81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: March 23, 2020, 10:20:58 AM »

“Extended over-water operations”

Is there any indication the flight is under this type of restriction?

means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well, you're quoting a distance unit that in its original definition had no meaning on a flat earth, only on a globe, so .....

I would send pictures but every time I try  it always tells me its to much data. But Im quoting something from Cornell Law School that’s from some Aviation book.  I think the reason is because airplanes use long range land antennas as there source for guidance.  Hence if you get to for from land and they’ll lose the plane on the radar and the pilot would not be able to rely on its GPS for its location. There’s a term for it I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

My guess is this:

14 CFR § 91.509 - Survival equipment for overwater operations.
(a) No person may take off an airplane for a flight over water more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shore unless that airplane is equipped with a life preserver or an approved flotation means for each occupant of the airplane.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.509

As explained by others, there are rules governing flights going great distances over remote regions, land or sea. Essentially, flights need to be ETOPS (Extended Operations) certified. Meaning sufficient safety gear on board for passenger/crew safety if the plane has to ditch.

This is not the exact one I’m talking about but I’m short on time and I think this is close to what I’m talking about.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.351

So if I can summarize. In order for these flights to be legal, they must comply with CFR § 91.509 to allow them to fly more then 50nm from land and additionally comply with CFR § 121.351 to allow "extended over-water operations", which means they need:

• Life jackets for everyone on board (CFR § 91.509)
• Life rafts, flares and a portable radio (CFR § 91.509)
• At least two independent long range communications systems (CFR § 121.351)
• At least two independent long range navigation systems (CFR § 121.351)

These aircraft are all equipped with life jackets, life rafts, flares and portable radios, covering 1) & 2).

They are equipped with satellite communications and HF radios, which takes care of 3).

They are equipped with ring laser based inertial navigation systems and GPS/GNSS which takes care of 4).

Basically good to go.

But lets keep going. There are two aircraft types being used. Quantas QF27/QF28 use the Boeing 747-400 and the LATAM operated QF323/QF324 use the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner.

The Dreamliner is ETOPS-330 certified. What does that mean? It means it must at all times be no more than 330 minutes (5.5 hours) from a suitable diversion airfield in the event of an emergency. Now clearly since this is a 12+ hour flight, this is tricky to comply with, but there are options. For the first segment of the flight they can either return to Australia or divert to New Zealand (probably Christchurch) and for the last segment they just carry on to Santiago. There is a point in the flight however where they are too far in to reach Christchurch, but still more than 5.5 hours flying time from Santiago. For that segment, possibly Tahiti is the alternate, which may explain why the route taken appears to be somewhat further north than strictly necessary. So long as they can remain no more than 5.5 hours away from one of these airfields, they are legal.

The 747-400 is under less stringent rules since it is an older 4 engined aircraft. The ETOPS rules were originally intended for twin engined aircraft, but are also now being applied to newer 4 engined ones as well.

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: March 21, 2020, 11:45:52 PM »

Well it seems that the Quantas QF323 flight operated by LATAM under the flight number LA802 that I picked out earlier left Sydney at 10:30am, 1/2 hour later than planned, but arrived in Santiago just fine. The purple track is the actual flightpath and the dashed red is the theoretical zero wind shortest/best (great circle) route.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/la802#243dd93e

Note that the times are given in UTC so add +11 hours for Australian Eastern Daylight Time (i.e. local time in Sydney).

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: March 21, 2020, 02:16:06 PM »

“Extended over-water operations” means a aircraft has to stay within 50 nautical miles of land. So I don’t think it’s possible to fly across long parts I’d the Pacific Ocean.

Well I believe this is a 4 engined 747 so if anything can operate outside that limitation, that'd be a good one to choose. Certainly there are aircraft allowed to operate outside these limits, otherwise Hawaii would be a tricky place to get to, wouldn't it, no matter whether the earth is flat or a globe.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. I was responding to your post where you said you'd struggled to find any non-stop flights between these destinations. I thought you were just questioning the existence of this as a scheduled route. It turns out that you can book direct with Quantas who are the people who operate the route, sometimes themselves and sometimes through a partner airline. Going direct to Quantas makes it easy to find these flights.

Now we seem to be drifting off into other issues such as how fast the jetstream is or what the cruising speed of the aircraft is or whether the quoted times make sense and now it's "extended over-water operations".

I thought at first you were proposing to buy a ticket, but struggled to find one, so I assumed you'd be excited by the prospect of actually finding a site where you could do that. Apparently not.

Look, the route appears to exist, they use a sensible aircraft to fly it, you can apparently buy tickets, the stated times of departure and arrival and average ground speeds are all in the right ballpark and you've even been provided with a video showing the take off and landing and the route being followed on a seat-back screen. How much more do you want?

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: March 21, 2020, 12:11:37 PM »

My bad. I counted going across the pacific when i should have counted going across Africa. It’s 14 hours behind. I believe that adds up.
That’s moving fast and isn’t that going against the jet stream.

870km/h outbound, 756km/h on the way back for an average 810km/h overall. A quick google suggests the jet stream average is between 129-225km/h but it does vary a lot. Also bear in mind that an aeroplane doesn't always follow the shortest route. Depending on wind etc., the most economical route may be a slightly longer one. Also an aeroplane takes time to accelerate and climb to cruising speed and altitude, so as long as the figures end up in the right ballpark, there's no reason to doubt them.

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: March 21, 2020, 11:53:52 AM »

Wow. You leave Sydney at 10am and 12 hours later you get to Santiago at 8:55am the same day you actually get  a extra hour when u land .
Going the other way you lose 29 hours.  I’ll do the math on that tomorrow and see if it all adds up.

[Edit] got the times wrong first go..

Sydney is 14 hours ahead of Santiago, so that'd be a 13 hour flight minus the 14 hour difference on the way out and 15 hour flight plus 14 hours on the way back. Winds are predominantly east to west down there so you'd expect the outbound to be shorter than the return. Average flight time is 14 hours, direct distance is 11340km so average ground speed is 810km/h which is certainly in the right ball park.

I think the non stop over the Pacific is the important one. It’s 4 times zones closer than over Africa, but they always seem to go the long route. Which leaves the question. How big is the Pacific Ocean?

Not with you there, both the outbound and the return are direct flights so would be more or less the same route.

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: March 20, 2020, 05:29:15 PM »

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.
There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Not of the whole earth there aren't. As I said, Bing have to change the scale depending on what you're looking at. Why do you think that is?

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wow. Nearly all?
I'm going to have to change my sig again...

At the risk of a slap on the wrist for a low content post - this is absolutely priceless. Made my day!

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: March 20, 2020, 05:02:35 PM »

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?

Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

I can't distinguish any difference between a zoomed out Bing map and a scanned mercator projection paper map. So would you consider a zoomed out Bing map to be an accurate flat map?

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: March 20, 2020, 03:30:07 PM »

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.

• It's a flat map
• Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
• Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
• Since it is a right angled triangle, cd² + db² = cb² (pythagoras)
• Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

It's a flat map with impossible distances, it's a paradox. You can't make this work, it is not accurate. Any round earther can explain away the paradox of course.

CLAIM: Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
TRUTH: Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the distance represented by the line AB does not equal the distance of the line represented by CD

According to Bing, length ab = 8398km and length cd = 8398km. In my book that makes ab = cd
According to Bing, length ac = 10010km and length bd = 10010km. In my book that makes ac = bd
According to Bing, length ad = 15410km and length cb = 15410km. In my book that makes ad = cb

CLAIM: Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
TRUTH: Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the red triangle is not a right triangles

Ok then, here's a riddle for you: I have a shape with 4 corners and 4 sides. The top and bottom sides are the same length, the left and right sides are the same lengths and if I connect top left to bottom right and bottom left to top right I find that these two diagonals have identical lengths. What shape am I describing?

Don't bother about scales, interactive or otherwise, what shape am I describing?

CLAIM: Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL
TRUTH: This was debunked by the two facts listed above

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: March 20, 2020, 02:33:27 PM »

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?

The reason I tend to refer to Bing rather than Google maps in this forum is simply that when you zoom out with Bing you do actually end up with a flat map on screen (I believe it's a Mercator projection), unlike Google. And there's at least one FEr on here who thinks that makes a big difference and a zoomed out Bing map is trustworthy whereas a zoomed out Google map is not. Both have interactive distance measuring tools built in and surprise, surprise, they agree with each other.

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: March 20, 2020, 02:23:45 PM »

I make no claim whatsoever about how these distances are determined, I'm just pointing out that this flat map from Bing has a built in measurement tool which purports to tell you accurate distances between any two points.

Purports being the operative word.

The fact you cannot confirm it is a measuring tool based on linear measurement might be a good clue...

I don't really care how it works or what it's based on so long as it is accurate. Since I'm on the RE side of the fence, if I'm to believe the tool is accurate, I'm not inclined to believe it's based on a linear scale, but however it works, it's a built in tool being used on an indisputably flat map, which is what you want me to use surely.

What I have shown you is that using this tool in combination with the map gives you paradoxical distances which are impossible to reconcile if you believe this flat map is an accurate representation of reality.

No you haven't.

You said you did, but did that:

1. using lines representing distances that no one would ever be able to independently confirm as they don't represent actual routes of travel; and,
2. personally failing to confirm the type of measuring tool you purport represents reality.

I don't purport or claim anything here. Bing's tool claims accuracy and therefore purports to represent reality. You keep pushing this back onto me and what I claim and make out this is somehow just down to my opinion. I'm just reporting what I find here, if you don't like it then either I've made a mistake and reported falsely what I've found (certainly possible, although I assure you if that's the case, no deliberate intent on my part), or perhaps you don't believe Bing's tool is reporting correct distances, I'm not really sure quite what your position is to be honest.

If you doubt these distances, then you are not doubting me, you are doubting Bing's ability to measure accurately.

Oh no...make no mistake...

I am clearly doubting you also.

Fair enough, can you separate out for me where you doubt me? Have I misreported the distances from Bing? Is my mathematical analysis faulty? Something else?

Then why did you start?

I started because you made a generic claim about all flat maps and their accuracy. You added the requirement for this to be "an actual journey" afterwards. Part of the problem with this is that "an actual journey" is a very vague term and only you really know what you mean by it, I can only guess. Some examples would help.

Examples of what?

8000 km air routes?

8000 km shipping routes?

You definitely know these things to exist.

Sure. OK then, if I can find 4 airports, each with a direct flight to all the other 3 airports and 8000+ km apart, that satisfies the requirement does it?

Next problem is how to find the distances between the airports. I can just use Bing maps or Google maps, presumably that's out of the question, so what's your solution?

It's not my opinion at all. Opinion doesn't come into it, this is maths, pure and simple. The figures coming from Bing unambiguously show an 18% difference between Bing's measured distances and a calculated distance on an assumed flat earth, using pythagoras.

Nah...still just your opinion.

No sorry, not following you. I've reported some findings, no opinions involved. I've applied some mathematical reasoning to demonstrate that these findings lead to a paradox. That's just maths. What opinion(s) do you think am I expressing here?

The logical argument I'm putting forward here is simply this: If the measured distances are accurate then the surface cannot be a flat plane. The proposition (the measured distances are accurate) is either true or false. If it is true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion (the surface cannot be a flat plane) is also true. How is this my opinion?

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: March 20, 2020, 10:57:04 AM »

Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.

It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

If the map is accurate, if Bing's measuring tool is accurate and I've used it correctly, then it shouldn't matter whether or not the specific route has ever been travelled.

Of course it would.

A map with a linear scale for distances between points exists specifically to aid in travel.

I'm not for one second claiming Bing's measurement tool uses a linear scale. I make no claim whatsoever about how these distances are determined, I'm just pointing out that this flat map from Bing has a built in measurement tool which purports to tell you accurate distances between any two points. What I have shown you is that using this tool in combination with the map gives you paradoxical distances which are impossible to reconcile if you believe this flat map is an accurate representation of reality.

If you doubt these distances, then you are not doubting me, you are doubting Bing's ability to measure accurately.

If you can suggest 4 other locations on earth at least 8000km apart where the distances between all 4 points are accurately known, please do and we'll go from there.

I am confident in your ability to identify any of them.

Sure I can easily identify another 4 locations for you, but I'm confident if I propose another 4, you'll object to them as well and we'll just keep going round in circles. On the other hand I guarantee you if you can come up with 4 points at least 8000km apart with known distances between all of them (assuming we both agree the distances are correct - shouldn't be too hard), you'll get no objection from me and we can progress the discussion.

If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.

I'd like for you to identify an actual journey.

What constitutes an actual journey? Air and sea journeys vary according to wind and current and there isn't a road straight enough or long enough to make this a worthwhile exercise.

Then why did you start?

I started because you made a generic claim about all flat maps and their accuracy. You added the requirement for this to be "an actual journey" afterwards. Part of the problem with this is that "an actual journey" is a very vague term and only you really know what you mean by it, I can only guess. Some examples would help.

I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.

The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".

It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.

You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.

No, you've done nothing of the sort.

You pulled some goalposts in off a playing field that has never existed.

Not really, it's very similar to how flat earthers claim there are no photos from space, someone provides one and the response is the photo is not to be trusted, so it's then an argument about trust in the source, it's no longer about whether or not a photo exists. I've shown you a flat map (you say they're accurate) with distances which don't add up. You're casting doubt about these distances. I'm telling you these are what Bing gives you. You either trust Bing or you don't. Whether anyone in history has travelled this route is irrelevant if the map is trustworthy and Bing's distances are trustworthy.

Maybe for you.

Considering there is no way to verify an error of what you claim to be 18 percent, it remains just your opinion.

It's not my opinion at all. Opinion doesn't come into it, this is maths, pure and simple. The figures coming from Bing unambiguously show an 18% difference between Bing's measured distances and a calculated distance on an assumed flat earth, using pythagoras.

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: March 20, 2020, 10:18:30 AM »

How come I can purchase a nonstop plane ticket from Sydney to Santiago in Chile? On the most common flat map, you'd have to cross or laterally pass EVERY single continent. Our jets A) wouldn't have enough fuel for that, B) can't travel fast enough to get there in 13 hours and 15 minutes, and C) We don't ever hear about people seeing land part of the way. I guess you could fly around the land, but that complicates the first two contingencies.

I tried to do this last year just to see if I could buy a ticket from those exact 2 locations, Santiago to Sydney.  I also just tried again.  A ticket 1 way are about 1500$.  Every one stops in the USA.  The one that didn’t was a non-stop flight for $2500.  So I tried to buy one. I went through the steps and at the end the ticket went up to $9500.  I clicked accept. Then it sent me back to a flight that had a stop in Los Angeles.  I didn’t come across a non-stop flight today when I searched, but I was short in time. I’m not saying they aren’t any non-stop flights, but if they do have them the airlines sure don’t want the average Joe on them.

On a FE map, Santiago to Sydney with a stop in Los Angeles is a straight line. It doesn’t make much sense on a RE to go all away from Santiago to Northern Hemisphere and back down to Sydney.  If I’m not mistaken all 3 have a latitude of 33 with Los Angeles in the northern hemisphere. So that’s 132 degrees out of the way.  66 up and 66 back down.

I went on quantas.com. Maybe you can try to buy one of these flights and let us know how you get on. I was actually pretty surprised, given the global COVID-19 pandemic, that I'd be offered anything at all..

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: March 17, 2020, 01:01:26 PM »

Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.

It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

If the map is accurate, if Bing's measuring tool is accurate and I've used it correctly, then it shouldn't matter whether or not the specific route has ever been travelled. If you can suggest 4 other locations on earth at least 8000km apart where the distances between all 4 points are accurately known, please do and we'll go from there.

If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.

I'd like for you to identify an actual journey.

What constitutes an actual journey? Air and sea journeys vary according to wind and current and there isn't a road straight enough or long enough to make this a worthwhile exercise.

I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.

The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".

It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.

You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.

No, you've done nothing of the sort.

You pulled some goalposts in off a playing field that has never existed.

Not really, it's very similar to how flat earthers claim there are no photos from space, someone provides one and the response is the photo is not to be trusted, so it's then an argument about trust in the source, it's no longer about whether or not a photo exists. I've shown you a flat map (you say they're accurate) with distances which don't add up. You're casting doubt about these distances. I'm telling you these are what Bing gives you. You either trust Bing or you don't. Whether anyone in history has travelled this route is irrelevant if the map is trustworthy and Bing's distances are trustworthy.

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: March 17, 2020, 11:44:59 AM »

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

Name one large area on earth that is accurately depicted on any map in regard to shape.

Distances is an objective criteria and all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria.

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.

• It's a flat map
• Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
• Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
• Since it is a right angled triangle, cd² + db² = cb² (pythagoras)
• Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

It's a flat map with impossible distances, it's a paradox. You can't make this work, it is not accurate. Any real earther can explain away the paradox of course.

It is highly convenient you chose a route that would never be capable of independent verification.

Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.

If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.

The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".

You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: March 17, 2020, 10:53:08 AM »

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

Name one large area on earth that is accurately depicted on any map in regard to shape.

Distances is an objective criteria and all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria.

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.

• It's a flat map
• Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
• Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
• Since it is a right angled triangle, cd² + db² = cb² (pythagoras)
• Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

It's a flat map with impossible distances, it's a paradox. You can't make this work, it is not accurate. Any round earther can explain away the paradox of course.

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: March 14, 2020, 02:50:32 PM »

For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?

There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

This is not surprising. Agreeing on virtually anything else would be the first step towards accepting a single flat Earth model, in which it would be much easier to find impossibilities or inconsistencies, either within the model itself or between the model and observations that can be easily made in the world as we see it.

I mean, we don't even have a definitive map of what it's supposed to look like. Humans have been making maps for centuries, and no one could ever come up with a correct, definitive map of the Earth if it were flat?

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Well I find that a strange statement. If I asked you to measure the distance between say New York and Boston with a flat map and demanded to know the answer accurate to +/- 5 nanometers, I assume you'd agree that can't be done, at best you'd manage +/- a few tens or hundreds of metres. On the other hand if I asked you to measure a precision part from a racing engine and you told me the answer to the nearest 10 metres, the answer would be correct, but meaningless. It's all a matter of scale and accuracy of measurement. It's the same argument about the horizon looking flat from close to sea level. The earth is just big. Really, really big and scale makes all the difference. On that scale, looking at the horizon, you're looking at a tiny, tiny fraction of the earth, so of course it would look flat on a globe earth. Similarly with a map covering a few hundred or even a few thousand square miles, compared with the nearly 200 million square miles of earth's surface, the distances you can measure with a ruler are likely to be indistinguishable from those you would find on a globe, It's only when you start to put the entire earth on a flat surface that the differences between a flat and a globe model appear. You can't extrapolate from a flat map of Maine being accurate to then claim this implies a flat map of the earth is accurate. On a globe earth, a flat map of Maine is not accurate, but when you take into account measuring error tolerances, you're not going to be able to tell the difference.

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: March 01, 2020, 11:02:01 PM »

The only thing that I can think of is to use the Bing API, build my own website, and in the documentation of the website say this is a projection of a non spherical earth. Would that satisfy you? Would you be able to look at that website and say, ok the website says it's not based on a globe projection?

The scale, because it is not interactive, is much less accurate. It does not account for altitude at all.

Your idea of using the Bing API got me thinking, so I took a look at it and discovered this rather interesting page https://www.bing.com/api/maps/sdk/mapcontrol/isdk/distancebetweentwolocations:



This is a developer's area where you can experiment with code for calculating distances in Bing. In this example, the code is using the API call Microsoft.SpatialMath.getDistanceTo(...) to determine the distance between two pushpins placed on a map. Under the hood, this is how you measure distances on a Bing map.

Since this is an interactive code example, it's easy enough to put the two pushpins in a different location and change the units to km, as I've done here:



I've used the same two locations I used earlier, and this is confirmed by the distance 1688km, identical to my earlier experiment with a Bing map, confirming that we're using the correct API call. Now let's take a look at the official Microsoft documentation for this API call https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/v8-web-control/modules/spatial-math-module/core-calculations

getDistanceTo - "Calculate the distance between two locations on the surface of the earth using the Haversine formula. If highAccuracy value is set to true, the slower but more accurate Vincenty formula is used instead."

So there it is, Bing maps uses the Haversine formula for distance calculations. This formula is based on an assumed spherical earth and does not take into account elevation changes.

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: February 29, 2020, 03:18:43 PM »

Or perhaps with a topo map, no interactive scale needed:

The scale, because it is not interactive, is much less accurate. It does not account for altitude at all.


The image below represents someone traveling between point A and point B which is, according to the scale one mile.

The top trip I would agree that the person traveling on a flat one mile stretch of road between point a and point B which are one mile apart based on the scale.

The bottom trip represents someone who is going up and down many hills across the journey. Their odometer would show something like 3 or four miles. The stagnant non interactive scale could be VASTLY improved by making it interactive and building an algorithm that factors in the 3d terrain



Advancements have been made in cartography in the past 50-60 years. The most advanced maps are ones that are interactive and thus require an interactive scale.

I don't think Bing works in quite the way you think it does. Here are two locations for you, (-19.053843, -65.265419) and (-33.437220, -70.650020). According to Bing maps measuring tool these are 1688km apart. Google Earth comes up with a slightly different figure, 1681km, but let's not split hairs here. Google Earth does however allow you to see an elevation profile and calculates a longer distance based on the profile, in this case 1701km, so 20km extra is added.

Using a great circle route calculator (again  I used https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html), the simple haversine formula based result which this gives (haversine is just an equation, it has no knowledge of terrain) is 1686km, only 2km different from Bing's figure.

The reason I picked these two locations is that you are basically travelling 1000 miles or so along the backbone of the Andes, so the elevation changes are extreme.

So comparing Bing's distance (1688km) and the haversine formula distance (1686km), leads me to believe that Bing is giving you an "as the crow flies" great circle distance measurement between the two points and it's simply not attempting to correct for elevation changes (unlike Google Earth when you specifically request an elevation profile).

99

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: February 28, 2020, 11:26:41 AM »

I believe it is based on measured distances in our 3d world.

This depends on your definition of flat.

The confusion on your position is perpetuated. My best guess on your position is that the world is round but not curved up to 360 degrees? You also think the bing map's interactive scale is completely accurate, meaning when you put two cities in, it will give you an accurate distance between them regardless of either cities' long/latitudinal position?

It seems a bit ironic that we have to come up with a definition of flat on a flat earth site.

I'd say my kitchen table is flat. It's wooden, so on a microscopic scale is bumpy but on a large enough scale, it's flat. I'd look at the earth the same way, ignore the minor bumps, ie mountains, valleys, tides etc. +/- 10 miles or so is insignificant to the shape for most purposes.

If the earth is flat on a large scale like my kitchen table, then it fits my definition of flat.

Not a very precise definition I know.

100

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: February 27, 2020, 11:58:43 PM »

Can we back up a bit here, because I'm somewhat confused about your position on various matters. A few questions for you if you don't mind:

• Do you believe Bing is based on a 2d flat plane eculidian geometry?
• Do you accept that (euclidian geometry) if you construct a rectangle from 4 points and join each point to every other point via 6 lines, then the lengths of the diagonals can be calculated from the sides?
• Do you accept that if the lengths of the diagonals don't match up with the calculated values, then the geometry cannot be flat?
• Are you willing to accept the distances I've quoted which I read from a Bing map?

1. This is a trick question. I don't believe the bing distances are based on a 2d flat plane or eculidian geometry. I believe it is based on measured distances in our 3d world.
2. yes but only in a flat 2d scenario. These shapes which apply to a 2d space don't apply to bing maps which is based on a 3d space.
3. This depends on your definition of flat.
4. sure.

No trick questions, I was genuinely confused, thanks for the clarification.