[charlesag]

I was looking at the flat earth map it takes 16 hours to get to Buenas Aires to Sydney. what route does take?

[Ghost of V]

The route you'd normally take, straight to Flat Earth General.

[Vindictus]

The route you'd normally take, straight to Flat Earth General.

rekt

[charlesag]

Not sure you answered my question. If you look at a current flat earth map the quickest route between those points flies over the arctic. But that distance appears to be approximately 18 to 20 k miles. The flight takes 16 hours x 500 mph= 9,000. Not sure what you mean by ''route you'd normanly take''

[pilot172]

don't know why you would wanna go to Sydney, full of car bombs, dollies and bogans

[Thork]

Not sure you answered my question.

No one is likely to because you posted it in the lounge. I'm not sure why a mod hasn't moved it.

[Blanko]

Not sure you answered my question.

No one is likely to because you posted it in the lounge. I'm not sure why a mod hasn't moved it.

>mfw

[Ghost of V]

Not sure you answered my question. If you look at a current flat earth map the quickest route between those points flies over the arctic. But that distance appears to be approximately 18 to 20 k miles. The flight takes 16 hours x 500 mph= 9,000. Not sure what you mean by ''route you'd normanly take''

It was a snarky joke because you posted your question in the wrong forum. Forgive me.

To answer your question, any discrepancy in distance and time it takes to travel to one location on the Flat Earth map is due to government/conspiracy involvement. Pilots are paid by the government to fly around longer than they should, thus making it seem like the "correct" distance has been achieved under a Round Earth model. Trips that would theoretically take several hours to complete in a plane actually take much less time than you are led to believe. This is because the pilots circle around the same location several times before taking you to your actual destination.

I hope this answered your question.  if I missed the point please rephrase.

[inquisitive]

Not sure you answered my question. If you look at a current flat earth map the quickest route between those points flies over the arctic. But that distance appears to be approximately 18 to 20 k miles. The flight takes 16 hours x 500 mph= 9,000. Not sure what you mean by ''route you'd normanly take''

It was a snarky joke because you posted your question in the wrong forum. Forgive me.

To answer your question, any discrepancy in distance and time it takes to travel to one location on the Flat Earth map is due to government/conspiracy involvement. Pilots are paid by the government to fly around longer than they should, thus making it seem like the "correct" distance has been achieved under a Round Earth model. Trips that would theoretically take several hours to complete in a plane actually take much less time than you are led to believe. This is because the pilots circle around the same location several times before taking you to your actual destination.

I hope this answered your question.  if I missed the point please rephrase.

Distances above/inside the equator are shorter, below/outside they are longer.  Please explain.

flightradar24 shows any odd circling etc.?

[Ghost of V]

Distances above/inside the equator are shorter, below/outside they are longer.  Please explain.

No.


Please read the FAQs.

[Pete Svarrior]

Distances above/inside the equator are shorter, below/outside they are longer.  Please explain.

No.


Please read the FAQs.

Don't waste your time with him. He doesn't get it.

[inquisitive]

Distances above/inside the equator are shorter, below/outside they are longer.  Please explain.

No.

Please read the FAQs.

Where is this explained, can't find it?

[Nonbeliever]

To answer your question, any discrepancy in distance and time it takes to travel to one location on the Flat Earth map is due to government/conspiracy involvement. Pilots are paid by the government to fly around longer than they should, thus making it seem like the "correct" distance has been achieved under a Round Earth model. Trips that would theoretically take several hours to complete in a plane actually take much less time than you are led to believe. This is because the pilots circle around the same location several times before taking you to your actual destination.

This bumps the number of people in on the secret of the FE up roughly another hundred thousand in the US alone. (Sauce- http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/airline-and-commercial-pilots.htm AND that's just counting pilots)... yet no whistle blowers. I don't find that very plausible.

[Gulliver]

To answer your question, any discrepancy in distance and time it takes to travel to one location on the Flat Earth map is due to government/conspiracy involvement. Pilots are paid by the government to fly around longer than they should, thus making it seem like the "correct" distance has been achieved under a Round Earth model. Trips that would theoretically take several hours to complete in a plane actually take much less time than you are led to believe. This is because the pilots circle around the same location several times before taking you to your actual destination.

This bumps the number of people in on the secret of the FE up roughly another hundred thousand. (Sauce- http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/airline-and-commercial-pilots.htm AND that's just counting pilots)... yet no whistle blowers. I don't find that very plausible.

It's actually a lot worse than that for FET. Passengers can detect "flying around". Observers on the ground can detect "flying around". Users of real-time tracking of flights and sea voyages, using--for example--http://flightaware.com/, can detect "flying around". So Vauxhall's explanation is quite foolish.

[Pete Svarrior]

Passengers can detect "flying around".

Please substantiate this claim.

Observers on the ground can detect "flying around".

Please substantiate this claim.

Users of real-time tracking of flights and sea voyages, using--for example--http://flightaware.com/, can detect "flying around".

Oh, right, because that gives us accurate information as to where the planes actually are, as opposed to plotting e.g. $timeelapsed/$timeexpected on a line. I guess all we need to do is type in MH370 into this magnificent tool and we'll immediately detect where the missing plane has gone!

No, wait, of course this won't happen, because tools like this are utterly useless for anything other than figuring out if your friend that you're about to pick up from the airport is going to land on time.

So Vauxhall's explanation is quite foolish.

Please provide some evidence to this claim before making it. A conclusion based on false assumptions is useless.

[Gulliver]

Passengers can detect "flying around".

Please substantiate this claim.

See Newtown's First Law of Motion.

Observers on the ground can detect "flying around".

Please substantiate this claim.

Humans can see airplanes over extended periods of time and be able to note when their courses do not match tracking data or follow sensible flight paths.

Users of real-time tracking of flights and sea voyages, using--for example--http://flightaware.com/, can detect "flying around".

Oh, right, because that gives us accurate information as to where the planes actually are, as opposed to plotting e.g. $timeelapsed/$timeexpected on a line. I guess all we need to do is type in MH370 into this magnificent tool and we'll immediately detect where the missing plane has gone!

No, wait, of course this won't happen, because tools like this are utterly useless for anything other than figuring out if your friend that you're about to pick up from the airport is going to land on time.

Wrong. In the case of MN379: The tracking systems would have worked, but someone or something turned off the transponder and its backup. In the general case, FlightAware and its ilk are accurate within 5 minutes see: http://flightaware.com/about/faq#howlive

So Vauxhall's explanation is quite foolish.

Please provide some evidence to this claim before making it. A conclusion based on false assumptions is useless.

Please tell me where I made any assumption or based anything on a false assumption. Also my post was a challenge VH's unsupported claims. VH amde the claims, so you should be challenging him, not me.

[Pete Svarrior]

See Newtown's First Law of Motion.

Assuming you mean "Newton's", congratulations, you just referenced something irrelevant. Matter outstanding.

Humans can see airplanes over extended periods of time and be able to note when their courses do not match tracking data or follow sensible flight paths.

I asked you to substantiate your claim, not restate it with more words. Please pay attention. Matter outstanding.

Wrong. In the case of MN379: The tracking systems would have worked, but someone or something turned off the transponder and its backup. In the general case, FlightAware and its ilk are accurate within 5 minutes see: http://flightaware.com/about/faq#howlive

Thank you for the link. I'm pleased to see that it confirms my suspicions about how the data is calculated (granted, it's not surprising that it does, since I sourced my original claim from the very same page):

FlightAware compiles, aggregates, and processes data from over 45 government sources (in Europe, North America, and Oceania), dozens of airlines, commercial data providers, as well as hundreds of receivers in FlightAware's ADS-B flight tracking network. FlightAware's proprietary algorithms calculate delay and arrival time estimates to offer the most up-to-date and reliable flight tracking data on the Internet.

Oh my. You didn't think it magically tracks every plane's every move, did you now?

Please tell me where I made any assumption or based anything on a false assumption.

See multiple matters outstanding above.

Also my post was a challenge VH's unsupported claims. VH amde the claims, so you should be challenging him, not me.

As you rightly pointed out, Vauxhall is already being challenged - there's no point in two people doing the same thing. Meanwhile, someone needs to keep you in check - otherwise people might think that you actually put some effort into your posts, or even be tricked into believing you.

[inquisitive]

Aircraft tracking systems are being improved to send their location maybe every 15 minutes to a satellite.

[Ghost of V]

It's actually a lot worse than that for FET. Passengers can detect "flying around". Observers on the ground can detect "flying around". Users of real-time tracking of flights and sea voyages, using--for example--http://flightaware.com/, can detect "flying around". So Vauxhall's explanation is quite foolish.

You claim that passengers can "detect flying around". How so?

Are you saying that you'd "detect flying around", so everyone should be able to? If so: I believe that's a huge logical leap.

Do you realize you're basing your entire argument on a fallacy?

[Gulliver]

It's actually a lot worse than that for FET. Passengers can detect "flying around". Observers on the ground can detect "flying around". Users of real-time tracking of flights and sea voyages, using--for example--http://flightaware.com/, can detect "flying around". So Vauxhall's explanation is quite foolish.

You claim that passengers can "detect flying around". How so?

Are you saying that you'd "detect flying around", so everyone should be able to? If so: I believe that's a huge logical leap.

Do you realize you're basing your entire argument on a fallacy?

I believe that I've answered your questions in FEG today. I hope that helps.