41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flights from and to French Polynesia a hoax?

« on: July 02, 2020, 09:35:27 PM »

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.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flights from and to French Polynesia a hoax?

« on: June 28, 2020, 04:39:01 PM »

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.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flights from and to French Polynesia a hoax?

« on: June 23, 2020, 04:00:13 PM »

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

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spotlight Sun

« on: June 17, 2020, 03:01:25 PM »

If the Sun is casting light only downwards on the Earth but only to a specific region, then what is illuminating the Moon? 

I've read three different answers to this question. The answers, in order of most widely accepted, are:

1. The sun is illuminating the moon.
2. The moon is generating its own light
3. An unknown or undetermined light source is lighting the moon.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: June 16, 2020, 05:39:59 PM »

I challenge IAMCPC:

Northern hemisphere - Seoul, NORTH KOREA  to New York, USA - 14 hours (7000 miles) direct flight.


Southern hemisphere  - Sydney, AUSTRALIA to Santiago, CHILE - 14 hours (7000 miles) direct flight.

Best,

One of the rebuttals was the claim that, without the entire flight being documented and video taped, they would not be acknowledged as real.

The videos you have sent claim to be of long flights but the videos only last like 20-30 mins and are very clearly many different shots being edited together instead of one continuous shot. 


This thread was started as an inquiry to the possible rebuttals to the claim that these flights significantly weaken most of the dinner plate shaped FE models. I have given dozens of possible rebuttals even though some of them I disagree with.

Please read my post below. I have highlighted my response to the claim that these flights significantly weaken most of the dinner plate shaped FE models below:

There is a whole array of responses from many different view points about the whole flight times/paths/distances don't support the flat circle north pole center model. My response is that I believe these flights are real and that they weaken the flat circle north pole center model.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration

« on: May 29, 2020, 07:41:44 PM »

This analogy is not appropriate. In order to correctly simulate this, you'd have to find a way to switch gravity/UA off and on on demand. Bungee cords, platforms, or any other form of suspension won't do it.

Unfortunately, it is you who will have to "contend" with physics to make your claim work. Namely, the Equivalence Principle. If you find a way to disprove this principle, you will have completely destroyed the foundations of the Round Earth Theory. Aside from being an own goal, I somehow doubt your chances of success.

Your anecdote on the inner ear makes things even more complicated. You're no longer just discussing free-fall (which was already too complex for you to appropriately work with), but you are now introducing additional momenta and rotation. If you want to rely on that particular sensation, you'll have to adjust your experiment to include those factors. Notably, this is another case of abusing ambiguous terms - falling over is not free-fall, but you chose to refer to both as "falling".

This discussion will be useless unless you choose a scenario and describe it accurately. Mixing them up, or picking and choosing from completely different scenarios, is not going to help you understand the physics here.

Note that none of this touches on FET, not yet. We're just discussing high school physics.

I agree. After researching this the below video really clarified this for me.




After researching the Equivalence principle this makes a lot more sense. Thank you so much Pete! I understand now that a humans sense of acceleration vs our feeling of a gravitational field could not tell the difference. I love how people are able to make these things more clear.

Would it be a good idea to put this video on the wiki?

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration

« on: May 29, 2020, 03:24:22 PM »

It sounds to me like you misunderstood what I said previously. You can certainly feel your own weight. Lie down on your back and you can feel your back pressing against the floor (and vice versa). Sit in an accelerating car* and you can feel the car seat press against your back. That's all that "feeling acceleration" is in everyday scenarios.

What you felt when you fell was a brief experience of weightlessness/free-fall. This, too, can be colloquially described as "feeling acceleration", but it's a wholly distinct phenomenon. It sounds to me that by using an ambiguous term, you accidentally drew an equivalence between the two.

In the free-fall scenario, it follows from Einstein's Equivalence Principle that you cannot tell the difference between yourself falling down and yourself being perfectly still in an ever-accelerating body of air.

I did some research and found this video which explains this in great detail. Would there be any benefit to having this video on the wiki? It clearly demonstrates how it would be impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and a gravitational field.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration

« on: May 27, 2020, 10:23:14 PM »

Okay, here's the thing.
According to the FE theory, the Earth moves upwards due to a constant acceleration caused by dark energy/the Davis plane.

I first had an issue with UA because I'm able to sense acceleration and I don't sense the ground i'm standing on accelerating up.

Pete had offered a pretty sound explanation that, being born into this acceleration, you would not be able to sense it the same way you can sense other acceleration which, to me, made perfect sense. Sound logical explanation.



Another thing is that i'm not able to sense the acceleration of other things. Just myself. If a ball suddenly started accelerating toward me and I was not looking I could not sense that. If I was blindfolded in a car I could still sense the acceleration of the car.


Then I fell down today. When I fell I DEFINITELY sensed acceleration which I had previously discussed. This, to me at least, shows that I am the one accelerating down because i'm unable to sense the acceleration of objects outside of my body.

The same thing happened when I jumped off the diving board. I didn't sense that I was floating weightless. I sensed that I was accelerating down toward the water. I wonder how this observation is possible in the UA model.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 26, 2020, 01:41:40 PM »

I have had experiences traveling from Sydney to Dallas and back on Quantas Flight 7/8. Probably made the trip 7 times, was never once moved to a non continuous flight. The distance on an FE map from Sydney to Dallas is 17,181 km, while only being 13,808 km on an RE map. For the Airbus A380 to make the flight in the typical 15.25 hours, it would need to travel at Mach 0.92 for the FE distance and only Mach 0.75 for the RE distance. Given the average cruising speed of an Airbus A380 is Mach 0.85, it is difficult to see how it could make the flight consistently coming in at 15.25 hours if the FE model is to be accepted. I'll acknowledge that the Airbus A380 once reached Mach 0.98- however, that was in a full dive. The A380's maximum operating speed is Mach 0.89. Any explanations?

There are many different FE models and, according to the different FE models, the reason why the observed flight paths/times/distances don't match the predicted flight paths/times/distances are different. Dozens of reasons why have been listed on this thread already.


Here's a link from this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15877.msg204803#msg204803


and another one from this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15877.msg212388#msg212388

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 19, 2020, 04:55:02 PM »

I looked at the plane flight super thread links you posted soon after you posted them. At the time I don't think you actually said what your position was, just that the question had been discussed at length. Pretty much all of the links you posted seemed to be Tom Bishop saying something and everybody else saying "no that's wrong", so I didn't get a clear picture from that what your position was and what I was supposed to conclude from the super thread, other than there was no agreement reached (hardly a surprise).

To be honest, your position confuses me a lot. You seem to sit very much on the fence, sometimes appearing to side with flat earth and sometimes not. Even after all this time, I really have no idea what shape you would pick for the earth if you had to pick one.

I've explained this many many times and I'll explain it again. This is not a binary situation. You don't fall into two categories in which one person is 100% certain the earth is a sphere and one person is 100% certain that the earth is not a sphere. Tom Bishop for instance might bet 90% certain that the earth is not a sphere. You might be 95% certain that the earth is a sphere.


I'm a little more unique because I'm not as high of a percent that the earth is flat as other people here. I'm able to acknowledge there are huge holes in the FE models and no one model is able to explain things as thoroughly as I feel the RE model does. Based on my observations, if the earth was flat, i don't think it would be shaped like a flat disk and it would function more as an omnidrectional treadmill. I'm also able to admit that the FE idea does have some observations and thought experiments which make sense. I'm also also able to acknowledge that rebuttals for most of those observations and ideas were also presented.

In terms of these flights I believe that they are real, that we know the flight times, flight speeds, and flight paths. Because I believe these things these flight paths, in my opinion, provide overpowering evidence that any FE models in which the earth is shaped like a circle are most likely inaccurate.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 18, 2020, 07:59:32 PM »

I’m not shocked to come back to this thread to find it has eroded from deciding whether or not plane tickets are real

Well the conversation really should have been over when I posted the results from the plane flight super thread earlier on. I felt that answered pretty much all of the questions/issues with how flight times/distances don't support the flat circle model. If that's not enough then there are other forums in which a more active member claimed in regard to southern hemisphere flights which weaken the flat circle model:









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



There is a whole array of responses from many different view points about the whole flight times/paths/distances don't support the flat circle north pole center model. My response is that I believe these flights are real and that they weaken the flat circle north pole center model. The question was asked, dozens of possible answers were given. End of discussion.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 15, 2020, 02:32:53 PM »

"I" am doing engineering on jet engines in the real world and they don't need that level of accuracy, a claim made by you which is incorrect.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the building of modern jet engines requires less accurate measurements than what they were doing in the 1800's? I find a claim like that rather hard to believe and was unable to find any evidence to support or refute it online.

The real question you should be asking yourself no is why you're bothered about such a tiny error introduced

First off I'm not bothered by it. I'm pointing out that there is some part of the Bing API which is unknown or unclear.

I'm holding this up to the scrutiny of a first grade math teacher putting a red check next to the answer 1.999999999995 in the blank of 1+1 = __________. I don't think that's unreasonable

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 14, 2020, 03:46:11 PM »

I've got no way of measuring a turbine blade to 5/millionth of a millimeter

That's funny because, per the video I linked before, we had figured out ways to measure to one millionth of an inch over a hundred years ago.

On a similar note, I've got an apple in a fruit-bowl; one apple.  I add a second apple.  How many apples in the bowl? 

Two apples

Well, while I was picking the second apple, bacteria started reacting on the first apple and decay set in so, I've probably got 1.9999999995 apples. 

If you said there are two apples and decay and bacteria have removed .0000000005 apples. How many apples are left then the correct answer would be 1.9999999995 apples

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 13, 2020, 08:01:31 PM »

Lets couch this in a slightly different way, in a practical real world application.
If I asked you to machine some bar stock and produce three 2cm lenghts, and the three pieces were actually 1.999999995, 2 and 2.0000000000005 cm respectivley. Could you really notice the difference?
You couldn't measure the difference with a vernier guage or a micrometer, you would need very sophisticated equipment to detect the difference.
In what real world application can you see this difference mattering?

First off math is math. The answer is right or it's wrong. If you are trying to solve for x in the formula x + 1 = 2 then, out of all of the infinite possible answers, there is only one that is correct. In measuring the distance to grandma's house i would say that .0000005 CM does not really matter. But we're not talking about the distance to grandma's house we are talking about reverse engineering the distance formula used on a website. They are two totally different things with two totally different degrees of accuracy.


Second off small distances do matter.
There is an entire branch of science called metrology dedicated to precise measurements measuring to the milliong/billionth of an inch actually is important and matters from things like nano technology, computer processors, or the precision engineering needed in a modern jet engine where, if one blade is long by .00000005 CM and another blade is short by .00000005 CM the entire engine would either not function or function much less efficiently.

Here's

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 07, 2020, 04:38:09 PM »

you think it's representing a flat earth, that's great and all but you're wrong.

This is where you are wrong. I think that Bing maps represents a map of the earth regardless of what shape the earth is.  So please leave the shape of the earth out of it.

It's very common among the FE community to say that there is no map of the earth, regardless of what shape the earth is, or some variant of that concept or idea such as:

-We don't know what a map of the Earth looks like
-There is no map of the Earth
-We don't know the size and positions of the continents on this planet
-Long distances are unknown or unmeasured

Do you notice how NONE of those statements or ideas say that the earth is flat?  So please leave the shape of the earth out of it.

To further illustrate it:

-If the earth is a cube I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is a sphere I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is a spheroid I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is half sphere dome I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is a half spheroid dome I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is a half oblate spheroid dome I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is an oblate spheroid I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.
-If the earth is a flat circular dinner plate I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.

We could repeat this with an infinite number of shapes/sizes. So again please leave the shape of the earth out of it.

If the earth is [Insert shape here] I can still use Bing maps, or a variant of it, to accurately navigate this planet.





I very strongly disagree with this concept or idea that we don't have a map. I'm not talking about the shape of the earth, I'm only talking about a map, so again please leave the shape of the earth out of it. I believe that after hundreds, if not thousands, of years of advancement in things like navigation, shipping, GPS, surveying, cartography, etc that we are able to make a map of the earth. I'm not talking about the shape of the earth, I'm only talking about a map, so again please leave the shape of the earth out of it.







No. I do not think that Bing maps represents a flat earth. I think that Bing maps, with an interactive scale, represents a map of the earth. I'm not talking about the shape of the earth, I'm only talking about a map so this is where you are confused on my position.

Stop with the "interactive scale" stuff

Then stop with the "Bing maps is not accurate because the distances are wrong the further you get away from the equator stuff" because that is the canned response to that statement.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 07, 2020, 03:43:54 PM »

Great! and so what is your point? it functions as intended and isn't off by any noticeable error.

I guess we can just agree to disagree on what level of variation is considered noticeable.  if I said that 1 + 1 = 1.9999999995 I would consider the amount that equation is off to be noticeable. You don't. There is nothing wrong with us having a difference of opinion here.

Now look at your idea of the flat earth map and notice the poles are stretched from 0 which it should be, to 24,901 miles. That's a massive error and doesn't appear to be happening at the equators.

Bing maps has an interactive scale.

Why are you so extremely against such small roundings of numbers vs 24,901 miles or error?

I'm not at all against rounding.

you could complain that computers are off by a even a mile but it's still sure as hell showing to be more of a spheroid shape than a flat one.

Spheroid? I thought the earth was a Sphere, or was it an oblate spheroid? I'm confused.

your idea of what the map should be has a huge error which has been proven.

That's funny because like 99% of the population would agree that Bing maps, with it's interactive scale, represents a map of the earth.

Computers and maths are two different things.

Yep.  This has been strongly demonstrated here. So trying to compare non computer math to computer math is a little challenging.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 04, 2020, 10:21:49 PM »

A Car odometer, a device that measures to the one tenth of a kilometre, (one tenth of a mile in the UK or USA), so not very precise. They also generally measure distance based on the rotation of a wheel, whose diameter and circumference vary over time (as tyres wear), so also not exactly accurate.
This seems to be quite a different standard to the one Robinofloxley is being held too.

I must say Robin that I have enjoyed your explanation and work in this thread, it is an example of the unexpected educational threads that pop up from time to time.

Again we are talking about math and a mathematical formula. Go take a first grade math test. On the question 1+ 1 = I want you to put 1.999999995 and see if the answer is correct or not. Now try again with the answer 2.0000000000005. This is the results of a mathematical calculation, so as a result both of the answers listed before are WRONG even though they are very very close to being right.

Beginning to think you don't have a point to this or don't understand what people are saying. I asked above what you're trying to get across but you ignored that. We all know the limitations of computers when dealing with large numbers.

You can't give the absolutely correct value for pi, so does that mean the value you do give will always be incorrect for any purpose?

My point is that it's not robinofloxely who is being held to this standard of accuracy. It's the testing of the mathmatical formula which is being held to a high degree of precision which I have explained several time

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 04, 2020, 05:44:40 PM »

A Car odometer, a device that measures to the one tenth of a kilometre, (one tenth of a mile in the UK or USA), so not very precise. They also generally measure distance based on the rotation of a wheel, whose diameter and circumference vary over time (as tyres wear), so also not exactly accurate.
This seems to be quite a different standard to the one Robinofloxley is being held too.

I must say Robin that I have enjoyed your explanation and work in this thread, it is an example of the unexpected educational threads that pop up from time to time.

Again we are talking about math and a mathematical formula. Go take a first grade math test. On the question 1+ 1 = I want you to put 1.999999995 and see if the answer is correct or not. Now try again with the answer 2.0000000000005. This is the results of a mathematical calculation, so as a result both of the answers listed before are WRONG even though they are very very close to being right.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 01, 2020, 04:26:08 PM »

Bingo. And not just the Bing API, but everything ever run on a computer has the same limitations. That's why computers typically deal differently with two types of number. The set of integers, in maths, referred to as ℤ are all the whole numbers, anything which can be written without a fractional part (e.g. -19, 0, 120). The set of real numbers, ℝ includes all the whole numbers (i.e. members of ℤ), plus all fractions, plus all the irrational numbers such as π. In maths, ℝ is a superset of ℤ. In a computer they are treated separately.

This is then yet even more evidence that the bing API is not based on the haversine formula! The real true haversine formula is not constrained by limited memory where the bing API one is.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 30, 2020, 11:26:50 PM »

Most of these objections continue to assume that the Earth "has been accelerating for thousands of years", relative to some mystical univeral frame of reference.

So, for the guys at the back: there is no such thing as a universal frame of reference. Similarly, saying that the Earth is moving at a certain percentage of c without defining the FoR is not just wrong, it's meaningless.

Pete the issue here is that there has been some force pulling things down toward the earth for as long as we have history of. There are hieroglyphs from ancient Egypt depicting moving stone blocks along the ground because of some force which is pulling those blocks twoard the earth. That was literally thousands of years ago.

In UA this force is caused by the acceleration of the earth. Because we know this force existed for thousands of years, and the force is caused by acceleration, then the acceleration must have been happening for thousands of years.