[rabinoz]

oh, and how do solar and lunar eclipses work in this model? 

You don't want to know! Or will be using more  .
And how can you observe the South Celestial Pole exactly due South from Australia, South Africa and South America?
In fact at one particular time of the year (southern winter solstice) when Fremantle (Australia), Cape Town (South Africa) and Urshuaia (Argentina) can look due south and see the South Celestial Pole (within constellation Octans) at the same time!. The Southern Cross can be just seen at the same time!  Yet on the FE map south points in three very different directions!

[Munky]

here is the 24 hour sun in the south pole in case the FE'ers say it doesnt exist.

[Rayzor]

Lookup the bi-polar model.

I did, and the figure 8 movements of the sun and moon,  don't come anywhere near explaining the seasons, or the 24 hour daylight at the south pole, and 24 hour night at the north pole.

Has anyone done a proper bipolar model that works?

[rabinoz]

Lookup the bi-polar model.

I did, and the figure 8 movements of the sun and moon,  don't come anywhere near explaining the seasons, or the 24 hour daylight at the south pole, and 24 hour night at the north pole.

Has anyone done a proper bipolar model that works?

I would say no, but have you seen the Sandokhan model with 2 suns and lots of aether or ether or both?
You want a map etc, etc.  So if you are interested:

The other "opinions" were posted on youtube by well-intentioned users, who have never had to test their hypotheses in real time debates, as I have done. The data in the official faq has been proven to be wrong in regard to the sun's diameter, shape and orbiting altitude.
Here is the correct FET solar data:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732

[Tom Bishop]

Lookup the bi-polar model.

You are joking? 
The Flat Earth Society can't figure out its own model so we have to decide which to use depending on the occasion.

You did mean the one referred to here as the correct FET solar data? The other "opinions" were posted on youtube by well-intentioned users, who have never had to test their hypotheses in real time debates, as I have done. The data in the official faq has been proven to be wrong in regard to the sun's diameter, shape and orbiting altitude. Here is the correct FET solar data: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732 Once a person purports to have the truth that no-one else knows my anti BS feelers go up!  But, let's carry on. I have never seen any serious discussion on that!  Do you really want to get into that can of worms! My immediate difficulties are: No Equator, Tropics, Arctic or Antarctic Circle and no lat-long lines shown. A very complicated (dual) sun path. No explanation of what stars or planets we might see. While or that "map", however would: a plane fly from Singapore to the USA? a plane fly non-stop from Sydney to Santiago, etc, etc. I don't really expect anyone to have any ideas about answers to these except Sandokhan.

What does the Earth look like? The radius of the flat earth measures 6356.21 km. This is the correct flat earth map:

Though I guess it's one way of attempting to derail a post!
Now, just what flat earth model should we be looking at?

Yes, that's the bi-polar model. The bi-polar model is also featured in the Wiki, and in some of the Flat Earth Literature, not only by Sandokhan. The map is not official, and is subject to change, but that's the idea of it.

[Munky]

Incorrect.

The actual flight time including 3 hour connection  in Japan is as low as 19 hours and 35 minutes

If you Minus the 2 hours and 55 minutes you are closer to 16.66 hours.

A Boeing 777 average cruise speed is 562 mph

The distance from Singapore to Japan is

5,312 km
Distance from Singapore to Tokyo

8,810 km
Distance from Tokyo to Los Angeles, CA

if you add that up you get 14122 KM

14122.000037 KM = 8775.004 Miles

If you divide 562 mph (the distance the plane can fly in one hour) by 8775.004 Miles you get 15.61 hours.

Taking account for Airplane Taxi to runway (two segments, in each flight) then the time it takes for the airplane to get to cruising speed, also factoring in slowing down on landing you will find that 15.61 hours is well within the 16.66 hours travel time.

Its all in the Math!!!

[Tom Bishop]

The direct flight is a lot longer.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-10-21/singapore-airlines-ends-longest-commercial-flights-from-newark-and-los-angeles

The world’s two longest commercial flights, linking Singapore with Newark and Los Angeles, are landing in the history books.

Singapore Airlines’ (SIA:SP) daily nonstop from Newark stretches across 9,500 miles and averages about 18 hours via the North Pole, although the flight can last more than 21 hours because of some wind and routing variables.

[Munky]

I have already stated that the flight from US in this case LAX to JAPAN to Singapore covers about 8775.004 Miles based on the amount of distance covered.

It makes sense that a flight with 9500 miles would take longer.

In your own article it says the flight is starting in Newark so that is added distance. They are also taking the Artic route, which although slightly longer saves on fuel for the longer trip because of the headwinds being in the favor of air travel. I personally have taken this flight about 7 times in my life and can attest to the length of the flight.

But even at 9500 miles (in actuality it is 9520.028 Miles not 9500 miles as in the article) if you do some quick math, with a Boeing 777 cruising at 562 mph trying to cover 9520.028 miles should equate to 16.93 hours IFFFF they were going average cruise speed. This Artic Route cruises at a slightly slower speed. so it will take much more time to cover the distance... Much in the same way if you don't floor the gas on your car, you wont run out of fuel as quickly, they do the same thing while in the air on longer trips.

They don't need to do that for the LAX to Singapore flight because its a smaller distance, as they don't need to conserve fuel as much because they have a refueling point to fill back up the fuel. (Japan)

In the article itself you quoted it mentions the variables that make the flight longer are headwinds and routing variables!!! All still within the time frames that are attainable with a Round Earth Model.

By comparison... On a Flat Earth, Because there are no actual distances to scale, my rule of EYE, it would seem that the distance would be 3-4 times the current distance (just using a ruler) From Singapore to LAX on a flat earth map. If we went with a modest 3 times the distance  of 8775.00 miles - we get 26325 miles. Divide that by the speed of the Boeing 777 (562 MPH) we get 46.84 hours direct total flight time (Not accounting for taxi to runway two segments, and time to get up to cruising speed after take off, and slowing down before landing)  Clearly the Math doesn't add up on a FLAT earth Model.


"Singapore Airlines’ (SIA:SP) daily nonstop from Newark stretches across 9,500 miles and averages about 18 hours via the North Pole, although the flight can last more than 21 hours because of some wind and routing variables. The final departure from Newark for the longest flight will be Nov. 23. The second-longest flight, Singapore’s nonstop from Los Angeles, departed for the final time on Sunday night and landed early Tuesday—Singapore time—after a nearly 17-hour journey across the Pacific."

[Munky]

Also to add, the article you posted is from October 21, 2013 and is now outdated.

United Airlines now takes up that flight space. The attachment on my post just above shows an upcoming flight this Friday that is leaving for Singapore out of LAX.

Even if it were just flying to JAPAN from LAX, the flat earth model could not explain why it takes such little time to travel from LAX to Japan.

[Tom Bishop]

Japan to LAX is 11:35 hours. What's impossible about it?

Mexico City, Mexico to Buenes Ares, Argentina is 9:05 hours, and that distance on that map between those two points looks even longer than the distance between LAX and Japen. If anything that map needs to be stretched out a little more in that area because LAX and Japan are too close together.

[Munky]

Is that your rebuttal?   

"Japan to LAX is 11:35 hours"

Are you kidding me?

No one needs to stretch any map out.. The Globe Map works. The Flat Earth Map does not!

Do the math and you will realize that the distances on your flat earth model make trips like this much longer where we are taking these trips in less distance and shorter times.

Attached is an image of two lines. They are approximately the same length going by the flat earth map. So on a flat earth model the trip from Japan to Singapore should be close equal in distance and time. Two times 11.36 (by your own admission of the time it takes to go from LAX to Japan) is 23.12 hours. Not accounting for taxi on the take off and landing as well as airtime. total trip should be 25 hours or more on a flat map model.

This trip currently takes around 16.66 hours as stated before on the round earth model.

So either the planes are able to fly much much faster than their designed cruising speed, or the flat earth model does not work and the earth is round.

[Tom Bishop]

We are not talking about that model.

[Munky]

Then please show me the model you are talking about and illustrate the distances in the same respect that I have. Quantify it with math as I have shown here.

[Munky]

If you cannot or refuse to. Say that you cannot or refuse to do so. Then concede that the flat earth model does not work with these flights. Then admit that you are wrong about the flat earth.

[juner]

If you cannot or refuse to. Say that you cannot or refuse to do so. Then concede that the flat earth model does not work with these flights. Then admit that you are wrong about the flat earth.

Please refrain from double posting. You can edit your first post if you need to add something.

[Munky]

what did I post twice?

[juner]

what did I post twice?

I am referring to back to back posting. You could have simply edited your original post.

[Munky]

Are back to back posts against the forum rules?

[juner]

Are back to back posts against the forum rules?

They can be considered spam, as again, you can just edit a post to make your point if no one has replied yet. Really no reason to go on about it, just don't do it .

[Munky]

Junker, I am honestly not trying to go against the grain or be a wise ass here. I am merely inquiring.

The mention of SPAM or "Spamming" as it were is under the subtext of "Keep alternate accounts within reason"

I don't believe I am spamming as I am continuing the discussion, neither do I have any Alternate accounts.

I am just curious as to why I am being seemingly singled out and asked to abide by additional rules that do not apply to the rest of the community.

I was unaware of this additional rule that you are now imposing that requires me to edit my prior posts to add information. or to not make back to back posts.

But I will conform as you requested in kind.

The only mention of SPAM that you have in your published rules states the following (Again your own posted forum rules):

8. Keep alternate accounts within reason

We will be taking a very relaxed policy towards alternate accounts ("alts"), provided that people do not force us to take a stricter stance by abusing this policy. Alts are allowed, and will be permitted free reign across all fora, provided that they follow the rules for the forum they are posting in. FES has a history of alts that contribute to discussions in addition to the usual complement of spamming and trolling alts, and it would be a shame to try to restrict this.

There are two exceptions to this policy: one, an alt that is used for the purpose of furthering a main or another alt's argument without itself contributing a unique point of view on the situation ("sockpuppetting") will be immediately banned; two, an alt that is intended to impersonate a member either here or on the old FES will be immediately banned, and deleted if it is occupying the username of an old FES member, as otherwise it would bar them from registering here.

An alt breaking any rule that would ordinarily result in a warning can (at moderator discretion) be handled by immediately banning the alt account, and instead warning the main account of the person controlling it.