The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: GreatATuin on April 12, 2020, 01:54:08 PM
-
According to Wikipedia, Tahiti is the largest island of the Windward group of the Society Islands in French Polynesia, located in the central part of the Pacific Ocean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahiti). On the island, there is the only international airport in the region, Faa'a International Airport.
There are more, but let's focus on two flights :
Air Tahiti Nui flight TN 102: Auckland - Los Angeles via Tahiti (https://info.flightmapper.net/en/flight/Air_Tahiti_Nui_TN_102) (this route is the usual way to go from Tahiti to mainland France: as there are no direct flights to Paris, people fly to LAX and from there to CDG)
LATAM Airlines Group flight LA 836: Tahiti - Santiago via Easter Island (https://info.flightmapper.net/en/flight/LATAM_Airlines_Group_LA_836) (weekly flight, Easter Island is a popular destination for Tahitians or tourists visiting Polynesia - except of course when there is a lockdown in place)
Let's calculate the distances for each segment, and match with the typical scheduled time:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=AKL-PPT-LAX
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PPT-IPC-SCL
AKL-PPT: 2,544 mi, 4:45h
PPT-LAX: 4,095 mi, 7:41h
PPT-IPC: 2,644 mi, 5:05h
IPC-SCL: 2,335 mi, 4:30h
Now, how would that work on a flat Earth?
On a bipolar model (https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model), it's simple, it doesn't work at all. You can't go from Auckland to Santiago via Papeete and Easter Island over the Pacific Ocean. At least one of these flights cannot exist.
On a "standard" monopole, such as the popular azimuthal equidistant projection (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg), the segments could be possible but the distances don't match at all: Tahiti appears closer to Los Angeles than to Easter Island or Auckland, while the PPT-LAX flight actually takes approximately 50% longer, which is consistent with the calculated great circle distances. Moreover, if you sum Auckland-Papeete, Papeete-Easter Island, Easter Island-Santiago, it would take just over 14 hours. Compare the sum of distances on any flat Earth monopole map to the distance of a direct flight from Rome to Los Angeles (http://info.flightmapper.net/en/flight/Alitalia_AZ_620) that takes 13 hours. Even without stopovers, Auckland-Santiago is more than twice as long. These flights would need to be supersonic.
Conclusion, either the information on these flights is false (they don't exist at all, or their duration is seriously altered), either none of the proposed flat Earth maps (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps) is correct.
-
Fake, absolutely fake.
The data you provided is forged by the WHO and CIA.
-
Fake, absolutely fake.
The data you provided is forged by the WHO and CIA.
Keep the shitposting in AR/CN. Warned.
-
Now, how would that work on a flat Earth?
The idea that known flight times, flight paths, and flight distances weaken the various different FE models is something that has been discussed dozens, if not hundreds of times. Here is a large array of responses:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2046469#msg2046469
"This flight has never been existed."
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2044714#msg2044714
"Don't trust aircraft companies such as Qantas and Latam by their claims about flight times. These are liars."
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2045126#msg2045126
"If you find a video show full flight of a travel between Chile and Australia, then there will be a possiblity that path it exist."
-These flights only exist if you can produce a full video of the entire flight.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2045413#msg2045413
-flying from Santiago, Chile to Sydney Australia in about 14 hours is impossible
-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 180 degrees the earth is flat.
-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 179.99984 degrees the earth is slightly concave.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121615#msg121615
-Distances between two cities which are far apart is unknown
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121996#msg121996
-Flight GPS systems are inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441
-GPS systems are based on a round earth therefore will give measurements/distances which support a round earth.
-Aircraft are using instruments which assume round earth coordinates which will support a round earth.
-There is no flat earth map.
-The difference in flight time is based off of flight speed which has yet to be proven.
-The airplane speed and range is based off round systems therefore will give speeds and ranges which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122359#msg122359
-plane speed measurements are unreliable
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122364#msg122364
-there are no flat earth flight programs, systems, GPS etc because the flat earth aircraft navigation fund is nonexistent.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122369#msg122369
-Triangulation as a measurement of distance can be inaccurate because the "known" locations used for triangulation are based on a round earth system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122410#msg122410
-there are almost an infinite number of continental configurations (If a flight disproves flat earth continental configuration 23985729387592873 you then need to test continental configuration 23985729387592874).
-Groundspeed measurement instruments use a round earth coordinate system therefore will give results which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122411#msg122411
-proof is needed that mile measurements on a highway are accurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122423#msg122423
-Google maps is based on a round earth coordinate system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122433#msg122433
-any navigation system based on longitude and latitude is a round earth navigation system (which is most likely used in all navigation systems)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122655#msg122655
-any map, navigation, or measurement system which uses Latitude and Longitude in any way is inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122664#msg122664
-That's not the map of the earth (a variant of there is no map of the earth)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122672#msg122672
-
In addition to what iampc posted, I've posted some more information here on the topic: https://wiki.tfes.org/Distances_in_the_South
Sea travel claims have some questionable anomalies and international flights seem to heavily rely on high speed winds above the Earth to get around, and may not be an accurate scientific tool to determine the Earth's geography. Ie. If a flight had to re-route to a physically longer route on a particular day (they don't take the same day-by-day routes) or had to stop and refuel to get between two points you would tell me that it's just the winds, but if the plane made it in an expedient amount of time you would say that it's the RE. Basically biased subjectivity.
-
A recent Thread "Are Plane Tickets Real?" ( https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15877.msg204861#msg204861 ) absolutely did-to-death the fact that flights are regularly taking place (for example) between New Zealand and South America, by several airlines, on schedule, using a Great Circle route, and that the outward and return-flight times are entirely consistent with published aircraft performance, prevailing winds and RE distances. These flights take place several times a week, without fuel stops or mysterious cancellations. Week after week.
Regarding sea travel, another recent Post referencing Southern Ocean Sailing Races ( https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16361.0 ) contained experiences from experienced sailors of the current century, again supporting RE distances.
Whilst the Wiki has some fascinating anecdotes and quotes, it seems to be lacking (a bit like the "Ice Wall" topic) anything since the 19th Century. Has TFES nothing more recent to add to the Sea Distances topic? Can TFES provide any real data on the prevalence of airliners actually having to make unscheduled fuel stops?
-
Has TFES nothing more recent to add to the Sea Distances topic?
Posts are made about how measured shipping times/distances and measured flight times/distances weaken many of the FE models almost every day. Did you not see the post I just made with like 20 responses to that statement?
Can TFES provide any real data on the prevalence of airliners actually having to make unscheduled fuel stops?
I'm sure it would not be hard to google airplane making unscheduled stops. Airplanes make unscheduled stops prolly every day because of medical emergencies, people getting into fights on the plane, hijackings, mechanical issues, fuel issues etc.
-
Has TFES nothing more recent to add to the Sea Distances topic?
Posts are made about how measured shipping times/distances and measured flight times/distances weaken many of the FE models almost every day. Did you not see the post I just made with like 20 responses to that statement?
Yup, read 'em, and a fine set of responses they are, but Tom's response to your responses was just to trot out the "anomalies" line from the Wiki. My point to Tom was that the Wiki focuses exclusively on quotes from the logs and journals of gentlemen in top hats. Not that I've any objection to top hats and I've immense admiration and respect for the gentlemen concerned, but they are writing in the context of 18th and 19th Century knowledge, understanding and technology.
Something from equally intrepid seafarers, post age-of-steam, would have at least as much relevance and should be in the Wiki.
-
Yup, read 'em, and a fine set of responses they are, but Tom's response to your responses was just to trot out the "anomalies" line from the Wiki. My point to Tom was that the Wiki focuses exclusively on quotes from the logs and journals of gentlemen in top hats. Not that I've any objection to top hats and I've immense admiration and respect for the gentlemen concerned, but they are writing in the context of 18th and 19th Century knowledge, understanding and technology.
Something from equally intrepid seafarers, post age-of-steam, would have at least as much relevance and should be in the Wiki.
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.
To me the flight time/distance and the shipping time/distance data suggests that the model of the earth is something different than the flat disk north pole center model. I guess that is one response that I forgot to mention. A lot of effort is put into rebutting the observations and data and information which weaken this specific flat disk north pole center model instead of looking to see if another model could better or more easily explain these sets of observation/data/information.
-
On this topic, this has been documented by flat earthers that certain flights drop off the GPS system at certain longitude/latitudes. This is obviously deliberate and not by accident as it happens consistently and has been observed live on the web as so. If that is the case, and it is, it is no small feat to fake a flight. And I am sure that flight is not trackable from beginning to end either. 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. That is because the earth is flat. TNOTE: these things don't take thousands of conspirators as some may claim. All it takes is a few at the top. As in any conspiracy fact.
-
Would you mind being a little more specific? What flights, what latitude and longitude, documented by who, based on what evidence?
On every commercial flight I boarded, provided I had a window seat, I could get a GPS lock and position during the flights. Passengers on these flights can do it too.
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
... 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.
-
[..] 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.
-
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. That is because the earth is flat.
The earth can be flat and not shaped like a flat circle with a north pole center, no south pole, and a great ice wall.
The most glaring controversy is flight paths and flight times. I have flown nonstop from LA to London twice in my life. Both times I looked out the window. Both times I noticed that I didn't fly over Greenland. I have mapped the path that I believe that I took based on the flight information online and based on my own personal observations on two different FLAT earth models shown below:
This FLAT earth model represent the earth as a FLAT plane and is interactive with an adjustable scale. The red path represents the "straight line" path on the flat disk model. Not very straight here is it? Notice how the flat circle flight path curves way out of the way to go over greenland?
Please keep in mind that, based on my observations, I'm able to confirm that the red path is NOT the path that I took. Once we hit the ocean we didn't fly over the southern tip of Greenland. Once we hit the ocean we didn't fly over any land until we hit the British islands.
(https://i.imgur.com/9cIGjBv.jpg)
This model also represents the earth as a flat plane and is NOT interactive. Notice how, two different representations of the earth as a flat plane, have two totally different flight paths. One is overwhelmingly supported by flight paths and flight times and one is significantly weakened by flight paths and flight times.Notice how the red "straight line" path passes over Greenland. This is VERY easy to test. Fly from LA to London, once you hit the ocean, look out the window every few minutes to see if you see land. If you don't then you have shown the red line flight path to be incorrect.
(https://i.imgur.com/DPddCYf.jpg)
If that is the case, and it is, it is no small feat to fake a flight.
I'm not talking about fake flights. I'm talking about flights in which an airplane full of people can all verify the flight information was decently accurate when they check it online. In addition all the friends/family of those passengers who dropped them off at the airport to board the plan can confirm the flight is real. PLUS all the friends/family who picked them up from the airport at their destination can verify that their flight was real.
When Grandma says i'm on flight 1704 from Ohio to Dallas which departs at 1:00 PM and arrives at gate 4 at 4:00 PM and I'm at gate 4 at 4:00 PM and I see grandma depart the plane saying I left from Ohio at 1:00 PM to me it's shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the flight was real.
-
The most glaring controversy is flight paths and flight times. I have flown nonstop from LA to London twice in my life. Both times I looked out the window. Both times I noticed that I didn't fly over Greenland. I have mapped the path that I believe that I took based on the flight information online and based on my own personal observations
Whoa there, tiger. Flight across busy airspace is heavily organised and the North Atlantic is no exception. All commercial flights are organised, corralled, controlled by air traffic control in distinct lanes whether they are flying east or west, to avoid mid-air collisions. Flights across the continental US are also heavily organised. An airliner is not free to pick the most direct route in any circumstances, even if that would save a ton of fuel, because midair collisions make even worse headlines than the price of a ticket and you're talking about some of the busiest airspace in the world.
If you want a long-distance flight that more resembles the "great circle" route, try London to Tokyo.
-
Whoa there, tiger. Flight across busy airspace is heavily organised and the North Atlantic is no exception. All commercial flights are organised, corralled, controlled by air traffic control in distinct lanes whether they are flying east or west, to avoid mid-air collisions. Flights across the continental US are also heavily organised.
I agree but there is also a limited amount of fuel that an airplane can hold. Flights can easily avoid collision by going a mile or two out of the way or Increasting/decreasing altitude.
Do you know anyone who looked out the window and saw Greenland when flying from LA to London? I don't. I was on two separate flights with hundreds of people. I checked on 50 flights online and never saw one that flew over Greenland. My Mother also flew to London and verified she didn't fly over Greenland. I asked some of my coworkers who work in LA on my team if they have been to Europe. One said he flew to France and didn't fly over Greenland. I've found 10 people who have all confirmed my initial observations. In addition when checking dozens of flight tracking websites they have all confirmed the observations. The score is 100 points for non flat disk model flight path and 0 points flat disk model flight path.
An airliner is not free to pick the most direct route in any circumstances, even if that would save a ton of fuel, because midair collisions make even worse headlines than the price of a ticket and you're talking about some of the busiest airspace in the world.
Airplanes have a maximum flight distance and airlines are definitely profit driven so flights will always take the most direct route possible while avoiding collisions. If you look in the air above LA you will notice very clearly that the skies are not crowded even though it has a huge airport. They never have to fly hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way to avoid an airplane.
If you want a long-distance flight that more resembles the "great circle" route, try London to Tokyo.
I've never flown from London to Tokyo. It would be pretty easy to test. The flat disk model has the flight flying over Norway. Based on my observations matching flight maps I've seen online I'm betting that they don't.
I did call my Uncle who is a retired pilot just to ask and he said that the London Tokyo flights don't fly over Norway and that generally the flight tracker websites online are decently accurate. I have no reason to think he's lying.
I dated a girl in high school who's dad was a pilot and I messaged her to see if she would ask her dad for me. I'll update my post if/when she responds.
-
I’ve no reason to doubt your observations, it’s just not as clear-cut as you seem to think. Airspace is highly controlled, the penalties for ignoring the instructions of air traffic control are grievous and the LAX to London route as flown is not a simple FE vs RE case.
In case your uncle is interested, I meant the direct flight between Tokyo and London. It overflies Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.
https://www.airportdistancecalculator.com/tokyo-japan-to-london-united-kingdom-flight-time.html
-
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).
-
[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
-
[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.
-
Didn't see the need to comment at the time, but as iamcpc doesn't believe it, I can confirm watching all of edby's listed flights Friday on FR24, and currently watching those he's listed today.
Also KL605 now, Amsterdam-San Francisco, over Greenland.
I personally flew Belfast-Newark about 4 years ago, over Greenland. Bright sunshine, got photos. And the return flight? Who knows. Like most trans-Atlantic eastbound it was at night. Been up all day, couple of vodkas and a skinny airline blanket; most people wouldn't notice if it routed over Antarctica.
But thats another story.
-
That very website shows it did fly over Greenland on 24 July, the date of my post.
So which version of the flight is correct? Is it the 7/24 version of the flight or is it the current version of the flight?
This really makes me question this website because it appears that the flight path changes after the plane lands. I wonder why that is?
Since this flight path appears to have some sort of deviation which support both of the FE models shown on this post which is a flight path that can be taken and observed which would only support one of the two FE models?
-
[..]
This really makes me question this website because it appears that the flight path changes after the plane lands. I wonder why that is?
[..]
To be clear, there are two websites. I used flightradar 24, but your website corroborates the information.
Don't know about flight paths changing after landing. Where is your evidence?
-
So which version of the flight is correct? Is it the 7/24 version of the flight or is it the current version of the flight?
Do airliners always follow the exact same route regardless of other considerations? No they don't, unless you'd rather they flew through tropical storms (obviously none over Greenland...), severe thunderstorms (like the one that put me off the intended route from Bangor, Maine to LAX), strong headwinds (hey, we landed 2 hours late, I'm gonna sue) or severe icing risks (quite possible over Greenland). It's not as simple as always flying a "great circle" route.
-
That very website shows it did fly over Greenland on 24 July, the date of my post.
So which version of the flight is correct? Is it the 7/24 version of the flight or is it the current version of the flight?
This really makes me question this website because it appears that the flight path changes after the plane lands. I wonder why that is?
You do understand that a Flight Number is not unique? Most flights on popular routes take place several times a week, under the same Flight Number. So you need to specify which date you are talking about for a particular Flight Number. If you think the "flight path changes after the plane lands", then you are looking at the same Flight Number on a different day.
The route will be different each day. For the North Atlantic, flights are channelled into one of 4 North Atlantic Tracks, defined by the American and European Air Traffic Agencies. Airlines submit their planned flights to the agency the day before, and the agencies select the routes based on where planes want to go, ideal Great Circle route, weather, and jet-stream activity. The Tracks go with the jetstreams eastbound and avoid them westbound. As the jetstreams are a natural pnenomonon, the routes vary day to day.
Aircraft aren't obliged to follow the official tracks, but it makes economic sense to do so. If you wanted, say, to fly a rigid Great Circle route eastbound then you can; your ground track will be a shorter distance, but you might be covering the ground around 25% slower than everyone else, so it will probably take longer and use more fuel. Quite often, of course, the jetstreams do come close to a Great Circle, and then you get to see Greenland.
-
You do understand that a Flight Number is not unique?
How many flights from SF to london have flight number BAW6B which arrived today? Both of these show a flight path not over Greenland
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history/20200727/0245Z/KSFO/EGLL
https://www.radarbox.com/data/flights/BA286/1439853660
On the live tracker it showed the flight going over greenland and on this website it shows the flight not going over Greenland. It's funny how the live tracker gets "deleted" and replaced with the new flight path.
Most flights on popular routes take place several times a week, under the same Flight Number. So you need to specify which date you are talking about for a particular Flight Number. If you think the "flight path changes after the plane lands", then you are looking at the same Flight Number on a different day.
I'm talking about the BAW6B which was in the air today referenced earlier in this thread which left SF 7/26/2020 and arrived in London 7/27/2020.
The route will be different each day.
Can you find me one nonstop flight from SF to London which flies over Brasil?
According to https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history the flight from SF to London never passed over Greenland. Even though the live tracker shows the flight over Greenland. Can you send me one link to a completed nonstop flight between SF to London in which the flight tracker shows the flight passing over Greenland?
It might be worth it to add these inconsistencies to the wiki because something is clearly off.
-
The route will be different each day.
Can you find me one nonstop flight from SF to London which flies over Brasil?
Why would it fly over Brazil? Why the route being different each day would imply it flew over Brazil even once? It doesn't mean it can be anything.
According to https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history the flight from SF to London never passed over Greenland. Even though the live tracker shows the flight over Greenland. Can you send me one link to a completed nonstop flight between SF to London in which the flight tracker shows the flight passing over Greenland?
Not just one but many:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history/20200719/0245Z/KSFO/EGLL
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history/20200720/0245Z/KSFO/EGLL
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history/20200724/0245Z/KSFO/EGLL
and not exactly, over but close:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history/20200718/0245Z/KSFO/EGLL
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history/20200717/0245Z/KSFO/EGLL
Next time, maybe try to actually click the links before claiming they "never" passed over Greenland? Because now, it looks like you checked two or maybe three that didn't and just assumed it was the same for the others.
Also:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba281#250ca071
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba281#250a7525
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba281#25085dac
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba281#2505ffb7
It might be worth it to add these inconsistencies to the wiki because something is clearly off.
What inconsistencies? The fact that flights don't always take the shortest route but might change because of weather conditions or other considerations?
-
Why would it fly over Brazil? Why the route being different each day would imply it flew over Brazil even once? It doesn't mean it can be anything.
On that point, the 'measure distance' function on Google maps tells us the distance of different routes. Thus for the LA->London route
Over Greenland: 5,429km
Over Newfoundland: 5,568km
Over Florida: 6,547km
Over Brazil, probably much more. The difference between the Greenland and Newfoundland route is about 150km, which does not seem much. Between Greenland and Florida, more than a 1,000km.
-
You do understand that a Flight Number is not unique?
How many flights from SF to london have flight number BAW6B which arrived today? Both of these show a flight path not over Greenland
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history/20200727/0245Z/KSFO/EGLL
https://www.radarbox.com/data/flights/BA286/1439853660
On the live tracker it showed the flight going over greenland and on this website it shows the flight not going over Greenland. It's funny how the live tracker gets "deleted" and replaced with the new flight path.
Most flights on popular routes take place several times a week, under the same Flight Number. So you need to specify which date you are talking about for a particular Flight Number. If you think the "flight path changes after the plane lands", then you are looking at the same Flight Number on a different day.
I'm talking about the BAW6B which was in the air today referenced earlier in this thread which left SF 7/26/2020 and arrived in London 7/27/2020.
The route will be different each day.
Can you find me one nonstop flight from SF to London which flies over Brasil?
According to https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history the flight from SF to London never passed over Greenland. Even though the live tracker shows the flight over Greenland. Can you send me one link to a completed nonstop flight between SF to London in which the flight tracker shows the flight passing over Greenland?
It might be worth it to add these inconsistencies to the wiki because something is clearly off.
Quite agree that BAW6B (aircraft reg G-ZBKI) did not fly over Greenland on 26/27 July. I don't think anyone claimed it did.
Nor on the day previous, 25/26 July (aircraft reg G-ZBKS).
However, on 23/24 aircraft reg G-ZBKB did cross Greenland.
At the moment (about 08.00 UTC on Tuesday 28 July), BAW6B is being flown by Dreamliner G-ZBKA. It is over Baffin Island and looks to be headed for Greenland on its way to LHR, where it is estimated to land at around 12.30 UTC. If you read this in time please follow the flight on a website of your choice.
In any case, check the history for this aircraft and please come back and tell everyone that it crossed Greenland. Or not. And remember, we are talking here about G-ZBKA on 27/28 July.
And as for Brasil .........
-
Screenprinted at 10.35am UK time, 28 July. Would have had to have executed some really sharp turns to take it around Greenland...
(https://i.imgur.com/CrhaLKE.jpg)
It looks as though it might approach LHR from the North. I'm in Scotland, and it's a clear day here. I will try to monitor it if and when it goes past my locale
EDIT UTC 12.44, it's going over the Eire/Northern Ireland border. Too far south west for me to see physically.
-
It just passed over Fulham - I tracked it over Wales and southern England, then saw it with my own eyes it for nearly a minute using binoculars. Clearly a BA plane, and clearly a Dreamliner.
-
BA flight BAW6B which arrived at Heathrow today, 28 July, flew over Greenland, as per my screenshot from flightradar, and flightaware's track herein;
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B
Yesterday's flight BAW6B did not, according to flightaware.
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history/20200727/0245Z/KSFO/EGLL
Neither did Sunday's
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history/20200726/0245Z/KSFO/EGLL
Saturday's was cancelled, Friday's flew over Greenland
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW6B/history/20200724/0245Z/KSFO/EGLL
-
Quite agree that BAW6B (aircraft reg G-ZBKI) did not fly over Greenland on 26/27 July. I don't think anyone claimed it did.
Yes they did. They did it here:
[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.
In any case, check the history for this aircraft and please come back and tell everyone that it crossed Greenland. Or not. And remember, we are talking here about G-ZBKA on 27/28 July.
The website indicated that it crossed Greenland. Unfortunately there have been instances, which I have already documented, in which the flight was shown as having crossed Greenland just to have been deleted and replaced with a flight which has not crossed Greenland.
Now that I have answered your question, Can you answer mine? What is a flight that we can take in which the path that we fly would support one of the two presented FE models?
-
Quite agree that BAW6B (aircraft reg G-ZBKI) did not fly over Greenland on 26/27 July. I don't think anyone claimed it did.
Yes they did. They did it here:
[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.
Note the date of my post (24 July).
Now that I have answered your question, Can you answer mine? What is a flight that we can take in which the path that we fly would support one of the two presented FE models?
Sorry what models are you talking about?
-
So, we seem to be in agreement that on some days, this flight passes over Greeenland, and others it does not. Agreed?
Where does that leave us?
-
Sorry what models are you talking about?
The two different FE models shown on this thread:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16219.msg217167#msg217167
I'll link them again:
Here is a model of the earth in which the earth is represented as a flat plane:
https://www.bing.com/maps
I will call this FE model 1
Here is a model of the earth in which the earth is represented as a flat plane:
https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png
I will call this FE model 2
Now what flight could we take in which the flight path evidence and observations could support one of those two models and weaken the other?
-
Sorry what models are you talking about?
The two different FE models shown on this thread.
Could you help us out and link to them please. I can't see anything immediately above.
So, we seem to be in agreement that on some days, this flight passes over Greeenland, and others it does not. Agreed?
Where does that leave us?
It leaves us that some days flights follow Great Circle routes, some days they do not.
-
Here is a model of the earth in which the earth is represented as a flat plane:
https://www.bing.com/maps
I will call this FE model 1
This model is the same as Google maps and does not represent the earth as a flat plane.
Rather, the model is a picture which is on a flat surface, but which represents something as not a plane.
-
Quite agree that BAW6B (aircraft reg G-ZBKI) did not fly over Greenland on 26/27 July. I don't think anyone claimed it did.
Yes they did. They did it here:
[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.
In any case, check the history for this aircraft and please come back and tell everyone that it crossed Greenland. Or not. And remember, we are talking here about G-ZBKA on 27/28 July.
The website indicated that it crossed Greenland. Unfortunately there have been instances, which I have already documented, in which the flight was shown as having crossed Greenland just to have been deleted and replaced with a flight which has not crossed Greenland.
Now that I have answered your question, Can you answer mine? What is a flight that we can take in which the path that we fly would support one of the two presented FE models?
First, you say you have documented instances of altered records. You haven't. You've looked at the most recent flight and thought that it referred to previous flights. Have you actually looked at the history on, say FR24? (You'll probably have to look under the alternate Flight Number of BA286). Over the past 12 hours we've observed BAW6B/BA286 on FR24, identified it by registration, and one of today's posters has actually seen it through binoculars. Will you please promise that you will check history on this particular flight for the next couple of days and advise the Forum when it gets altered?
In answer to your question I'm not sure I understand. You want me to propose a flight which supports one of 2 FE models? How can I do that when I personally don't support any FE model?
-
Here is a model of the earth in which the earth is represented as a flat plane:
https://www.bing.com/maps
I will call this FE model 1
Oh no, not that again. The Mercator projection is not a flat Earth model. On a flat Earth, you can't go forever in a straight line and never reach an edge. The Mercator projection used by Bing, Google maps and pretty much every online map doesn't have a western or eastern edge, it just loops indefinitely.
-
Here is a model of the earth in which the earth is represented as a flat plane:
https://www.bing.com/maps
I will call this FE model 1
There is this thing in law called beyond reasonable doubt. The key word here is reasonable. It is the standard against which evidence is judged. Take out the word reasonable and nobody is convicted of anything ever.
You have been shown, endless times, documentation from Microsoft, the authors of Bing, that they use a spherical globe model with a particular radius and that they use spherical trigonometry (specifically the Haversine formula) with this model. You challenged the evidence and we were able to demonstrate a 100% correlation between distances on Bing maps and distances calculated based on the spherical Haversine formula, using Microsoft's own published figures for Earth's radius.
The evidence you were shown passed the threshold for "beyond reasonable", carried on mounting up and left "beyond reasonable" as a distant spec in the rear view mirror. Bing is simply not using an FE model.
12 people like you on a Jury trial, consistently applying your criteria for judging evidence, would collapse the justice system.
-
First, you say you have documented instances of altered records. You haven't.
Will you please promise that you will check history on this particular flight for the next couple of days and advise the Forum when it gets altered?
You are right. I didn't realize that, when i clicked the link, it shows the most recent BAW6B flight. Because I clicked the link the next day the flight path that I saw was from the following day. Human error.
In answer to your question I'm not sure I understand. You want me to propose a flight which supports one of 2 FE models?
Let's start here. Which, of the two proposed FE models that I have shown, do you think most closely resembles the world you live in?
Oh no, not that again. The Mercator projection is not a flat Earth model. On a flat Earth, you can't go forever in a straight line and never reach an edge.
you can if that FE model is infinite. There are infinite flat earth models.
-
The evidence you were shown passed the threshold for "beyond reasonable", carried on mounting up and left "beyond reasonable" as a distant spec in the rear view mirror. Bing is simply not using an FE model.
Then everyone else can use Bing and you can use https://earth3dmap.com/
Same model, different documentation and levels of interactivity.
-
First, you say you have documented instances of altered records. You haven't.
Will you please promise that you will check history on this particular flight for the next couple of days and advise the Forum when it gets altered?
You are right. I didn't realize that, when i clicked the link, it shows the most recent BAW6B flight. Because I clicked the link the next day the flight path that I saw was from the following day. Human error.
In answer to your question I'm not sure I understand. You want me to propose a flight which supports one of 2 FE models?
Let's start here. Which, of the two proposed FE models that I have shown, do you think most closely resembles the world you live in?
First of all thank you for acknowledging that you had misinterpreted your interrogation of the Flight Record; I think you will earn respect for that from the other posters.
On the map thing, I'm sorry if it sounds like a cop-out, but neither. (Possibly the Polar, but only because we were looking at a Northeren Hemisphere question. If we were discussing a flight from New Zealand to Chile, the Polar would be useless).
The problem with all of these projections is the distortion of the image, generally the further from the centre of the Polar Map, or from the equator of the Mercator Projection, more distortion is introduced. Look at Australia in the Polar Map; if it was that long and thin, don't you think the Aussies would have noticed?
Its like if you went to the barbershop and he asked where you want him to stand when he cuts your hair. If he stands in front of you he can see your fringe, but round-your-ears is distorted; he needs to see these from the side. And so on. Its inevitable if you try to project a 3D object onto a 2D plane. Thats why its called a projection.
For maps, personally, I use Google Maps in the Globe mode. You get your area of interest centre-screen and its going to show the minimum amount of distortion, but distortion is still there and increases as you look towards the edges of the image.
-
First of all thank you for acknowledging that you had misinterpreted your interrogation of the Flight Record; I think you will earn respect for that from the other posters.
Thanks. Now I would really appreciate it if you would answer my question. Which of the two proposed FE models do you believe most closely resembles the planet that you live on and why?
If you won't answer that question would you answer the questions?
1. Does the planet that you live on have a South Pole?
2. Does the planet that you live on have a great ice wall encompassing the entire planet?
If you think the earth does have a south pole and no great perimeter ice wall then then you would believe that a bing map type interactive FE model would most accurately depict the planet that you live on.
The problem with all of these projections is the distortion of the image, generally the further from the centre of the Polar Map, or from the equator of the Mercator Projection, more distortion is introduced. Look at Australia in the Polar Map; if it was that long and thin, don't you think the Aussies would have noticed?
This is why the more modern online maps have an interactive scale which changes depends on where you look and how far in you zoom.
-
First of all thank you for acknowledging that you had misinterpreted your interrogation of the Flight Record; I think you will earn respect for that from the other posters.
Thanks. Now I would really appreciate it if you would answer my question. Which of the two proposed FE models do you believe most closely resembles the planet that you live on and why?
I know these questions were primarily aimed at DuncanDoenitz, but here are my answers:
Both models 1 & 2 represent the earth equally well, because they are both projections of the same globe model and no projection is intrinsically better than any other projection. There are some instances where one projection is more useful than another, so for example travelling in arctic regions, 2 would be better than 1. There are plenty of occasions when another projection altogether would be a better choice than either of these, so for example, for planning a VFR flight in the UK, I'd want a transverse mercator. Bing would be completely and dangerously useless for planning such a flight.
The Bing map is dynamic and has zoom and pan features and a measuring tool, but it would be perfectly possible to add these to map 2. Google maps for example when zoomed out can be displayed as either a web mercator (identical to Bing) or as a 3D globe, and you can re-project either way from one to the other so there's no reason Google (or Bing) couldn't add other map projections as well, if they thought it was worth doing. When you zoom in or measure in Google maps, it doesn't matter whether you start from a zoomed out globe or a web mercator, you end up with the same result. Similarly, since you can easily project a web mercator to a globe, Bing could easily add a 3D globe view if they wanted.
If you won't answer that question would you answer the questions?
1. Does the planet that you live on have a South Pole?
Yes
2. Does the planet that you live on have a great ice wall encompassing the entire planet?
No
If you think the earth does have a south pole and no great perimeter ice wall then then you would believe that a bing map type interactive FE model would most accurately depict the planet that you live on.
No, they are both equally useless for areas around the south pole. A south polar azimuthal equidistant would be a much better choice.
The problem with all of these projections is the distortion of the image, generally the further from the centre of the Polar Map, or from the equator of the Mercator Projection, more distortion is introduced. Look at Australia in the Polar Map; if it was that long and thin, don't you think the Aussies would have noticed?
This is why the more modern online maps have an interactive scale which changes depends on where you look and how far in you zoom.
-
With Robin 100%.
-
I don’t think either proposed FE model or any proposed FE map fits our world. The often demonstrated weaknesses for journeys south of the tropics, such as to and from French Polynesia, the routes which jump from one side of the world to another to travel a thousand miles and other difficulties mean the FE models and maps are of no practical use. A major rethink is needed.
-
1. Does the planet that you live on have a South Pole?
2. Does the planet that you live on have a great ice wall encompassing the entire planet?
Yes to 1.
Do you agree that lines of longitude converge at the South Pole?
This is why the more modern online maps have an interactive scale which changes depends on where you look and how far in you zoom.
On this 'interactive scale' thing, consider a map that is so large that one mile on the earth's surface = 1 mile on the map's surface. You could lay the whole map on top of the world so that every point on the map would be on top of the corresponding point in the world. But then the scale would not be variable.
If on the other hand this map had a variable scale, there would no longer be a 1:1 correspondence between points on the map, and points in the world. In which case, would the map accurately represent the surface it was intended to represent?
-
Both models 1 & 2 represent the earth equally well
How so? One represent the earth as an interactive surface with ice at the north pole and the south pole and a second one represent the earth as a flat circle with a great ice wall around the perimeter. They are two totally different models of the earth.
If you won't answer that question would you answer the questions?
1. Does the planet that you live on have a South Pole?
Yes
2. Does the planet that you live on have a great ice wall encompassing the entire planet?
No
Yet you refuse to acknowledge that a model of the earth with a south pole and no perimeter ice wall is a more accurate representation of the planet that you live on. Why is that? How can you say that a model of our earth with a great ice wall and no south pole is just as accurate as a model of our earth with no great ice wall and a south pole??
I don’t think either proposed FE model or any proposed FE map fits our world.
I'm not asking which one fits our world. I'm asking which one most closely fits our world.
The often demonstrated weaknesses for journeys south of the tropics, such as to and from French Polynesia, the routes which jump from one side of the world to another to travel a thousand miles and other difficulties mean the FE models and maps are of no practical use. A major rethink is needed.
one of these models has a much easier time with these journeys. As a matter of fact almost all flights are mapped and tracked on one of these models.
1. Does the planet that you live on have a South Pole?
2. Does the planet that you live on have a great ice wall encompassing the entire planet?
Yes to 1.
Do you agree that lines of longitude converge at the South Pole?
If you believe that the planet has a south pole then I would like to point out that only one of the flat earth models I have shown on this thread has a south pole.
-
1. Does the planet that you live on have a South Pole?
2. Does the planet that you live on have a great ice wall encompassing the entire planet?
Yes to 1.
Do you agree that lines of longitude converge at the South Pole?
If you believe that the planet has a south pole then I would like to point out that only one of the flat earth models I have shown on this thread has a south pole.
So on the model which has a South pole, do lines of longitude converge at the South pole?
-
Both models 1 & 2 represent the earth equally well
How so? One represent the earth as an interactive surface with ice at the north pole and the south pole and a second one represent the earth as a flat circle with a great ice wall around the perimeter. They are two totally different models of the earth.
Well I don't consider the earth itself to have an interactive surface with a scale that changes as you move across it, so I don't particularly care that Bing has an interactive scale. If anything, that makes me less likely to think it represents any kind of reality. Secondly, where exactly is the south pole on a Bing map? It's not a single point, it's a horizontal line that stretches all the way along the base of the map whether you are zoomed in or not. That's no more realistic to me than the rim of the circle on model 2. At least with map 2 I can put a pin in the exact location of the north pole. Map 2 doesn't say anything about there being a wall, it's a flat 2D surface. Sure, many FErs add the ice wall part, but that's not something you can deduce just from looking at the map.
Also, I don't consider 1&2 to be different models at all, just different presentations of the same information. In much the same way you can create a spreadsheet with a bunch of numbers and then create line charts, pie charts, bar charts etc. etc. all representing the same data in different ways. All presentations are valid, you choose the most appropriate for the circumstance.
If you won't answer that question would you answer the questions?
1. Does the planet that you live on have a South Pole?
Yes
2. Does the planet that you live on have a great ice wall encompassing the entire planet?
No
Yet you refuse to acknowledge that a model of the earth with a south pole and no perimeter ice wall is a more accurate representation of the planet that you live on. Why is that? How can you say that a model of our earth with a great ice wall and no south pole is just as accurate as a model of our earth with no great ice wall and a south pole??
Both models are accurate in some respects and inaccurate in others. Model 1 is good around the equator and poor around the poles. Model 2 is good around the north pole, poor around the equator and poor around the south pole. How am I supposed to come to any kind of conclusion about which model is better than the other?
I can use some GIS software to zoom in as much as I want to on a particular area of a map using either model/projection and I can use haversine to calculate distances on either model (and they will agree with each other). I know this isn't instant and interactive, but who cares? I certainly don't.
-
On this 'interactive scale' thing, consider a map that is so large that one mile on the earth's surface = 1 mile on the map's surface. You could lay the whole map on top of the world so that every point on the map would be on top of the corresponding point in the world. But then the scale would not be variable.
There would not be a scale.
-
On this 'interactive scale' thing, consider a map that is so large that one mile on the earth's surface = 1 mile on the map's surface. You could lay the whole map on top of the world so that every point on the map would be on top of the corresponding point in the world. But then the scale would not be variable.
There would not be a scale.
Yes there would, it would be 1. But that is not my point. The scale would have to be 1 at every point, in order to preserve the 1:1 mapping from every point in the world to the corresponding point on the map.
Or to make the point in another way. (Suppose) I have a globe in my study, and I make a 1:1 map of it by wrapping a strong sheet around it. Can I then unwrap the sheet and lay it on the flat surface of my desk without tearing or cutting the sheet?
I think iamcpc's claim is that the Bing map with its variable scale can represent a surface which is perfectly flat. Although it's never been quite clear what his claim is.
-
Well I don't consider the earth itself to have an interactive surface with a scale that changes as you move across it, so I don't particularly care that Bing has an interactive scale.
But it is. When you see something very far away that is very small your brain knows that, because that small thing is very far away, the scale of the item is large. When I see the mountains, which are just a few inches tall off on the horizon my brain passively understands. When I look out the airplane window at 30,000 feet I know the scale of the surface of the earth has changed and, what was a very small distance, from the airplane is a much larger distance from the surface of the earth. If I took a picture from the airplane and drew a scale on it that scale would be much different than the scale from a picture taken at ground level.
If anything, that makes me less likely to think it represents any kind of reality.
I just gave an example of how, in the real world, a video of the surface of the earth should have an interactive scale.
Secondly, where exactly is the south pole on a Bing map?
It's not a single point, it's a horizontal line that stretches all the way along the base of the map whether you are zoomed in or not.
That's funny because I didn't see a line. I saw an area of land on Antarctica when i search for south pole on bing.
That's no more realistic to me than the rim of the circle on model 2. At least with map 2 I can put a pin in the exact location of the north pole. Map 2 doesn't say anything about there being a wall, it's a flat 2D surface. Sure, many FErs add the ice wall part, but that's not something you can deduce just from looking at the map.
If you search for south pole Antarctica on Bing you don't see a map. Even if you did see a line that would not change the fact that one model has a south pole and no ice barrier perimeter and one does.
Also, I don't consider 1&2 to be different models at all, just different presentations of the same information.
You are seriously arguing semantics about the word "model". Fine then. What "presentation style" do you believe most closely depicts the planet that you live on.
"presentation style" 1:
-depicts the earth as a defined area with a defined edge
-depicts the earth as having a great ice wall around this perimeter edge
-depicts the earth as not having a south pole
-not supported by know travel paths/times
-not taught in schools all over the world as a "presentation style" of the surface of the earth
"presentation style" 2
-depicts the earth as an interactive surface with no defined edge
-depicts the earth as not having a great ice wall (partly because there is no perimeter edge)
-depict the earth has having a south pole
-supported by know travel paths/times
-taught in schools all over the world as a "presentation style" of the surface of the earth
Both models are accurate in some respects and inaccurate in others. Model 1 is good around the equator and poor around the poles. Model 2 is good around the north pole, poor around the equator and poor around the south pole. How am I supposed to come to any kind of conclusion about which model is better than the other?
I thought you just said they were not models? Now you are saying they are models. The Bing map "presentation style" has an interactive scale which makes it much more accurate both around the poles and around the equators
I can use some GIS software to zoom in as much as I want to on a particular area of a map using either model/projection and I can use haversine to calculate distances on either model (and they will agree with each other). I know this isn't instant and interactive, but who cares? I certainly don't.
Can you show me, online, where anyone has made an interactive map out of the flat disk, great ice wall, "presentation style" of the surface of the earth
-
(Tumeni said "There would not be a scale.")
Yes there would, it would be 1. But that is not my point. The scale would have to be 1 at every point, in order to preserve the 1:1 mapping from every point in the world to the corresponding point on the map.
1:1 is not "scaling" anything up or down. It's life-size. Actual size. No scaling is involved.
Or to make the point in another way. (Suppose) I have a globe in my study, and I make a 1:1 map of it by wrapping a strong sheet around it. Can I then unwrap the sheet and lay it on the flat surface of my desk without tearing or cutting the sheet?
No, of course you cannot. You cannot unwrap the surface of any 3D object and lay that flat without doing this.
I think iamcpc's claim is that the Bing map with its variable scale can represent a surface which is perfectly flat. Although it's never been quite clear what his claim is.
It's perfectly (EDIT clear) why the variable scale is required, it's just a question of deciding whether to go through the rigmarole of explaining it all in longhand...
-
The Mercator projection is a 2D representation of a sphere. It has never been anything else since it was invented. If you think it's a correct representation, and if you agree that distances calculated with the haversine formula are correct, then you agree the Earth is a globe, that's all there is to it.
Looking at a Mercator projection and thinking the Earth is actually flat is a bit like looking at these representations of a dice and thinking a dice is actually flat:
(https://journals.openedition.org/kentron/docannexe/image/2777/img-1-small580.jpg)
-
I have not seen evidence that Web Mercator (Web-based WGS84 used in Google/Bing Maps) is based on a sphere. Various statements suggest otherwise - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
-
I have not seen evidence that Web Mercator (Web-based WGS84 used in Google/Bing Maps) is based on a sphere. Various statements suggest otherwise - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
???
Literally the second sentence:
"WGS84 represents the world with a spherical coordinate system"
What are you looking at?
-
I have not seen evidence that Web Mercator (Web-based WGS84 used in Google/Bing Maps) is based on a sphere. Various statements suggest otherwise - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
???
Literally the second sentence:
"WGS84 represents the world with a spherical coordinate system"
What are you looking at?
Keep reading:
"When assessing this claim it is found that the process is a complex system which pulls information from a large collection of smaller flat maps to provide information to users.[1] The measurement and coordinate information is temporarily reprojected and retrieved from flat maps with planar coordinates in order to provide accurate geospatial data.[2] The Latitude and Longitude coordinate system is described as unreliable and is not used to measure distances or area.[3]"
-
I have not seen evidence that Web Mercator (Web-based WGS84 used in Google/Bing Maps) is based on a sphere. Various statements suggest otherwise - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Citing a document which you or your associates wrote is hardly citation of a valid source of evidence. The fact that YOU have not seen some evidence is not, of itself, a proof that the evidence does not exist...
WtF is "temporal reprojection"? EDIT - Tom has corrected the grammar "This page was last modified on 31 July 2020, at 07:56."
Further EDIT as Tom was replying, leading to crossed posts;
Your quoted [1] cherry-picks its quote. The AGRC specifically says that users of the GIS need to know three co-ordinate systems, and you quote only one of the three. The first says;
"Geographic coordinates use latitude and longitude values to define positions on the 3D surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid, not a sphere. The ellipsoid and its accompanying anchor point that ties it in to the real world, are known collectively as the WGS84 datum. The WGS84 datum is what the constellations of GPS satellites use natively."
-
Citing a document which you or your associates wrote is hardly citation of a valid source of evidence. The fact that YOU have not seen some evidence is not, of itself, a proof that the evidence does not exist...
I didn't make the sources referenced. Those are conventional mainstream sources who say that the information comes from flat maps. The Wiki is largely a collection of mainstream sources with minimal commentary.
Your quoted [1] cherry-picks its quote. The AGRC specifically says that users of the GIS need to know three co-ordinate systems, and you quote only one of the three. The first says;
"Geographic coordinates use latitude and longitude values to define positions on the 3D surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid, not a sphere. The ellipsoid and its accompanying anchor point that ties it in to the real world, are known collectively as the WGS84 datum. The WGS84 datum is what the constellations of GPS satellites use natively."
And that article goes on to explain that the geographic coordinate system retrieves information from a flat coordinate system. Hence the title "The Earth is Not Round!"
-
Your quoted [2] also cherry-picks, missing out the earlier description;
"UTM NAD83 is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum, both of which are slightly different than the WGS datum. The advantage of the NAD83 datum is more accuracy for modeling and analyzing locational data in North America. As almost all of Utah fits conveniently within one UTM NAD83 zone (12 North), it’s the best projection system for measuring distance and area when working with statewide GIS data."
If you have to "abstract" the physical location in order to represent it in a flat, cartesian coordinate system, does that not suggest to you the absence of flatness in the physical location? Else why would you need to abstract it?
This datum is stated to be used because of the small size of the area considered, and its accuracy for this specific state, in its specific location. There is no suggestion this extends to other states, nor other countries.
-
Tom, why do you think the article includes an exclamation mark after the phrase "The Earth is Not Round"
?
EDIT; [3] expresses that the "WGS84's significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable."
but this is in the context of usage of their GIS system, there's no suggestion that this applies universally, either in other states or other countries. Note also the emphasis on "native coordinates" as a specific rider.
You also cherry-pick here, ignoring the previous paragraph;
"Web Mercator is relevant for 2 reasons and both reasons are related to basic, map display functions. First, it is great for maps of large areas, where more than the state of Utah may be needed. Second, it has become, and will likely remain for some time, the de facto coordinate system standard for web mapping applications, because, as mentioned above, it works well for maps depicting the portions of the globe we care about most, and because it performs coordinate conversion faster."
For an article which you claim has the title (excluding exclamation mark) "Earth is Not Round", they sure do seem to accept the globe quite a bit ...
-
Incorrect. The anchor point datum ties the projected coordinate system (flat) and the geographic coordinate system (round) together. The round system takes data from the flat system.
Tom, why do you think the article includes an exclamation mark after the phrase "The Earth is Not Round"
Because it is expressing that these are not systems based on a round earth.
-
Incorrect. The anchor point datum ties the projected coordinate system (flat) and the geographic coordinate system (round) together. The round system takes data from the flat system.
Tom, why do you think the article includes an exclamation mark after the phrase "The Earth is Not Round"
Because it is expressing that these are not systems based on a round earth.
The anchor point is specifically expressed as a "Centre of the Earth" anchor point. The Earth can only have a centre if .... Oh, go on, you know how this sentence ends, don't you?
The systems are stated as "physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system"
If the Earth were not round, there would be no need to abstract them, would there?
-
There are three things here: The round earth (geographic system), the flat maps (NAD84), and the anchor point datum ellipsoid that connects the systems together.
The anchor point datum "center of earth" connects to the geographic (round) system's "center of earth". It is necessary to connect the two systems together.
"abstracted" just means the data is put on a plane
-
"abstracted" just means the data is put on a plane
Why would you need to do this, were the Earth already flat?
What abstraction is needed to put the data from a flat, plane Earth onto another plane? None, surely?
There are three things here: The round earth (geographic system), the flat maps (NAD84), and the anchor point datum ellipsoid that connects the systems together.
Except the page you quoted explicitly states that the geographic and NAD84 anchor points are slightly different. Two anchor points, one for each system, so no connection between
-
"abstracted" just means the data is put on a plane
Why would you need to do this, were the Earth already flat?
What abstraction is needed to put the data from a flat, plane Earth onto another plane? None, surely?
What? The data needs to go onto some shape. The author is explaining that the NAD84 puts the data onto a plane.
If the maps were round one could say that the data is abstracted onto a curved surface. It would mean that the data is put onto a curved surface.
The maps are flat because surveyors and mappers use plane surveying techniques.
Except the page you quoted explicitly states that the geographic and NAD84 anchor points are slightly different. Two anchor points, one for each system, so no connection between
It specifically says that the systems work together and the data is re-projected from round earth to flat earth in order to be usable and gather accurate distances and area calculations:
"Web Mercator’s significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable. Where accurate distance and area calculations are needed, web-mercator GIS data must be temporarily reprojected to a more suitable coordinate system (UTM NAD83)."
-
Well I don't consider the earth itself to have an interactive surface with a scale that changes as you move across it, so I don't particularly care that Bing has an interactive scale.
But it is. When you see something very far away that is very small your brain knows that, because that small thing is very far away, the scale of the item is large. When I see the mountains, which are just a few inches tall off on the horizon my brain passively understands. When I look out the airplane window at 30,000 feet I know the scale of the surface of the earth has changed and, what was a very small distance, from the airplane is a much larger distance from the surface of the earth. If I took a picture from the airplane and drew a scale on it that scale would be much different than the scale from a picture taken at ground level.
Well I find that a very odd definition of an interactive scale. Using that logic I can look at a wall map and take a step backwards and say the scale has changed. OK, so on that basis, I'll say map 2 has an interactive scale because it looks smaller from 2 metres away on my screen than 1 metre.
If anything, that makes me less likely to think it represents any kind of reality.
I just gave an example of how, in the real world, a video of the surface of the earth should have an interactive scale.
Secondly, where exactly is the south pole on a Bing map?
It's not a single point, it's a horizontal line that stretches all the way along the base of the map whether you are zoomed in or not.
That's funny because I didn't see a line. I saw an area of land on Antarctica when i search for south pole on bing.
Well in my book, the (geographic) south pole is a physical point on the earth I could visit and stick a pin in, located at latitude 90S.
Try zooming in or out as much as you like on Bing maps, locate the furthest south point you can, right click (for a Windows user) and it shows you the position you clicked in latitude/longitude coordinates. You'll find the furthest south you can get is -85 or 85S. Similarly, the furthest north you can go is 85N. Basically Bing is not showing you the last 5 degrees at the top or bottom. That's 69 miles of the earth you are not seeing at each pole. You don't even have a north or south pole on your Bing map. At least map 2 shows the north pole correctly.
The reason you can't go all the way to 90° is that mathematically it would blow up because you end up with an infinitesimally small point at the exact geographic pole where all the longitude lines converge. I'm surprised that they actually ditch a whole 5°, but I guess that makes things easier to compute.
That's no more realistic to me than the rim of the circle on model 2. At least with map 2 I can put a pin in the exact location of the north pole. Map 2 doesn't say anything about there being a wall, it's a flat 2D surface. Sure, many FErs add the ice wall part, but that's not something you can deduce just from looking at the map.
If you search for south pole Antarctica on Bing you don't see a map. Even if you did see a line that would not change the fact that one model has a south pole and no ice barrier perimeter and one does.
Also, I don't consider 1&2 to be different models at all, just different presentations of the same information.
You are seriously arguing semantics about the word "model". Fine then. What "presentation style" do you believe most closely depicts the planet that you live on.
"presentation style" 1:
-depicts the earth as a defined area with a defined edge
-depicts the earth as having a great ice wall around this perimeter edge
-depicts the earth as not having a south pole
-not supported by know travel paths/times
-not taught in schools all over the world as a "presentation style" of the surface of the earth
"presentation style" 2
-depicts the earth as an interactive surface with no defined edge
-depicts the earth as not having a great ice wall (partly because there is no perimeter edge)
-depict the earth has having a south pole
-supported by know travel paths/times
-taught in schools all over the world as a "presentation style" of the surface of the earth
So style 2 doesn't show north or south pole, since it misses out parts of the earth. What is the north and south boundary of the map, beyond which you cannot go? Looks like an edge to me. The southern boundary is entirely white. Is this not an ice wall? How is this different from the white edge of style 2? Why do you say one area of white is an ice wall and the other area is not?
Actually a number of schools are no longer teaching using Mercator (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/19/boston-public-schools-world-map-mercator-peters-projection (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/19/boston-public-schools-world-map-mercator-peters-projection)) because they want to offer "something closer to the geographical truth than that of traditional school maps". It is acknowledged that Mercator portrays Europe and the USA as bigger (and by implication more important) than they actually are in relation to regions such as Africa and South America. Basically it's an old fashioned view of the world and gives children the wrong idea. In all probability, the majority of schools still use Mercator, but it's changing as people become more aware.
Both models are accurate in some respects and inaccurate in others. Model 1 is good around the equator and poor around the poles. Model 2 is good around the north pole, poor around the equator and poor around the south pole. How am I supposed to come to any kind of conclusion about which model is better than the other?
I thought you just said they were not models? Now you are saying they are models. The Bing map "presentation style" has an interactive scale which makes it much more accurate both around the poles and around the equators
In the very next sentence I use the term "model/projection" for extra clarity because you use the term model for what I would describe as a projection. To me, you can't view a model. The model is mathematics and data. Viewing a 3D globe on a 2D screen is an orthographic projection. You are looking at the projection, not the model. In my view, there is one model, based on a spherical earth and many projections of that model. Pseudo 3D on a 2D screen (i.e. Google 3D zoomed out) is one, "models" (your usage) 1 & 2 are others. I term these projections, you say model, that's fine, I apologise, my wording was careless.
I can use some GIS software to zoom in as much as I want to on a particular area of a map using either model/projection and I can use haversine to calculate distances on either model (and they will agree with each other). I know this isn't instant and interactive, but who cares? I certainly don't.
Can you show me, online, where anyone has made an interactive map out of the flat disk, great ice wall, "presentation style" of the surface of the earth
I'd be very surprised if such a thing exists, why would anybody bother? But if you want to show me a screenshot of a zoomed in area on Bing maps with a scale, I'll gladly have a go with some GIS software and reproduce it for you using the "model" 2 north polar azimuthal equidistant projection.
-
I have not seen evidence that Web Mercator (Web-based WGS84 used in Google/Bing Maps) is based on a sphere. Various statements suggest otherwise - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
From the 'Earth is not Round' article quoted: "Latitude and Longitude are useless for measuring distance and area because the unit of length, degrees, is not held constant for longitude, except along parallels -- individual perfectly east-west lines."
Well of course. Latitude and longitude are measures of location, not position. Points on a flat earth would have the same latitude and longitude as on a spherical earth.
The topic here is whether (1) the observations of flight time are a good proxy for flight distance, and (2) whether the distances inferred tell us anything about the shape of the earth.
The maps are flat because surveyors and mappers use plane surveying techniques.
"Geodetic Surveying is that branch of survey which deals with areas so extensive that it is necessary to take into consideration the true shape and dimensions of the earth". https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00050326.1935.10436447
In plane surveying, used for small areas, the shape of the earth is not a consideration because it makes very little difference.
Wikipedia: "Plane and geodetic surveying: Based on the considerations and true shape of the earth, surveying is broadly classified into two types.Plane surveying assumes the earth is flat. Curvature and spheroidal shape of the earth is neglected. In this type of surveying all triangles formed by joining survey lines are considered as plane triangles. It is employed for small survey works where errors due to the earth's shape are too small to matter.In geodetic surveying the curvature of the earth is taken into account while calculating reduced levels, angles, bearings and distances. This type of surveying is usually employed for large survey works. Survey works up to 100 square miles (260 square kilometers ) are treated as plane and beyond that are treated as geodetic. In geodetic surveying necessary corrections are applied to reduced levels, bearings and other observations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying#Plane_and_geodetic_surveying
-
I have not seen evidence that Web Mercator (Web-based WGS84 used in Google/Bing Maps) is based on a sphere. Various statements suggest otherwise - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
???
Literally the second sentence:
"WGS84 represents the world with a spherical coordinate system"
What are you looking at?
Keep reading:
"When assessing this claim it is found that the process is a complex system which pulls information from a large collection of smaller flat maps to provide information to users.[1] The measurement and coordinate information is temporarily reprojected and retrieved from flat maps with planar coordinates in order to provide accurate geospatial data.[2] The Latitude and Longitude coordinate system is described as unreliable and is not used to measure distances or area.[3]"
Right. To be honest, I'd missed that the page you referenced was from your own Wiki.
So you're backing up your own argument with your own argument? Compelling...
So are cartographers in on the conspiracy then? Pretending they're mapping a globe earth when they're not really?
-
Well of course. Latitude and longitude are measures of location, not position. Points on a flat earth would have the same latitude and longitude as on a spherical earth.
Latitude and longitude have no meaning on a Flat Earth. They are measured in degrees of angle; angular displacement between two straight-line vectors which meet at a point, with the angle being at that point.
Where do you define this point on a Flat Earth?
-
Latitude and longitude have no meaning on a Flat Earth. They are measured in degrees of angle; angular displacement between two straight-line vectors which meet at a point, with the angle being at that point.
Where do you define this point on a Flat Earth?
The coordinates are perfectly meaningful on a Flat Earth. We observe the altitude (in degrees) of polaris (or sigma octans) to find latitude, and the Greenwich time at which the sun is at its zenith (and multiply by 15) to find longitude. That gives us two coordinates, right?
-
Latitude and longitude have no meaning on a Flat Earth. They are measured in degrees of angle; angular displacement between two straight-line vectors which meet at a point, with the angle being at that point.
Where do you define this point on a Flat Earth?
The coordinates are perfectly meaningful on a Flat Earth. We observe the altitude (in degrees) of polaris (or sigma octans) to find latitude, and the Greenwich time at which the sun is at its zenith (and multiply by 15) to find longitude. That gives us two coordinates, right?
Right. But if that's how you're doing it you understand that degrees of latitude can only be a consistent distance apart using those observations if the earth is a globe? If it's flat then every degree south will get further and further apart.
-
Right. But if that's how you're doing it you understand that degrees of latitude can only be a consistent distance apart using those observations if the earth is a globe? If it's flat then every degree south will get further and further apart.
Depends on the FE model you are using. On the AE map, I agree. There are other maps, according to the wiki.
[EDIT]Sorry, re-read your post. You are talking about distance between latitudes, yes? I agree.
-
The coordinates are perfectly meaningful on a Flat Earth. We observe the altitude (in degrees) of polaris (or sigma octans) to find latitude, and the Greenwich time at which the sun is at its zenith (and multiply by 15) to find longitude. That gives us two coordinates, right?
In the first case, you have not determined a "latitude", all you have done is observe the elevation of Polaris from your location. You're saying that represents or translates to a latitude, where the latitude is something independent of the elevation, but you have no definition for what it is.
If you say the latitude is 15 degrees, then you are specifying an angle. If that angle is not the one drawn between your horizontal and the sightline to Polaris, then what is it?
-
... and, to get back to flight-related stuff, today's flight BAW6B, arrival LHR 13:35 on Friday 31st, is currently over open ocean, South of Greenland.
Observed at 10:45am UK time (UTC+1)
(https://i.imgur.com/g032P2y.jpg)
-
... and, to get back to flight-related stuff, today's flight BAW6B, arrival LHR 13:35 on Friday 31st, is currently over open ocean, South of Greenland.
I shall keep an eye out for it as it comes in.
And to get right back to the OP, are such flights hoaxes? We have the data from FR24. The fact that I can see the planes coming in to LHR from my window, and that I can identify both the airline and the plane type (but not the flight number) suggest that the data is authentic. Further evidence could be obtained from the departure and arrival boards online.
Then there is the secondary question of whether we can infer flight distance from flight time, which requires assumptions about how fast planes fly.
We would then have to look for evidence including wind speed. See e.g. the wiki https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis.
One experiment would be to find flights on the same route but travelling in opposite directions. If high wind speeds were causing discrepancies, then the effect should be equal and opposite.
Perhaps the subject for another thread.
-
The data needs to go onto some shape. The author is explaining that the NAD84 puts the data onto a plane.
Yes, and it needs to be ABSTRACTED because of the difference between globe and plane. If it were plane to plane, there would be no need for abstraction
If the maps were round one could say that the data is abstracted onto a curved surface. It would mean that the data is put onto a curved surface.
If the "maps were round", i.e. on a scaled-down model globe, then there would be no need for abstraction; they would be reduced in scale, but reduced in proportion, and no abstraction would take place.
It specifically says that the systems work together and the data is re-projected from round earth to flat earth in order to be usable and gather accurate distances and area calculations:
"Web Mercator’s significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable. Where accurate distance and area calculations are needed, web-mercator GIS data must be temporarily reprojected to a more suitable coordinate system (UTM NAD83)."
In the context of usage of GIS data. Not universally. Not in all other circumstances.
-
I have not seen evidence that Web Mercator (Web-based WGS84 used in Google/Bing Maps) is based on a sphere. Various statements suggest otherwise - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
It absolutely is, or if you want to be precise, not exactly a sphere but a reference ellipsoid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_ellipsoid). Do you take the time to understand what you read? Once again, you quote sources that say verbatim that the Earth is "best modeled as an ellipsoid" and try to make them look like they say something else. I genuinely wonder if this cherrypicking is deliberate and just a form of trolling, or if you're really convinced that you've uncovered a discrepancy in the geodetic model. If it's the former - well, fine. If it's the latter, please take the time to understand what you read.