Hello guys,
As you know that i'm working on world map and have enought experience about fliying times and distances.
I calculated the connection about flight time and distances as follow:
Maximum value of distance is fliying time / 1,306.
Oppositely if we want to calculate fliying time as estimate, we should use this formula as a good estimate:
fliying time = distance x 1,306.
You can use this formula for calculate your fliying time to anywhere.
Anyway.
For example:
Now.
There is an arror on round earth map about fliying times and proves the map is wrong:
From Japan To USA.
This is a fliying path:(http://4.1m.yt/SnnVBOZ.png)
From Japan to San Fransisco. Path is 8.702 and gets about 8:30 hours.
Lets calculate the ratio:
ratio = 8,50 / 8.702 = 0,97
This means plane fliying with a speed higher than 1.000 kms that planes don't do that. This is impossible for average speed of planes.
Lets calculate the true distance according to this flying time:
8,50 / 1,306 = 6.500 kms. About 1200 kms closer than shown!
Tokyo is closer than shown on the map to the USA !
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Airline%20Flights/FlightRadar24%20SFO%20to%20NRT%20All%20Nippon%20Airways_zpsfsojoqlm.png) FlightRadar24 SFO to NRT All Nippon Airways | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Airline%20Flights/FlightRadar24%20NRT%20to%20SFO%20All%20Nippon%20Airways_zpsst8faxcq.png) FlightRadar24 NRT to SFO All Nippon Airways |
Nor have you taken into account that three different Boeing are being used, with different top speeds, Airbus, Boeing 757 and Boeing 787. What about the wind speeds at the time during their flights! Very scientific approach would take a lot more information into account.
Hello guys,
As you know that i'm working on world map and have enought experience about fliying times and distances.
I calculated the connection about flight time and distances as follow:
Maximum value of distance is fliying time / 1,306.
Oppositely if we want to calculate fliying time as estimate, we should use this formula as a good estimate:
fliying time = distance x 1,306.
You can use this formula for calculate your fliying time to anywhere.
Anyway.
For example:
Now.
There is an arror on round earth map about fliying times and proves the map is wrong:
From Japan To USA.
This is a fliying path:(http://4.1m.yt/SnnVBOZ.png)
From Japan to San Fransisco. Path is 8.702 and gets about 8:30 hours.
Lets calculate the ratio:
ratio = 8,50 / 8.702 = 0,97
This means plane fliying with a speed higher than 1.000 kms that planes don't do that. This is impossible for average speed of planes.
Lets calculate the true distance according to this flying time:
8,50 / 1,306 = 6.500 kms. About 1200 kms closer than shown!
Tokyo is closer than shown on the map to the USA !
No, it is not! Have you ever heard of the "Jet Stream"? West to East flights get assistance from quite strong tailwinds, but East to West flights usually have to fly into headwinds. You have been told about this numerous times, but you take absolutely no notice of anyone and keep on making errors.
Look at these two flights the first from San Francisco (SFO) to Tokyo (NRT) and the second the other way from Tokyo to San Francisco.
FlightRadar24 SFO to NRT All Nippon Airways
FlightRadar24 NRT to SFO All Nippon Airways
That San Francisco to Tokyo flight takes 10 hrs and 00 min to cover 8,237 km, while the Tokyo to San Francisco flight takes 7 hrs and 55 min to cove the same distance.
The West to East flight takes over 2 hours more to cover the same distance. The distances shown are simply the "Great Circle" routes.
Probably the actual distances flown could be found from the detailed flight logs.
The average ground speeds are 824 km/hr and 1,040 km/hr. The typical cruising speed of a Boeing 777-381 is about 892 km/h, so you see that
the flight from San Francisco to Tokyo had some headwinds and
the flight from Tokyo to San Francisco had a quite strong tailwind, exactly as expected!
So you are quite wrong to say "Tokyo is closer than shown on the map to the USA". The map is quite accurate.But, the simple fact is that you cannot get an accurate measure of the distance from the flying time.
So NO Mr İntikam, you have NOT debunked the Globe and I venture to say that you never will.
But please keep on with your efforts, because these silly posts are making the whole idea of a Flat Earth ridiculous.You are doing a wonderful job at showing everybody that the Globe is the only logical shape of the earth.
What is the value 1,306 representative of?
Everything past your point of noting your formula of maximum value of distance is irrelevant simply because 1,306 is unknown to all but you.
I will act how I like, not how a spoilt brat like you says I should.
You are ignored now for you acting as i don't ignore you on the other site. So i ignored you by disrespecting.
Anyway. Also i want to answer a bit.
There is no jet streams but miss mapping. The map is wrong so it lets pilots to the wrong path. On one way pilots going a better path and the other one is worst. There is no jet stream. Short direction is true distance and the other one plane losis true path.
Inti', Your arguments and scientific understanding get worse, this is just shabby.
What is the value 1,306 representative of?
Everything past your point of noting your formula of maximum value of distance is irrelevant simply because 1,306 is unknown to all but you.
You can calculate another ratio for it. As a result if a plane flying with 700 kms/h average speed on 500 flights, it don't start to fly with 1.000 km/h speed on next flight. You can wait for it's speed as 650-750, neither 900, nor 1.000. Don't deceive yourself, also you can't deceive me.
Inti', Your arguments and scientific understanding get worse, this is just shabby.
I accept your insults about this issue as compliment and turning you my other face for you slaps.
1.306 = 1.000/(average speed of plane)What is the value 1,306 representative of?
Everything past your point of noting your formula of maximum value of distance is irrelevant simply because 1,306 is unknown to all but you.
You can calculate another ratio for it. As a result if a plane flying with 700 kms/h average speed on 500 flights, it don't start to fly with 1.000 km/h speed on next flight. You can wait for it's speed as 650-750, neither 900, nor 1.000. Don't deceive yourself, also you can't deceive me.
Does ANYBODY have any idea what this is supposed to mean? What ratio? Still don't know where the mysterious 1,306 came from.
No, he's a genius!
But it as never occurred to him that to debunk something you have to do so using its terms of reference, i.e. earth spin, prevailing winds and jet streams (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130527-map-video-balloon-bomb-wwii-japanese-air-current-jet-stream/).
There is no jet streams but miss mapping. The map is wrong so it lets pilots to the wrong path. On one way pilots going a better path and the other one is worst. There is no jet stream. Short direction is true distance and the other one plane losis true path
No, he's a genius
What is the value 1,306 representative of?
What is the value 1,306 representative of?Maybe it's the same as the old "Bishop Constant" ???
I was curious, so I Googled it. Back in 2009 there was an attempt on the other web site (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30679.0) to develop "a conclusive equation describing EA theory". One aspect of that effort including "an approximate formula for large-scale bending". The effort seems to have died, probably because the formula didn't actually manage to model the bendy light required.Maybe it's the same as the old "Bishop Constant" ???Don't just leave us hanging! Do tell...
What is the value 1,306 representative of?Maybe it's the same as the old "Bishop Constant" ???
Don't just leave us hanging! Do tell...
What is the value 1,306 representative of?Maybe it's the same as the old "Bishop Constant" ???
Don't just leave us hanging! Do tell...
I think one answer was that the "Bishop Constant" was an unknown value which varies to fit the equatiion......or something like that ?
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.
1. The Rules
2. The FAQ
3. The Wiki
Electromagnetic Accelerator
Recently a proposal for electromagnetic acceleration has surfaced:
"Since there has been such a long wait for a conclusive equation describing EA theory, here is an approximate formula for large-scale bending. To find this, I took the limit of a much longer and nastier expression as x approaches infinity, so this will only work when y is much greater than x - that is to say, when the vertical distance travelled is much greater than the horizontal distance travelled. Put another way, its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, it is not valid for short-range experiments such as the one proposed by Sentient Pizza, but it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance.
Definition of terms:
x, y - co-ordinates in the plane of the light ray, where y is increasing in the direction of fastest decreasing Dark Energy potential, and x is increasing in the direction of the component of propagation of the ray which is perpendicular to y.
c - the speed of light in a vacuum.
β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic[1] Dr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy. When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.
The equation itself is:
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/9/92/Bendy.png)
Where (0,0) is understood to be the point at which the light ray is horizontal (that is, the derivative of this function is zero)."