both directions of a railway track. The tracks will not appear to converge in the far distance in each direction? How?

46
Panoramics don't generally turn straight lines into curves, by the way, otherwise the horizon, powerlines, and all elements in panoramics would show this warping. Take a panoramic of the horizon around you and it's generally straight.

Yes they do generally turn straight lines into curves, except for radial lines through the view centre, i.e. the horizon.

http://hugin.sourceforge.net/docs/manual/The_General_Panini_Projection.html

Another example below. Any straight line at eye level will come out as straight. Any parallel line below, such as the tracks, will curve upwards (because parallel lines appear to converge with distance). By the same logic, any parallel line above (the wires) will curve downwards. The horizon is therefore a special case.



47
Flat Earth Projects / Re: The Atlantic Split
« on: July 21, 2020, 08:14:03 AM »
Great map, but a few questions to research. First, in my area of the UK 1 degree of latitude = about 111km, which is easily checked by driving distances.

But lines of latitude expand on the right and the left side of the map above. Does that mean distances are much longer on the East coast of S. America, and the West coast of Africa, than indicated on Google maps? Are the FE researchers in those places who could confirm?

Second, what lies beyond the circular boundary of the map? Is it ocean all the way to the boundary?

48
[..] They STILL cannot get around that international flights take the shortest route (which results in a nearly straight line on the flat earth map), and make no sense at all on a globe. [..]

Do you have evidence for this claim? The usual explanation is that aircraft take 'great circle' routes because they are the shortest, but a great circle route is not a straight line on the standard FE map.

49
... this is the only model that has a line of longitude as the shortest distance between two points, and observation suggests that a line of longitude is in fact the shortest distance between two points.

That's only true if one point lies due north or south of the other, otherwise a line of longtitude won't pass through both points.
True. I meant a line of longitude is the shortest distance between any two points on that line. I.e. take any two points a and b lying on any line of longitude. Then every point on the shortest line between a and b lies on that line of longitude.

50
The thing that you have to understand is that the wiki primarily focuses on the FE round disk model with no dome and the north pole center.
Correct, because this is the only model that has a line of longitude as the shortest distance between two points, and observation suggests that a line of longitude is in fact the shortest distance between two points.

51
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Celestial Rotation in the wiki
« on: July 18, 2020, 09:51:15 AM »
Excuse me, but this is a silly game. The question is whether stars in the south, eg the Southern Cross (Crux) are visible from Perth, Australia and Ushaia, Argentina at the same time. Reliable star charts say they are, but it would help if people who live in these places could confirm this.
How would it help? Assume both FE and RE agree on the actual observation, that Crux was visible at the same time from all of those points. What are you trying to prove? Why would that observation contradict FE?

52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Celestial Rotation in the wiki
« on: July 17, 2020, 10:32:57 AM »
I cannot see either from where I am too, I must be lost....

For that matter, how do you know neither pole is visible from the locations mentioned, and is there really a south pole? Please verify your claims.

I have to verify that I don't know something?

53
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Celestial Rotation in the wiki
« on: July 17, 2020, 08:17:47 AM »
North is pointing directly towards the North Pole, south is pointing directly away from the North Pole.

But you cannot see the North or South Pole from any of the locations mentioned. The issue is one of verifiability.

54
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Celestial Rotation in the wiki
« on: July 16, 2020, 01:00:55 PM »
How do we demonstrate that if three people are standing looking south in South Africa, Argentina, and Australia at the same time they all are looking in the same direction to see the South Star?
At what time could this occur, regardless of which direction they would be looking?

Whenever it's dark in all three places simultaneously. Provided we agree on what the "South Star" is.

Still leaves the problem of how we verify that all three are looking in the same direction. You say “South”. But I reply, if ‘South’ means the direction of the South Star (or Sigma Octantis or whatever), then to say they are looking in the same direction means that they are all looking at the South Star. Why would that be a problem? You need some test, other than the fact that they are all looking at the same star, to verify that the direction is the same. Does my point make more sense now?

55
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Celestial Rotation in the wiki
« on: July 16, 2020, 10:30:52 AM »
Which map do you mean?

I linked to the map in my comment - the AE map. Of course there are other maps, and there is no agreement but we have to settle on one of them in order to understand what the problem is.

Clearly Possibly there is an 'opposite direction' problem if the AE map is correct.

[EDIT]

The subject of the South Celestial Pole has been discussed many times here. E.g.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6046
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4844

Someone made exactly the same point about direction here:
Quote
If three people are standing looking south in South Africa, Argentina, and Australia at the same time they all are looking in the same direction to see the South Star.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5269.msg104166#msg104166

Tom correctly replied that we needed evidence to support that assertion. How do we demonstrate that if three people are standing looking south in South Africa, Argentina, and Australia at the same time they all are looking in the same direction to see the South Star? What counts as ‘looking in the same direction’ here? The fact that they are all looking at the South Star? I.e. ‘South’ means ‘the apparent direction of the South Star’?

But that is circular reasoning. We can’t get them all in the same place to verify that they are looking in the same direction, because the observation requires that they are in different places.

56
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Celestial Rotation in the wiki
« on: July 16, 2020, 07:35:39 AM »
Can you spell out the logic here? Here is the AE map https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Map.png which has Australia and the tip of South America at opposite ends of the world, with the N Pole in between. Then can you spell out why, in that case, it would be difficult for viewers in those locations to see the Southern Cross at the same time? Can’t they just both look across the earth?

57
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: July 11, 2020, 04:11:27 PM »
My statements don't actually mention "straight lines",

I agree, I was just wondering if one could add a further statement that longitude lines are the shortest distance between two points, to see if that is a point of disagreement.

58
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: July 11, 2020, 09:04:30 AM »
Convergence of longitude lines does imply a shape of the Earth, if longitude lines are the shortest distance between two points, i.e. straight. Then two straight lines enclose a space, right?

The shortest distance over the surface of any globe is the arc (S). The shortest distance between the points is the chord (C), but that cannot be travelled without mining into the globe.

Arc S will appear straight only if you view it from directly above. Else it will appear curved. But it's never physically straight



If the earth is a globe, yes. But the question is whether any of GreatATuin's statements above imply something about the shape of the earth. If they imply that two apparently straight lines enclose a space, then the earth cannot be flat.  For FE to be true, either (1) lines of longitude are not straight or (2) lines of longitude do not converge at the Poles.

Note that (1) is true under the bipolar model, where lines of longitude converge, but for that reason are not straight. And (2) is true of the AE model, where the lines are straight but do not converge at the South Pole.

59
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: July 10, 2020, 10:15:57 PM »
That's part of the point, none of these statements alone directly implies a shape of the Earth. But all of them should be verifiable without requiring space travel or anything out of reach. And all together, I guess they're hard to fit in a flat Earth model.
Convergence of longitude lines does imply a shape of the Earth, if longitude lines are the shortest distance between two points, i.e. straight. Then two straight lines enclose a space, right?

See Euclid postulate I.

60
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: July 10, 2020, 04:55:08 PM »
I do mean location. At a given location, the elevation of the celestial pole is constant, it doesn't change over time.

That makes sense. Some comments. The statements can be divided into those which are simply definitions, and those which would have to be verified empirically. Of the latter, these could be divided into those which have no implication for the shape of the earth, and those (if any) which do.

Some of the definitions are covert. You say “At solar noon, the Sun appears due South or due North”, but you haven’t defined ‘North’ or ‘South’. Clearly magnetic poles are not meant. Perhaps you might define N and S in terms of the axis of apparent celestial rotation. As for ‘Latitude’, you could define it by the elevation of Polaris, or the Southern pole star.

Do any of these imply the shape of the earth? We have “Locations with the same longitude will see the Sun at its highest at the same time”. That implies (there is a geometrical proof) that a line of longitude is the shortest distance between any two points on that line, meaning that if the earth is flat, they must be straight. But then there is a problem with “Meridians converge as you get further away from the Equator, either South or North”.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 51  Next >