Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BillO

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26  Next >
Nuh -uh!  I said stuff, I do not need data, I'm pretty sure I'm right!!

Now you're just trolling, and very weekly at that.
Hitchens's razor applies here.  You made a statement and provided no evidence.  It's worthless dribble.

Introducing a prior multistop route into the discussion of a long-distance non-stop route is typical of the BS you try to interject.. and I choose to ignore what I said myself.. and excuse me while I move the goalposts..
There were no long distance non-stop commercial flights in the celestial navigation days.  This is exactly the kind response I'd expect from someone that has absolutely no self awareness.

Not hardly, as the sphere that should be labeled as such by them is NOT the earth, but the celestial sphere above.
Very funny!  And I thought you had no sense of humor.  You are joking, right?

Enjoy your fishing trip.

They have not been making non-stop flights to Johannesburg from London for that long.
Where is your evidence for this?

Also, need I remind that your question was:
How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?

The 707 was able in 1950.  If you wanted a different answer, you should have asked a different question. 

When you compare those routes when they started to what they fly now, they are essentially the same, as I stated.
In what way is the route from London to Johannesburg the same today as it was in 1930?

In your original response, you chose to provide the route taken by Lindbergh, which...SURPRISE!!!...doesn't vary much from what is taken now. Projection?
No, not projection at all.  Is that another word you have trouble with?

Go back and read that post.  I specifically said it was like the route they take today.  I was using it as an example of one of the first great circle routes. Here's a reminder:
Quote from: BillO
Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles.  Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.

Yeah, one of the holes is using the dimensions of a spherical earth to arrive at a conclusion.
Yes, thanks for pointing that out, and not only is not a "hole" it proves their point as when they use a flat earth is does NOT work.

Your getting like Ranty now, working hard to prove the earth is round!!  Keep it up buddy!

How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?
Ever since planes with the range have been available, and that matters squat because they do fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg and back and they don't fly the old routes anymore.  On the slight chance you are asking in earnest, the Boeing 707 was the first airliner that was capable of making the flight.  It was first flown in 1950.  So, the ability has been there for 74 years.

You have nothing.
You have to love the projection here.  Scintillating!

Even that paper is full of holes.
So surely you can point out a few of these "holes" with your detailed reasoning as to why they are "holes", to help us all understand, right?  Or are you just making baseless statements?

If you look at a tracking site like Flightradar24 you'll find that the normal route is typically Balkans, eastern Med, Egypt, northern Red Sea, Ethiopea, Kenya, Tanzania, and all well to the east of a Great Circle.

Here is a non-stop flight that occurred today.  Virgin Atlantic flight VIR449 from London to Johannesburg.  With very slight endpoint deviation to allow for airport specific traffic patterns, follows a fairly precise great circle route.

Here's the same thing from Flightradar24:

I'm not trying to prove anything, other than the fallacy of Action80's claim that today's routes are essentially the same as when celestial navigation was used.

I agree 100% with your concept of modern air-routes generally being more direct, but you'll likely be looking at oceanic examples to get your point over.
Non-stop flights are great circle routes regardless of being over land or water.  That's what's shown in that directflights image.  There are route calculators out there and I used one to verify that fact.  However they do not produce single addressable images.

Glad you're feeling better btw.

If the routes are different, I would expect you to post evidence of that. You didn't. As a matter of fact, however, the example you provided with Lindbergh is very much "essentially," the same as those taken today.

I'm finally felling better and have a minute or two.

Below is a map for air routes in the 1930s when celestial navigation was used.  As I said before, zigzagging to maximize time over land and minimize the hop distance since those planes had poor range.

Here is a modern day route from London to Johannesburg.  Not very much like to old route, is it?

The only similarities between modern routes and the old routes is that to fly to SOME destinations to the south, east, west or north, you head kind of south, east, west or north respectively.

Also, key factor, celestial navigation does not and cannot work on a flat earth.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 17, 2024, 11:16:47 PM »
I'd honestly hate to have to choose between the two, but if push came to shove I'd have to go with Mr. Biden.

Trump is just full of himself, and where there's a little room it's all just shlt.  If he goes off script (which is frequently) he just strings un-related words together.  He can't even get his political opponents right.

Plus, Biden just seems less outwardly criminal.

The pick'ns be slim.

Not that there is much to toot about in Canada either.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The Science of Forgiveness
« on: February 15, 2024, 01:51:17 AM »
This is all the more reason to look into the knowledge which you are being denied.

I'm not religious by ant stretch of the imagination so a lot of what you wrote does not resonate with me.  However, this statement does.  I may be taking it the wrong way, but to me it means putting your confirmation bias aside and try to understand things that are new to you or that go against your current and familiar thought processes.  In essence, this is what science is about and is a requirement for true discovery.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The Science of Forgiveness
« on: February 15, 2024, 01:44:31 AM »
I've been told that I am too forgiving.
It's your greatest failing Juner!  But I forgive you.


I've just been diagnosed with COVID-19. I can't think nor focus either optically or intellectually.

I'll be back when I can.


I may have missed it, but it seems there was nothing in your reply that actually contradicted anything I wrote. So, thank you for posting the confirmations.
Right, I wasn't contradicting you.  Except that this is not generally true "It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged."  Most of the routes today are nothing at all like they were when bubble sextants were the in thing.

No, I was just adding some information that's more up-to-date than your Sopwith Camel vintage stuff.

Do I always have to contradict someone?

Thanks for providing that.  Short but sweet.  It was enough for me to do some additional research.

It seems the use of celestial bodies kind of went out of favor just after WWII.  Ground based VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Stations began to be deployed in 1950 and rapidly became the mandated method of navigation for commercial air travel.

Apparently, in 1983 GPS was first authorized for use on commercial flights by Ronald Reagan and has now essentially phased out VOR.

It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged.
This is not generally true.  The planes back in the celestial navigation days were not capable of long haul flights.  So most longer routes were done by flying zig-zag patterns to airports in range to make fueling stops. Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles.  Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.

Lindberg's route:

Modern route:

As far as transcribing patterns of the celestial sphere above to the flat earth plane below, there are multitudes of ancient earthly temples still in existence today that provide very visible evidence of this fact.
Quite possibly so, but not of much interest to me right now and of little application today.

The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.
This is interesting and quite a new concept to me.  I'm not a pilot nor an aircraft navigator.  Do you have an independent source you could share so that we can learn a bit more about it?

Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.
If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?   
To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"
He's obviously using the sinking/floating ship observation as an example that you can't trust observation alone to determine reality.  Although it should be pointed out that deducing reality from observation alone is not  the zetetic method.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Climate Change and Flat Earth
« on: February 03, 2024, 04:32:12 AM »
Actually, most climate models use flat earth approximations to simplify the calculations.  However, in the last 4 or 5 years efforts are being made to investigate using a spherical model for better accuracy.

Here is a paper form 2019 on the subject that anyone can get access to.  There are other's but most are behind pay-walls.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: July 10, 2023, 02:48:34 AM »
Apparently there is some complaint about being in 'dark times' -

Did you ever, Tom?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: July 06, 2023, 08:18:46 PM »

Ironic. Let me guess, you, too, incorrectly believe mass can be magically converted into energy? I guess in your mind, when you burn the gasoline in a car, it just goes "poof" and turns into energy.
That's NOT how it works.

Maybe you should look up how the bombs are claimed to actually work instead of quoting your favorite pop-sci equations.
Thanks for your concern, but there is no need for me to do that.  I already know.  Unlike you.

Here's a hint: even nuclear bomb liars don't claim you can extract all the mass of a nuclear bomb and turn it into energy! Wow! I hope you look it up and feel silly afterwards.
Your ignorance is showing again.  No one that knows what is actually taking place would ever say this.  No shame in not knowing, only in trying to pass yourself off as an expert when it's painfully obvious you are not.

No need to be so rude, especially after you said you were going to stop responding
So, still no evidence of your claims?  BTW "speaking out of your ass" is not an insult.  It's a colloquial term meaning "speaking from ignorance", which is just usually a statement of fact. 

... because nuclear bombs don't exist.
Yes, that is one of your ridiculous claims, and your evidence for it is ... ?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: July 05, 2023, 11:43:38 PM »
lol, Imagine the afterlife, Jesus trying to explain to Rushy that he was blown up by a nuclear weapon.
"Prove it, you long-haired, liberal, hippie freak!"
Rushy's ad hominem is a bit more subtle but I do get your meaning here.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: July 05, 2023, 09:26:57 PM »
Why does everyone say this? It's obvious how little physics you understand (bringing up e=mc^2). You should know you can't convert mass to energy in that way.
This here is 100% pure bunk.  Do you realize this proves, beyond any shadow of the tiniest doubt, that you do not understand the slightest thing about where nuclear energy comes from.  Yet you still feel qualified to discuss it and taunt me for wanting out of this discussion?  It is now obvious why you don't accept any of the evidence presented - because you are not able in any way to see that it is evidence.  So, again, no point it having a discussion with you on it.  You have just put in writing you don't understand any of it.

I don't have to provide evidence of something not existing, how many times must I state that?
Nobody is asking for that.  You have made some monumentally ridiculous claims here.  We are asking for evidence for those claims.  You have provided exactly none.  Which leads us (me, anyway) to think you have none and you were really just speaking out of your extreme lower digestive system anatomy.

Update here:  Let's add to this the fact that you are asserting that something that is already accepted as an established fact does not exist.  In this case, yes, the onus is squarely on you to provide evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the established fact is wrong.  Into other words that nuclear weapons don't exist.  The best way to do that is to use your superior knowledge to show they can't exist.  Another way would be to provide irrefutable evidence (in the true meaning of "evidence") that all the things that happened that are currently explained by the use of nuclear weapons are better explained by some other means (that's the thing you have not done).

The important takeaway is that you found a way to think you're right without supporting your position. Go ahead, run away from the thread. No one will miss you. "wah wah wah you don't like my extra good evidence of explodey pictures!"
There is no longer any point in arguing about nuclear weapons.  The only evidence you say you will accept is not something anyone here can provide.   ::)

On the other hand, if you like I can stick around to be a thorn in your side and we can discuss what actually constitutes what people call "evidence" and how it needs to be treated to be if use.  However, that subject is not likely to go anywhere as has been demonstrated by you gleefully rejecting evidence presented here without even taking the time to learn the significance of it to the subject at hand with a sound "Nuh uuhh"!  Besides, such a discussion would be off topic for the thread.

So I'll let you get back to your ad hominem rhetoric.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26  Next >