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 - fishcake

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 11, 2019, 07:15:31 PM »
It seems they already made that game.


2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 11, 2019, 06:31:33 PM »
There could be one earth and it could be like pac man where you west you eventually end up east of where you started and if you go eat you eventually wind up west of where you started.
This statement is inaccurate. If you zoom to Greenland on mapquest.com it shows, very clearly, that Greenland is about 1200-1400 miles north to south. If you then look at Africa you can see that Africa is much much larger than Greenland.
While I am tempted to say that pac-man could be taking place on a sphere, which would eliminate the mystery of an endlessly looping object, let's just say that the MapQuest map does not lose the Mercator distortion when zoomed in, and doesn't use the pixel data as coordinates, but instead, uses coordinates from a projected and unfolded globe. Here is an explanation of the distortion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection . Moreover, the map cannot loop vertically, since there is a big Antarctic continent down South.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 11, 2019, 10:22:54 AM »
www.mapquest.com has an interactive model of the earth represented and a flat infinite repeating plane.
maps.yahoo.com
suncalc.net
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/
Iamcpc, by the way, these maps use the Mercator projection, which is inaccurate in itself. Aside from the obvious question: how come you don't see multiple suns, and how can there be a repeating piece of rock with endless copies of yourself - the map would make Greenland as big as Africa.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 11, 2019, 05:17:09 AM »
This is the same problem you run into with a flat disk model. You can say the same thing. How can you can see stars which are much further away from the sun but you can't go to the top of a building with a telescope and see the sun. You can claim this is a problem with both models and both can have the same answer/explanation. It's a tie.
Notice how in the disk model the light from the sun is not visible far away because the light from the sun has a limited viewing distance.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
Except, you can see the light of a spotlight from a distance, even if it isn't directly aimed at you. You would clearly see the sun as a star on the horizon before it has risen. And in your model, you would see a line of multiple stars. The disk Earth version has the same problem, but it would be one star which suddenly turns big and bright above the horizon. There would be no gradual sunrise, such as we observe each morning.
PS, if the sun is a sphere, it should emit omnidirectional light unless only part of its surface emits light. According to your model, is it a sphere?

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 10:25:50 PM »
Iamcpc, ah, but you can see stars on the horizon, and they are supposedly farther than the sun. And you can also see the sun itself rising from the horizon. If the Repeating Earth model is true, we should be able to see the next repeating sun, and the one after that, etc. There would be a bright vertical line on the horizon that would spawn a new sun each morning, moving West, and sinking into another vertical line on the opposite side! It's a fun thought experiment! Here is the thing though: you can explain why we don't see that line, very simply, with a round Earth model.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 09:49:07 PM »
Iamcpc, I love this! :) You are giving the flat-earthers a run for their money, let's just say that. I can't honestly say what's more psychadelic, a disk Earth with impossible flight times, or an endless, repeating piece of floating rock in space.
But you didn't understand the problem. If there is a sun and a moon floating some distance above that piece of rock, and they are also floating 40,000 kilometers to the east, and again, 80,000 kilometers to the east, over the next repetition, then if we aim a telescope at the Eastern horizon, shouldn't we see multiple suns, each smaller and lower, converging in a bright, white line pointing downwards?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 09:17:32 PM »
Iamcpc, your idea is too psychadelic even for flat-earthers. A flat, endlessly repeating plane, my word! :) I think you're just pushing that model because it's interesting and because it's yours, not because it's more plausible than a round Earth. :)
Anyway, thers is a problem. The sun and moon add a third dimension to your model, so if there are an endless number of suns and moons above each repetition of the Earth, how come we can't see them with a telescope from different angles?
Man, the mental gymnastics Olympics are fun indeed!

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 07:25:02 PM »
Exactly. You take off from LA, look at your watch, then land in Sydney, look at your watch again. 14 hours would have passed. According to the bi-polar flat Earth model, you have just traveled 50,000 kilometers at missle-like speeds, around Asia and Alaska, carried by a powerul bi-directional wind, and the plane refueled 4 times over the ocean without you noticing. Or, more plausibly, the Earth is actually a globe, and the distance is more like 12,000 km.
The earth could be flat and these flights could be possible but it requires a flat earth model that I believe I am the only one who can relate to. It does not have a great ice wall, does not have a dome, does not have a firmament etc.   It does a VERY good job reconciling with known and verified flight times, flight distances, road travel times, road travel distances, verified shipping times/distances, and modern cartography.
Could you post a picture of that model? As a mathematical exercise, it would be fun! There have been attempts to "square the circle", but I don't think any of them work - http://www.3dham.com/blog/flatearth2.html

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 06:55:47 PM »
Exactly. You take off from LA, look at your watch, then land in Sydney, look at your watch again. 14 hours would have passed. According to the bi-polar flat Earth model, you have just traveled 50,000 kilometers at missle-like speeds, around Asia and Alaska, carried by a powerul bi-directional wind, and the plane refueled 4 times over the ocean without you noticing. Or, more plausibly, the Earth is actually a globe, and the distance is more like 12,000 km.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 02:24:28 PM »
There are articles. I just linked to a bunch which said that the airplanes were diverting from course and making unscheduled fuel stops on supposed non-stop flights and annoying a lot of people.
And business people usually schedule their meetings for the next day, FYI.
Questions you still haven't answered:
- How can an airliner speed up to mach 2, in both directions between Sydney and LA, or Sydney and Buenos Aires.
- How come the passengers only see the ocean.
- How come you don't notice the refueling. And how many times do you have to refuel to travel 50,000 kilometers!!
- How come your wristwatch shows a 13-16 hour flight duration. Is it linked to the GPS system, too?
- How do you know Africa is not right next door to Florida, if you have no idea where the continents actually are?
- Why aren't you curious?

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 02:03:20 PM »
There is no Bi-Polar map. It's a Bi-Polar model. When I get around to it I'll replace that image with a circle that has two dots in it for the North Pole and the South Pole.
It is unknownn what the map of the earth looks like, mainly because of the lies previously described. Non-stop flights aren't always non-stop. Airline times aren't reliable. Flights are delayed, rescheduled, all the time. If you wants to try to make a map based on that they are joking.
Further, there are wind streams that travel both Eastwards and Westward directions in the southern and northern hemispheres.
Then why did you give it as an example of a solution to the problem? Because on the bipolar model, the continents are moved around, so Argentina would seem closer to Australia. But this creates even more problems for you - the distance between LA and Sydney is even longer, but flights are even shorter. So why did you bother offering something that you know is inaccurate?

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 01:53:44 PM »
The Bi-Polar map is for example purposes only. No one made it to be based on anything.
You just gave it as an example of the correct way of solving this dilemma. You chose the bipolar map, because the other maps don't work out for this problem, so let's stick to it:
https://i.imgur.com/PTAoU9U.png
- How can a cross-Earth flight from LA to Sydney only take 13 hours, and only take place over the ocean (thus having to go around the continents)?
- How come the passengers don't notice the refueling, and how come they can only see ocean out the window?
I gave you links showing that they lie about flight times and that they lie about non-stop flights. Yet, you keep insisting that they are truth.
We haven't even discussed jet streams.
There is also not a Bi-Polar map, only a Bi-Polar model. Are we supposed to design a map around lies?
No, you just missed the part where we discussed jet streams and how they can't speed up the plane in both directions. They should slow it down on the return flight.
- You just offered the bipolar map as a solution to the problem. This means you like this map, because it seems most plausible to you in this discussion. So please explain what route a plane would have to take between LA and Sydney in order for the passengers to only see ocean. And how they would refuel over the ocean.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 01:40:04 PM »
The Bi-Polar map is for example purposes only. No one made it to be based on anything.
You just gave it as an example of the correct way of solving this dilemma. You chose the bipolar map, because the other maps don't work out for this problem, so let's stick to it:

- How can a cross-Earth flight from LA to Sydney only take 13 hours, and only take place over the ocean (thus having to go around the continents)?
- How come the passengers don't notice the refueling, and how come they can only see ocean out the window?

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 01:30:45 PM »
P.S. Tom, since you personally favor the Bipolar model (you offered it to explain the dilemma), you must believe that Sydney and LA are the two farthest major cities on Earth. According to the bipolar map, the distance is almost 90% that of Earth itself. But the direct flights are even shorter (13-14 hours), and they're even more frequent. If you look out the window during such a flight, you would only see ocean. But this would mean that the plane is taking an ever longer route around the continents - (>50,000 kilometers!) and has no possibility of expanding its range, aside from mid-air refueling!

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 01:21:40 PM »
Again, there is a big difference between theory and practice.
It took this person 5 days to get from Argentina to New Zealand: https://www.roamingaroundtheworld.com/surviving-5-day-flight/
If one were to spend $1500 a seat on the "direct route," what makes you think that they wouldn't go ahead and make an unscheduled fuel stop in California anyway like the above path, and like the articles say that they do at the drop of a hat?
Replace Argentina to Australia with California to Australia or wherever, for a Bi-Polar model and the same applies.
Airliners lie all the time, and do what they want. Flights are delayed, rerouted, stops added, in flight and before flight.
But then you have to explain how this 30-40,000 kilometer flight only takes 16 hours, and how they can refuel without the passengers noticing. Are the airlines also lying that the plane travels at 800 km/h, but it actually travels at mach 2, like a missile? Out of curiosity, have you traveled to Australia?

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 12:34:30 PM »
Can you provide some evidence for the flight times? According to my sources they just make them up.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/Are-airlines-exaggerating-flight-times-so-theyre-never-late/
Except, one could fake a longer flight by taking a longer route, but one could not fake a shorter flight over such a long distance.
- For example: you board a plane in Sydney, look at your watch, you land in Melbourne. The evil pilot and GPS system could make an 800 km. trip last 16 hours... BUT they cannot make a 40,000 kilometer trip last 16 hours!  ;) They can't make a 40,000 km. trip, period.
Planes make unscheduled fuel stops all the time.
Annoyed by a fuel stop on your direct flight?
Nonstop Flights Stop for Fuel
Air travel: So-called nonstop flights now stop for fuel
The airliners basically do anything they want.
These discussions are basically plotting a route across the city with Google Maps and then expecting that your taxi will take the route in the map, will not stop along the way, are traveling at some assumed speed, and will get to the destination in the estimated time. Those estimations are emore a matter of theory than anything.
You did not understand what I was saying. This isn't about artificially prolonging a flight, but about shortening it. A fuel stop would prolong a flight. It should be impossible to travel the whole span of the Earth on a single non-stop airliner flight in 16 hours, but there you go - people travel from Sydney to Buenos Aires, and from LA to Sydney all the time.
Or are you saying that every single transcontinental flight refuels over the Ocean?

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 12:17:42 PM »
Can you provide some evidence for the flight times? According to my sources they just make them up.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/Are-airlines-exaggerating-flight-times-so-theyre-never-late/
Except, one could fake a longer flight by taking a longer route, but one could not fake a shorter flight over such a long distance.
- For example: you board a plane in Sydney, look at your watch, you land in Melbourne. The evil pilot and GPS system could make an 800 km. trip last 16 hours... BUT they cannot make a 40,000 kilometer trip last 16 hours!  ;) They can't make a 40,000 km. trip, period.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 11:53:59 AM »
- If all distances and continental positions are unknown, then why proudly post an inaccurate map on your site, if you are a movement founded in opposition to inaccurate maps?
The website presents several possible maps in the maps section. The truth is for you, the interested investigators on this forum, to research.
Several possible maps? In all Flat Earth maps, the distance between Australia and Argentina is shown to span almost the entire Earth. Hence the question - how fast, and with how much fuel does an airliner have to travel in order to traverse the whole Earth? How small does the world have to be to make that flight possible?

The Flat Earth movement also has the Bi-Polar maps and models. See the bottom
of this page: httpss://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps

The Bi-Polar models were derived by the Flat Earth movement when the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's and Antarctica was more fully explored. The Monopole model is the more general and popularized model because it appears in ENAG, and persists because independent access to Antarctica is difficult.

Bi-polar maps are even worse:

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 11:35:53 AM »
- If all distances and continental positions are unknown, then why proudly post an inaccurate map on your site, if you are a movement founded in opposition to inaccurate maps?
The website presents several possible maps in the maps section. The truth is for you, the interested investigators on this forum, to research.
Several possible maps? In all Flat Earth maps, the distance between Australia and Argentina is shown to span almost the entire Earth. Hence the question - how fast, and with how much fuel does an airliner have to travel in order to traverse the whole Earth? How small does the world have to be to make that flight possible?

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 07:53:18 AM »
You are not the first to ask such questions and you are not the last. How can the distances/flight times/travel times/shipping times/cartography on the wiki map be possible when they don't match the distances/flight times/travel times/shipping times/modern cartography.
This has been discussed so many times. I was also VERY curious about it. I got all the responses from a flight time superthread. (Pick any one of your rebuttals from the list below) Here's a link:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
While the links you posted actually prove the Round Earth theory from another angle, they do not address the question asked in this topic: "what about speed and scale". This isn't about the accuracy of GPS data. It's a simpler question:
- If the Earth is 40,000 km. in diameter, how can an airliner travel such a distance with so little fuel, at mach 2 speeds, in so little time? (Australia-Argentina or Australia-South Africa)
- If the Earth is smaller than 40,000 km, how come land travel between states isn't shorter as well?
- If jet streams speed up an airplane in one direction, how come they don't slow it down on the return flight?
- If all distances and continental positions are unknown, then why proudly post an inaccurate map on your site, if you are a movement founded in opposition to inaccurate maps?

(bonus question) - Why isn't the flat-Earth movement at all curious about the actual position of the cities and continents? Why are they so resigned to self-admitted ignorance, instead of pushing to investigate the truth? You can measure distances without GPS at all - just get in your cars and boats, and start traveling between cities. Confirm each other's findings and start mapping the world. Be curious.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >