*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 434
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #40 on: December 10, 2021, 06:02:44 AM »
Stack: Take a look at this map.  I mapped out the flight paths from New Dehli to Chicago and London to LA.  All of them encounter the same difficulties when trying to fly across the southern hemisphere.  They run into multiple Head-On Jet Steams.  Heathrow to Seattle runs you against maybe 4 or 5 jet streams.  Going north is longer but you only run into 2 at most.  Not to mention is colder, smoother, etc.. 

And to answer your previous question, it's about 7,500mi from Lax to Sydney with spherical Great Circle calculations.  Straight line I have it about 5,000 miles.

Duncan:  Your question as to why planes from New Delhi to Chicago go north rather then fly south is the same as Stacks question.  You would cross multiple jet streams and in hot weather at times.  They actually fly almost directly north to cold weather before going west to Chicago (as the map illustrates).

And why are Great Circles relevant to a FE?  There not except in the sense they follow the path of Jet Streams.

Steely Bob:  You asked about why planes don't travel near the equator since high altitude temperatures within the troposphere are lower than in polar regions.  True, but most commercial aircraft travel in the stratosphere where the air is thinner in polar regions which translates into less drag, increased speed, and better fuel economy. 

I also mapped out London to Buenos Aires and London to LAX.  Even though Bueno is closer, you have to travel in hot weather and against maybe 3 jet streams. 

Lastly, in terms of map dimensions and distance, I fully understand objections to a Flat Map and how exaggerated some regions are and very small in others.  This map tries to correct for that by shortening the south and bringing the northern hemisphere down into real size (barring polar extremes).  I listed the same distances across many continents and as you can see Australia and America are similar in width. 

                         
« Last Edit: December 18, 2021, 08:30:44 PM by MetaTron »
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3356
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #41 on: December 10, 2021, 06:41:13 AM »
Stack: Take a look at this map.  I mapped out the flight paths from New Dehli to Chicago and London to LA.  All of them encounter the same difficulties when trying to fly across the southern hemisphere.  They run into multiple Head-On Jet Steams.  Heathrow to Seattle runs you against maybe 4 or 5 jet streams.  Going north is longer but you only run into 2 at most.  Not to mention is colder, smoother, etc.. 

According to the globe jet stream map as transferred to your map, you would only fly over 3 jestreams from heathrow to Seattle and you wouldn’t be flying against them, literally just crossing over them. So that doesn’t work as an argument.
Additionally your argument doesn’t work because now you’re saying that flying from Seattle to heathrow could take great advantage of flying with 4-5 jet streams. You’re contradicting your argument.
And the “cold weather” notion you have would need to be born out through calculation and evidence. As in, how much of a speed advantage is it to fly in colder area to make up the 1000’s of miles a plane is going out of its way in your map. Your cold weather argument is not currently justified.

And to answer your previous question, it's about 7,500mi from Lax to Sydney with spherical Great Circle calculations.  Straight line I have it about 5,000 miles.

2500 miles would be roughly a 5 hour flying time difference from observed reality. What are your calculations for making 5 hours disappear? Not just words, actual real numbers as justification.

As well, on your map a flight from Cape Town to Buenos Aires looks like it’s around 2/3 the length of the US. So roughly 2000 miles. Same for Cape Town to Perth. Looks like in reality it’s about 4000 & 5000 miles distance respectively. What are your calculations for cutting more than half the real distances and subsequently cutting in half the flight times?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 755
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2021, 07:35:16 AM »
Meta - you keep mentioning this cold weather thing, but you are contradicting yourself and are also not quite right about how it works.

...Not to mention is colder, smoother, etc.. 

...And to answer your previous question, it's about 7,500mi from Lax to Sydney with spherical Great Circle calculations.  Straight line I have it about 5,000 miles.

...They actually fly almost directly north to cold weather before going west to Chicago (as the map illustrates).

...Steely Bob:  You asked about why planes don't travel near the equator since high altitude temperatures within the troposphere are lower than in polar regions.  True, but most commercial aircraft travel in the stratosphere where the air is thinner in polar regions which translates into less drag, increased speed, and better fuel economy. 

I also mapped out London to Buenos Aires and London to LAX.  Even though Bueno is closer, you have to travel in hot weather and against maybe 3 jet streams. 


Airliners don't tend to fly in the stratosphere, at least not by much. The 'sweet spot' is around the tropopause - the boundary between the two. At this altitude the air is at its coldest. The point, that you seem to agree with but then go against in the same post, is that the tropopause is actually warmer at latitudes away from the equator, and coldest at the equator. There is therefore no advantage whatsoever in flying in 'colder weather' as you put it, nor a disadvantage in flying where it is warmer on the ground.

Your method of counting jet streams is also a bit wonky I'm afraid. Jet streams seem to have acquired an almost mythical power on this site, whereby they are capable of magicking away all sorts of enormous errors on FE maps. The main problem you have with you analysis is that aircraft fly both ways, of course, and the routes they take generally aren't that different. Take the London to Buenos Aires vs LA example - it is further in both directions, using similar routes. That wouldn't make sense if the difference was caused by jet streams.

I also echo stack's question about distances. You can't have a 50% discrepancy (2500 miles on a 5000 mile distance) between two places and say 'close enough'. It clearly isn't - just look at the flight times between those two places. The jets would be flying very slowly, in both directions, if it was only 5000 miles between Sydney and LA.

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 434
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #43 on: December 10, 2021, 08:09:19 AM »
Stack -

LAX to Sydney measures around 4 inches.  Trans-Siberian Railway measures around 6 inches.  LAX to Sydney is about 66% of TLR's distance which is about 3,844mi.  I overestimated but allow room for error as open water distances are harder to map.

I measure 2 inches between Cape Town to Buenos Aires and CP to Perth.  And since Australia is about 2 inches wide and 2,500mi across, that's the distance I'd use.

I'd go into specifics on how I created the map, but generally speaking you take a South Centered Azimuthal Equidistant Map, then half the southern hemisphere and widen the continents so they reflect accepted travel distances.   Doing this pulls down the northern hemisphere and squeezes the continents so they aren't too wide.  You have to again squeeze them to fit.  After this, you double the northern perimeter of the map beyond 60N Latitude (which I didn't fully do) so vertical integrity is maintained and it doesn't look stretched anymore admitting however that horizontal land has increased up there. The Yeti would be proud. 

From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 434
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #44 on: December 10, 2021, 08:36:59 AM »
You're saying that airliners are flying in colder weather at the equator then near the poles?

A plane from London to LA flies in a similar route both ways because they are trying to fly within a jet stream or outside of it and usually pick the side with colder weather like near Greenland.

And yes, I agree the distances may not be perfect, but please keep in mind I do feel the planes are flying slower from LAX to Sydney because the wind is against them and its hotter.
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 755
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #45 on: December 10, 2021, 08:55:01 AM »
You're saying that airliners are flying in colder weather at the equator then near the poles?
I wouldn’t use the term ‘weather’, but yes, the tropopause air temperature is colder at the equator than it is at the poles. It’s not a rigid thing, of course, so we’re talking in general terms, but the important point to hoist aboard is that flying over a hot country at 40,000ft does not mean that the air outside will be hotter than that over a cold country - other factors dominate. I should also point out that the height of the tropopause also varies - it tends to be lower towards the poles.

Quote
And yes, I agree the distances may not be perfect, but please keep in mind I do feel the planes are flying slower from LAX to Sydney because the wind is against them and its hotter.

There’s lots to unpack there. Science isn’t about feelings - it’s about evidence. As for the hotter bit - you seem to have completely misunderstood that. Even if it was hotter, which it isn’t, that wouldn’t affect the speed, just the amount of fuel burnt along the way.

Furthermore, and again, your calculations have to work in both directions. You can’t have a headwind both ways to explain a discrepancy.

You appear to have started with your beliefs / feelings, and then attempted to make a map that fits them. That’s not how maps are created - we measure distances between known points through painstaking surveys and then plot them out. Centuries of progressively more accurate measurements have given us the wonderfully accurate maps we have. They work. And the only way they make sense is if the world is globe-shaped.


*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 434
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #46 on: December 10, 2021, 09:51:12 AM »
You're saying that airliners are flying in colder weather at the equator then near the poles?
I wouldn’t use the term ‘weather’, but yes, the tropopause air temperature is colder at the equator than it is at the poles. It’s not a rigid thing, of course, so we’re talking in general terms, but the important point to hoist aboard is that flying over a hot country at 40,000ft does not mean that the air outside will be hotter than that over a cold country - other factors dominate. I should also point out that the height of the tropopause also varies - it tends to be lower towards the poles.

That was good information thank you.  I'd just add that along shorter distances planes do not have a lot of time to travel at high altitudes in favorable conditions.  So, when adverse winds and higher temps do play a role, I don't think they have a huge advantage over planes zipping by up north.

If two people are running a marathon and one is bombarded by wind and temp and humidity I don't' think it's unrealistic to assume he will not travel the same distance in an equal amount of time.  Even half the distance isn't impossible


Quote
And yes, I agree the distances may not be perfect, but please keep in mind I do feel the planes are flying slower from LAX to Sydney because the wind is against them and its hotter.

There’s lots to unpack there. Science isn’t about feelings - it’s about evidence. As for the hotter bit - you seem to have completely misunderstood that. Even if it was hotter, which it isn’t, that wouldn’t affect the speed, just the amount of fuel burnt along the way.

I don't know how to respond.  I told you what I know about the issue and you disagree.

Furthermore, and again, your calculations have to work in both directions. You can’t have a headwind both ways to explain a discrepancy.

I don't know what this means?

From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 755
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #47 on: December 10, 2021, 10:40:11 AM »
That was good information thank you.  I'd just add that along shorter distances planes do not have a lot of time to travel at high altitudes in favorable conditions.  So, when adverse winds and higher temps do play a role, I don't think they have a huge advantage over planes zipping by up north.

It's certainly true that short-haul aircraft tend to fly a bit lower - the trade-off between fuel burnt in the climb means it isn't worth going all the way up for short flights. However, we are talking short flights here - typically anything over an hour or so, aircraft and airspace depending, and you'll typically be up around the tropopause.

Quote
If two people are running a marathon and one is bombarded by wind and temp and humidity I don't' think it's unrealistic to assume he will not travel the same distance in an equal amount of time.  Even half the distance isn't impossible

That's not a particularly good analogy. Yes, of course, headwinds make a difference, as it's a straight subtraction from the airspeed to get groundspeed, but you need to look at flights in both directions to get an idea of how wind affects duration. To take the LAX-Sydney example, it is typically around 13.5 hours from Sydney to LA, and about an hour or so longer in the other direction. On your map, that is a journey of around 5000 statute miles, meaning the aircraft would be averaging around 350mph. That is ridiculously slow for an airliner over a long haul flight. Your distance cannot be correct. But when you plug in the the conventional distance, is all works. Could it not be that the conventional map is correct?

Quote
And yes, I agree the distances may not be perfect, but please keep in mind I do feel the planes are flying slower from LAX to Sydney because the wind is against them and its hotter.
It's not hotter, as I've explained.

Quote
There’s lots to unpack there. Science isn’t about feelings - it’s about evidence. As for the hotter bit - you seem to have completely misunderstood that. Even if it was hotter, which it isn’t, that wouldn’t affect the speed, just the amount of fuel burnt along the way.

I don't know how to respond.  I told you what I know about the issue and you disagree.
I disagree because the evidence is stacked against what you are proposing. You seem to disagree because of your feelings.

Quote
Furthermore, and again, your calculations have to work in both directions. You can’t have a headwind both ways to explain a discrepancy.

I don't know what this means?


It means that we have to consider flights in both directions, as I've illustrated above with the LAX-Sydney example. We know the flight times in both directions, meaning we can't just magic away inconvenient failings in the FE maps by invoking 'anomalous winds'. It cannot be 5000 miles from Sydney to LA because if it was it wouldn't take 13.5/14.5 hours to get there. That is of course just one of myriad issues with the map you have proposed - I daresay if you look at flights across, for example, Canada/Alaska you will have similar issues because you have massively extended the true east-west size of northern latitudes.

It raises the question: what would it take to make you conclude that your map cannot be correct? You have the beginnings of some good science - you have a falsifiable hypothesis, in that you have proposed a shape and layout, and it is easily falsifiable. The problem is that it is absolutely false - there are numerous issues with it. So at that point a good scientist revises their hypothesis. Will you?

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #48 on: December 10, 2021, 07:26:03 PM »
It was (not is — Qantas has not operated that route in over a year) nowhere near close. At its southernmost point, it passed around 4000 km from the south pole.

As a matter of interest, QANTAS is currently flying from Australia to the South Pole;
31 December 2021, 09 January 2022, and 16 January 2022. They've been exploring
Antarctica by air since 1994, that's over 150 flights and 27 years.  And aboard these
chartered aircraft you'll experience unparalleled Antarctic viewing, with up to 4 hours
over the white continent. And with 19 different routes, no two flights are ever the same.

Prices start from AU$1199 if you're interested.  Personally, I can't afford it LOL.




*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3356
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #49 on: December 10, 2021, 11:06:07 PM »
Stack -

LAX to Sydney measures around 4 inches.  Trans-Siberian Railway measures around 6 inches.  LAX to Sydney is about 66% of TLR's distance which is about 3,844mi.  I overestimated but allow room for error as open water distances are harder to map.

I measure 2 inches between Cape Town to Buenos Aires and CP to Perth.  And since Australia is about 2 inches wide and 2,500mi across, that's the distance I'd use.

I don't know the exact inch measurements that you used, but the problem you're having and why there isn't really an accurate flat earth map to date is that distances must meet reality. You can't just arbitrarily make up distances just to cram things into your map. That's the exact opposite of what cartography is all about.

For instance, you have the distance from Cape Town to Buenos Aires at around 2500 miles due to your cramming. The problem is, in reality, it's like 4000 miles. So you're 1500 miles off, equally roughly 3 hours in flight time off. So:

A) What makes you think you can just make up new distances that don't jive with reality?
B) If you now believe in your 2500 miles distance, how do you explain at least a 3 hour difference in flight times from reality?

I'd go into specifics on how I created the map, but generally speaking you take a South Centered Azimuthal Equidistant Map, then half the southern hemisphere and widen the continents so they reflect accepted travel distances.   Doing this pulls down the northern hemisphere and squeezes the continents so they aren't too wide.  You have to again squeeze them to fit.  After this, you double the northern perimeter of the map beyond 60N Latitude (which I didn't fully do) so vertical integrity is maintained and it doesn't look stretched anymore admitting however that horizontal land has increased up there. The Yeti would be proud.

That's all fine and good. But you should start from reality first and then work your continents and such, not the other way around. For example:
- Seattle to Fairbanks, Alaska is about 1400 miles in reality. On your map, it looks like about 5000-6000 miles. How can that be?
- Greenland on your map at its widest point looks like around 7000 miles. In reality, it's just 1100 miles wide. You're 6000 miles off!
- From Moscow to the Bering Straight is just over 5000 miles in reality, straight shot. On your map it's almost double that, 10,000 miles!

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 434
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #50 on: December 14, 2021, 01:54:11 AM »

I don't know the exact inch measurements that you used, but the problem you're having and why there isn't really an accurate flat earth map to date is that distances must meet reality. You can't just arbitrarily make up distances just to cram things into your map. That's the exact opposite of what cartography is all about.

I'm not making up distances.  I'm trying to get real distances in accordance with FE Theory.  The Atmospheric Dome acts like a magnifying glass above the earth enlarging and shrinking the image as seen from space.  I'm trying to correct for that. 

And from Cape Town to Buenos Aires I agree it's about 2,500 miles compared to 4000miles on a RE as you say.  Why the flight time isn't three hours shorter is because the plane in going slower then believed.   

That's all fine and good. But you should start from reality first and then work your continents and such, not the other way around. For example:
- Seattle to Fairbanks, Alaska is about 1400 miles in reality. On your map, it looks like about 5000-6000 miles. How can that be?  I measure 2,500mies (see map)
- Greenland on your map at its widest point looks like around 7000 miles. In reality, it's just 1100 miles wide. You're 6000 miles off!  I measure about 8,000miles wide.  Has anyone double checked?
- From Moscow to the Bering Straight is just over 5000 miles in reality, straight shot. On your map it's almost double that, 10,000 miles!  I measure almost 12 inches and 15,000miles (see map)

Remember how refraction works with a Dome made of glass, water, or atmosphere ...  It magnifies the inner portion of an image and diminishes the outer portion, so these distances are kind of justified. 
[/color]

And SteelyBob if your listening, it occurred to me a big reason why planes travel more quickly up north is because they're closer to the edge of the atmosphere-dome where the air is much thinner. Likewise, towards the middle of earth where the atmosphere is thicker from top to bottom planes travel slower.
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1816
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #51 on: December 14, 2021, 02:44:22 AM »
Why is the air thinner near the edges? How does it stay that way? If it’s thinner, there should be lower atmospheric pressure and therefore a wind developed that would work towards equalizing that pressure difference.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3356
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #52 on: December 14, 2021, 05:28:34 AM »


I don't know the exact inch measurements that you used, but the problem you're having and why there isn't really an accurate flat earth map to date is that distances must meet reality. You can't just arbitrarily make up distances just to cram things into your map. That's the exact opposite of what cartography is all about.


I'm not making up distances.  I'm trying to get real distances in accordance with FE Theory.  The Atmospheric Dome acts like a magnifying glass above the earth enlarging and shrinking the image as seen from space.  I'm trying to correct for that. 

And from Cape Town to Buenos Aires I agree it's about 2,500 miles compared to 4000miles on a RE as you say.  Why the flight time isn't three hours shorter is because the plane in going slower then believed.   

What FE Theory? You mean your FE Theory, right? There are lots, and a South Pole centered one is kinda rare.

In any case, you’re going about it backwards, anti-scientific. You’re literally making up distances to fit with your belief rather than centuries of observation, measurements, & calculation. You’re sitting there in your desk chair saying, “Well, I need to squeeze together these continents I’ve drawn in my notebook to make it look better. So yeah, let’s just arbitrarily make it 2500 miles instead of the well known and we’ll documented 4000 miles. Why? Beacause it makes my map better looking…”

Do you get how wrong that tactic is? How bad science that is? You’re making things up to conform to your belief system. Why are you doing that?


That's all fine and good. But you should start from reality first and then work your continents and such, not the other way around. For example:
- Seattle to Fairbanks, Alaska is about 1400 miles in reality. On your map, it looks like about 5000-6000 miles. How can that be? 


I measure 2,500mies (see map)

You don’t simply “measure on your map” like it’s authoritative. You drew it to your liking in a notebook. It’s not based on any real measurements. Do you not understand this?


- Greenland on your map at its widest point looks like around 7000 miles. In reality, it's just 1100 miles wide. You're 6000 miles off!

I measure about 8,000miles wide.  Has anyone double checked?

You measured? You measured what? You measured your own drawing? Seriously?
Has anyone double-checked? Is that a serious question or are you trolling now? Planes fly over that part of Greenland everyday. You think pilots don’t know the distance? You realize they very, very closely calculate the fuel needed for every flight? To be 6-7000 miles off planes would be crashing left, right, and center.


- From Moscow to the Bering Straight is just over 5000 miles in reality, straight shot. On your map it's almost double that, 10,000 miles! 


I measure almost 12 inches and 15,000miles (see map)

Again, measure what? Your drawing? It’s not a map. No one can use your map. Planes would be crashing and ships sinking and trains never on time if anyone did.


Remember how refraction works with a Dome made of glass, water, or atmosphere ...  It magnifies the inner portion of an image and diminishes the outer portion, so these distances are kind of justified.

You’ve never used a dome. Only a chunk of glass that would crush us all. How do you explain pilots calculating the fuel necessary for a flight if they are 1000’s of miles off?
How come no one on the planet uses your “map”? How does humanity manage without your “map”?

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 434
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #53 on: December 15, 2021, 12:16:38 AM »
Why is the air thinner near the edges? How does it stay that way? If it’s thinner, there should be lower atmospheric pressure and therefore a wind developed that would work towards equalizing that pressure difference.


I think the atmosphere freezes as it approaches cold temperature and creates kind of an icy containment wall.  The icy shell might be cloudy, transparent, etc...   It's probably thicker at lower altitudes to contain the majority of air density in the troposphere.  Here's an article on Sun Dogs caused by the Sun's light refracting off Atmospheric Ice Crystals.  https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/01/20/sun-dog-michigan-phenomenon/2632165002/



Within the shell / Within the ice cube, the atmosphere is layered by different densities from heavy to light as you move up in altitude.  But near the Poles of earth, the air becomes thinner more quickly.  The very thin stratosphere for example starts at 4 miles in altitude versus 12 miles at the equator.  I'm not sure why - I used to think it's because your closer to space near the northern edge but seeing as it happens in polar south that sort of negates the argument. 


 
« Last Edit: December 19, 2021, 03:53:23 AM by MetaTron »
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 434
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #54 on: December 15, 2021, 01:16:10 AM »
Stack,

This is only a draft.  The distances aren't set in stone.  I even believe the distance between continents in the south may be greater than this map provides accounting for more water.   Just take it easy, these are new ideas and I appreciate your feedback.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2021, 01:17:48 AM by MetaTron »
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3356
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2021, 04:35:57 AM »
Stack,

This is only a draft.  The distances aren't set in stone.  I even believe the distance between continents in the south may be greater than this map provides accounting for more water.   Just take it easy, these are new ideas and I appreciate your feedback.

You "believe" is not the way to go about it. Because you put belief before facts you're never going to get anywhere near to reality. For one, what is "South" on your map? Everything between the South Pole and the Equator? For two, though your map is a draft, you're still starting out with made-up distances of your own design, not based on anything, no measurements, just what you would like. You realize that we know the exact distances? And yet you still make up your own. Why don't you start with the extremely well measured and well-documented distances that exist and are used and relied upon by millions of people every day. What makes you think you can just arbitrarily make up distances? Because of belief? If you're talking about religion, that makes sense. But when you're talking about cartography, navigation, science, that makes no sense.

Is it that you think that all aeronautic engineers, air traffic control, pilots, shipping captains, even rail engineers, are lying? Or are somehow mistaken? I just don't see how you can come around with just your belief and tell the entire world they are somehow wrong about how they can get themselves and/or their things from one place to another. It's an incredibly arrogant position to take and not based in any facts at all. Just your belief.

And if that's your thing, just belief and not facts, that's fine. But be clear about that and own it.

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 434
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2021, 04:49:59 AM »
Yes Stack, these are my beliefs, which I reserve the right to change at any time as new information becomes available.

And I see your point about distance problems...   LAX to Sydney on my Trintec FE Map puts distance at 8,250miles.  My map puts it at 3,500miles.  RE at 7,500miles.  And I'm using the ruler measurement technique where I equate a known distance like across Australia and compare it other places.

Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2021, 05:26:38 AM by MetaTron »
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3356
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2021, 06:37:00 AM »
Yes Stack, these are my beliefs, which I reserve the right to change at any time as new information becomes available.

Of course you reserve the right to change your beliefs whenever and however you want. Just for the record, no new information, at least in factual reality, has come up as far as distances go - nothing has changed.

And I see your point about distance problems...   LAX to Sydney on my Trintec FE Map puts distance at 8,250miles.  My map puts it at 3,500miles.  RE at 7,500miles.  And I'm using the ruler measurement technique where I equate a known distance like across Australia and compare it other places.

If you want any accuracy relative to reality, you would start with actual distances and work from there. If you want to keep doing what you’re doing, making up distances, have at it. But you’re just creating a map no more real than the middle earth or game of thrones map. Might as well show where the dragons are.
And btw, the trintec map isn’t an FE map, it’s just a South Pole-centered azimuthal map. You can make an azimuthal map centered on any place on earth. Just go here: https://ns6t.net/azimuth/

Here’s one I made with Chicago as the center:



Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.

Good luck. The real exercise would be to use real distances and map out your continents based upon facts, then see what it looks like.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 755
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #58 on: December 15, 2021, 07:23:08 AM »
Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.

This is the fundamental point. There is no way of preserving RE distances on a flat plane - the only way to not distort distance is to wrap them round a globe. Any flat presentation will have some kind of error - a ‘monopole’ presentation that preserves north-south distances, for example, can only have one latitude at which east-west distances correspond to the globe model.

If you believe in a flat earth, then implicit in that belief is that somehow almost every distance between two places on the planet is not what it is understood to be. That is a massive thing to allege, and it would also be very easy to prove. The wiki /TB seems to wave this problem away with vague statements about ‘anomalous winds’ , forgetting that aircraft can measure the wind…so they aren’t anomalous, they still get to where they were planning on going, and the wind can’t blow in both directions simultaneously.

To your previous point about the composition of the atmosphere…I think you need to do some reading. The troposphere contains almost all of the moisture in the atmosphere - that’s why you are almost always looking down on the weather when you are cruising in an airliner at or around the tropopause. Above that height things get warmer, not colder.

Airline pilots know exactly how fast they are flying, in every sense of the word fast - indicated and equivalent airspeed, true airspeed, groundspeed and Mach number. They also have very accurate distance to go readings. Your suggestion would require that thousands of flights everyday end up flying oddly slow, or over longer distances than expected without comment or question - that’s an absurd suggestion.

Like I said before, it’s ok to propose hypotheses, but when they are shown to be false you have to adjust your position. Again - the question is: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong about the shape of the world?

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 434
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #59 on: December 15, 2021, 07:53:13 AM »
Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.

This is the fundamental point. There is no way of preserving RE distances on a flat plane

I agree with you on this.

If you believe in a flat earth, then implicit in that belief is that somehow almost every distance between two places on the planet is not what it is understood to be

I wouldn't go that far.  We're talking ocean distance and polar region's, not well established travel routes 

To your previous point about the composition of the atmosphere…I think you need to do some reading. The troposphere contains almost all of the moisture in the atmosphere - that’s why you are almost always looking down on the weather when you are cruising in an airliner at or around the tropopause. Above that height things get warmer, not colder.

That's not totally true   If you Wikipedia "Stratosphere" you'll see that temperature is cold in the Stratosphere and only goes up as you approach it's 40km ceiling..  Planes enjoy flying around the lower Stratosphere to avoid Troposphere weather.


Your suggestion would require that thousands of flights everyday end up flying oddly slow, or over longer distances than expected without comment or question -

I'm always open to comments or questions
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?