[StinkyOne]

to 3Dgeek   
Notice how all the examples you gave involve  explaining "why  crows don't fly straight sometimes".

I meant give me an example in math or any technology where the earth is not involved.

My hypothesis is that the only time the GREAT CIRCLE  comes into play with scientists is when things look perfect on a flat map and awkward on a globe map.   That's when they drag out the great circle;  but nowhere else in science or mathematics.   

Yea, give me non-earth  examples.

Terry, you really could do a little of this leg work yourself. It is the shortest distance between two point on a sphere and can be used in any situation that is important. The math is below.

The great circle distance is then
 d=acos^(-1)[cosdelta_1cosdelta_2cos(lambda_1-lambda_2)+sindelta_1sindelta_2].

[Terry50]

Definition of stupidity:  Jura-Glenlivet            

[3DGeek]

to 3Dgeek   
Notice how all the examples you gave involve  explaining "why  crows don't fly straight sometimes".

I meant give me an example in math or any technology where the earth is not involved.

My hypothesis is that the only time the GREAT CIRCLE  comes into play with scientists is when things look perfect on a flat map and awkward on a globe map.   That's when they drag out the great circle;  but nowhere else in science or mathematics.   

Yea, give me non-earth  examples.

Sure:  Take a nice large ball...a basketball, or a bowling ball will do nicely.   Mark two points on it...put them a good distance apart.   Now, take a length of thread, tape one end to the first mark and the other end to the second mark.   If the thread is tight, it will follow a "Great Circle" path across the ball...because that is the shortest path  (if it wasn't the shortest path, then you'd be able to pull the thread tighter).

Do this with a globe (a three-dimensional map of the Round Earth) - and look where the thread lies...notice the path it takes across the oceans and continents.   Stretch your thread between two large cities and compare it to the maps that the airlines put out showing the routes their long distance flights take.   Mostly - they follow the same path that your piece of thread takes - because the shortest distance between two points on a sphere is a "great circle".   Sometimes airlines cannot take the great circle route because of political or air traffic control considerations - US airlines don't over-fly North Korea these days - but long distance flights over oceans are almost always great circles.

The reason great circle routes confuse people is this:

When you try to flatten a sphere out into a flat paper map - there are GUARANTEED to be some distortions - some parts of the map are stretched and other parts are squished.

When you distort a "great circle" path onto a flat map, the result is some weird curve (which exact shape depends on which "projection" was used to flatten out the map).

So when you look on a flat map, great circle routes LOOK very inefficient.  They aren't the shortest paths across the map...but the problem isn't with the route - the problem is with the map itself.

Are "great circles" used in other ways?   Presumably.   Every time anyone needs the shortest distance across a sphere.   It's hard to come up with examples though.  We use spheres often enough...we make balls for sports, balls for kids to play with, ball bearings...but I'm having a hard time thinking of other things.   Does anyone really care about the distance over a ball bearing or a basketball?   I guess not.

Just because you can't come up with another example of something doesn't make it untrue.

[Terry50]

did you see the article where the guy was flying from New York to London.   
In the middle of the flight he saw snow.  The lady said - oh, that's because we are flying over Greenland.   
On a flat map,  you go straight over greenland to get to London.  But when you draw that route on a globe you go off 100's of miles. 

Great circle or no great circle, the plane was supposedly flying hundreds of miles off route.   And you know what made me a believer in flat earth is -  Follow the Money.     The airlines are not going to waste all that fuel for nothing.   They fly the straightest path possible.
The mother of all Great Circles  is Linus's   Great Pumpkin.     Some people may as well believe in It also.  ha ha   

[Ga_x2]

did you see the article where the guy was flying from New York to London.   
In the middle of the flight he saw snow.  The lady said - oh, that's because we are flying over Greenland.   
On a flat map,  you go straight over greenland to get to London.  But when you draw that route on a globe you go off 100's of miles. 

Great circle or no great circle, the plane was supposedly flying hundreds of miles off route.   And you know what made me a believer in flat earth is -  Follow the Money.     The airlines are not going to waste all that fuel for nothing.   They fly the straightest path possible.

actually the difference is in the order of 2-300 miles, (ca 10% of the total) and my supposition would be that it would be amply offset by the safety of flying over or near land, instead of over the ocean.

But that's actually moot, because in no FE map I've ever seen the route from London to New York would fly you over Greenland. Do you have a different FE map you would want to submit?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

did you see the article where the guy was flying from New York to London.   
In the middle of the flight he saw snow.  The lady said - oh, that's because we are flying over Greenland.   
On a flat map,  you go straight over greenland to get to London.  But when you draw that route on a globe you go off 100's of miles. 

Great circle or no great circle, the plane was supposedly flying hundreds of miles off route.   And you know what made me a believer in flat earth is -  Follow the Money.     The airlines are not going to waste all that fuel for nothing.   They fly the straightest path possible.
The mother of all Great Circles  is Linus's   Great Pumpkin.     Some people may as well believe in It also.  ha ha   

It must be said, that your powers of scrutiny re the veracity of what you read and post is not impressive, having said that at the moment there are currently 2 hurricanes (Maria & Lee 26th sept 2017) heading North and North-east across the Atlantic, come the weekend they will be level with Newfoundland, as such any airliner will be doing its best to avoid the remnants of these weather systems (probably post tropical storms by then) and will almost definitely going out of their way to do this, where do you think such aircraft may go?

[JHelzer]

On a flat map,  you go straight over greenland to get to London.  But when you draw that route on a globe you go off 100's of miles. 

False. No model shows the shortest path straight over greenland.

Follow the Money.     The airlines are not going to waste all that fuel for nothing.   They fly the straightest path possible.

True.  Excellent logic.

And you know what made me a believer in flat earth is -  Follow the Money.     

Confused.  This should make you a round earth believer.  Perhaps the initial false premise is throwing you off.

[TomInAustin]

To Terry, Definition;

To redefine stupidity, one sentence at a time.

We need a like button

[StinkyOne]

To Terry, Definition;

To redefine stupidity, one sentence at a time.

We need a like button

I can't tell you the number of times I have deleted unkind comments towards Terry. He seems to take anything flat Earthy as 100% true without putting any thought into it. Planes flying over the sun, FFS. Even in his dome, that can't happen.

Terry, what a woman says on a flight doesn't make it true. They were probably over New Foundland since most routes don't cross Greenland.

[stygianumbra]

to Pyscho
Nobody gets obliterated around here because everybody is so stubborn - they don't believe you when you hit them with the truth right between their eyes.   

I am sssooooooooo   humble,   (stretching the imagination)   that only "I"  have the power around here to see my mistakes when pointed out.   I remember the last time that happened about 30 years ago.....

The problem here lies in the reasonability of evidence and the use of logic to arrive at a conclusion. Nobody can prove that there is not a pink teapot somewhere in the universe that created everything and we should all be hailing to a pink teapot. However it is very highly improbable therefore not reasonable or logical given other evidence.

If you go to sleep in your house and wake up to see snow on the ground outside do you automatically assume someone must of used a snow machine and cover the ground to fool you? Probably not because it's reasonable to assume that it snowed while you were sleeping.