The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: enkidugilga on October 27, 2017, 09:14:14 PM
-
Surely people travel from one country to the next using airplanes. The map provided in the Wiki would describe many flight paths not currently used by airlines, and many different travel times for flights. It seems clear that flight times, and flight paths correspond to a more or less spherical Earth.
-
Surely people travel from one country to the next using airplanes. The map provided in the Wiki would describe many flight paths not currently used by airlines, and many different travel times for flights. It seems clear that flight times, and flight paths correspond to a more or less spherical Earth.
You are correct. FE doesn't have a working map, which seems kinda suspicious for a theory that is so old. The map in the wiki is claimed to only be an example.
-
Surely people travel from one country to the next using airplanes. The map provided in the Wiki would describe many flight paths not currently used by airlines, and many different travel times for flights. It seems clear that flight times, and flight paths correspond to a more or less spherical Earth.
You are correct. FE doesn't have a working map, which seems kinda suspicious for a theory that is so old. The map in the wiki is claimed to only be an example.
As has been comprehensively demonstrated in other threads - the problem isn't JUST that there is no map. The non-stop travel times (which are known to be correct) of airlines and the (hard to dispute) maximum cruise speeds of airliners allows us to deduce that the route distances claimed by the airlines are correct. Then, you can take a group of four wide-spread cities that form a quadrilateral and try to lay them out on a flat surface such that the four distances between them and the two diagonals work out right. If you actually do that, you find that those four cities and the routes between them cannot POSSIBLY lie on any flat surface. Hence there is no possible flat earth map that'll "work" - so it doesn't matter that the Flat Earthers cannot make one. We fully understand WHY they cannot.
The only way they can (and do) defend against this problem is to claim that neither the airlines, nor the airplane manufacturers know how fast their planes can fly. Since the speeds involved on some routes would require regular airliners like the 787 to fly at more than twice the speed of sound - this is an utterly untenable claim.
So - there are no good flat earth maps because there CANNOT BE any good flat earth maps. It is impossible.
-
Surely people travel from one country to the next using airplanes. The map provided in the Wiki would describe many flight paths not currently used by airlines, and many different travel times for flights. It seems clear that flight times, and flight paths correspond to a more or less spherical Earth.
Forget the map, get into the plane and allow the captain to get you to your destination on time. That's their job and all airlines have stats telling you just how long you could wait on the tarmac being delayed.
The only way you will know for sure is to bump into the dome over Antarctica, but as we know, flights are not allowed and if they were, refueling is an issue.
-
J-Man, why are you asking him to ignore evidence?
There are very clear signs as to if a plane has gone supersonic, namely a loud crack and a moisture cloud behind the tail. So we know no commercial jet ever goes faster than 1234 km an hour, (800 miles an hour).
(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/airplane-breaking-the-sound-barrier-9.jpg?w=800&h=1151).
But then a plane can fly from mexico city to ciaro to beijin and back to mexico city in 49 hours.
The same model of plane can fly from santiago to capetown to aukland to santiago in 51 hours.
The southern route is at no point closer than 10500 km from the northen route. (And don't claim it's NASA magic as it is measured as ground distance in all but two cases but there is a lot of ground between beijing and aukland).
So from the formula for a circle we can estimate the extra travel time of the southern route as 2pi*10500 km giving an extra66 thousand kilometres that the plane is supposed to travel with just two more hours of flight time.
Even if the southern plane went at the speed of sound, it would need 53 hours just to cover that EXTRA DISTANCE ALONE!
-
Surely people travel from one country to the next using airplanes. The map provided in the Wiki would describe many flight paths not currently used by airlines, and many different travel times for flights. It seems clear that flight times, and flight paths correspond to a more or less spherical Earth.
You are correct. FE doesn't have a working map, which seems kinda suspicious for a theory that is so old. The map in the wiki is claimed to only be an example.
There is no available map for flat earth. We can not draw a logical map for flat earth because only the global earth map supports every aspects of earth such as distances, sun angle etc.
-
the globe earth supports the evidence
How did you arrive at this false conclusion?
-
the globe earth supports the evidence
How did you arrive at this false conclusion?
I would think it is because RET doesn't require magic to work. Celestial gears, a non existent map, and mysterious, unknown accelerating forces are about as plausible an explanation as saying Apollo makes the sun work.
-
What you think is a straight line in the Flat Earth is actually curved in real life. You just don't know it because the curvature of space is not as flat or endless as we are led to believe.
If you want to travel from Sydney, Australia to South America you do not take a path 'as the crow flies'. Follow the longitude paths for the quickest route that is the same path as the globe model
(https://selahministriesblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/flat-earth-map.jpg?w=660&h=660)
Each square has roughly the same area. They are tiny in the centre but big at the edges. This is why it looks distorted. Remember you are looking at a 2D map the size of a sheet of paper of a 3D world, tens of thousands of km wide.
The flat earth map works. You guys just need to stop thinking like a brainwashed globetard
-
What you think is a straight line in the Flat Earth is actually curved in real life. You just don't know it because the curvature of space is not as flat or endless as we are led to believe.
If you want to travel from Sydney, Australia to South America you do not take a path 'as the crow flies'. Follow the longitude paths for the quickest route that is the same path as the globe model
Following longitude lines is not the quickest path and isn't the way airplanes fly.
Examples:
Johannesburg to Sydney:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA64/history/20171105/1650Z/FAOR/YSSY
JFK to Hong Kong goes just about right over the north pole:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA845
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA845/history/20171105/0455Z/KJFK/VHHH
Each square has roughly the same area. They are tiny in the centre but big at the edges. This is why it looks distorted. Remember you are looking at a 2D map the size of a sheet of paper of a 3D world, tens of thousands of km wide.
The flat earth map works. You guys just need to stop thinking like a brainwashed globetard
"Each quare has roughly the same area, they are tiny in the centre but big at the edges."
Can you help me understand what you're saying? Those two things sound like opposites - they are the same area but they are tiny vs. big. Are you talking about some optical illusion or something?
-
Each square has roughly the same area. They are tiny in the centre but big at the edges. This is why it looks distorted. Remember you are looking at a 2D map the size of a sheet of paper of a 3D world, tens of thousands of km wide.
They are tiny and big and roughly the same. What?
Projecting a flat Earth onto flat sheet of paper compresses the scale, but would not distort the relationships. Projecting a round Earth onto flat paper would distort, but that's why there are different map projections used. Typically the maps indicate which projection is used.
-
What you think is a straight line in the Flat Earth is actually curved in real life. You just don't know it because the curvature of space is not as flat or endless as we are led to believe.
So the earth is flat, but it is only flat relative to a curved surface?
Is this curved surface possibly a sphere with a six thousand kilometre radius and that is why all observation match it being a globe?
-
This is not a debate forum. I can't help that you can't get through that globe head conditioning to understand. For now, don't question flat earth answers in the Q&A. Just accept
-
This is not a debate forum. I can't help that you can't get through that globe head conditioning to understand. For now, don't question flat earth answers in the Q&A. Just accept
What magically bends spacetime in just the right way to force your fake map to match what we observe in reality? More magic to attempt to make FET match reality.
-
This is not a debate forum. I can't help that you can't get through that globe head conditioning to understand. For now, don't question flat earth answers in the Q&A. Just accept
Actually, the rules here say that the FIRST answer in Q&A should come from an FE'er (or at least explain the FET perspective) - after that contrary viewpoints are allowed.
-
This is not a debate forum. I can't help that you can't get through that globe head conditioning to understand. For now, don't question flat earth answers in the Q&A. Just accept
My question was, what does your statement mean when you answered they are tiny and big and roughly the same. Seems like Q&A to me.
-
This is not a debate forum. I can't help that you can't get through that globe head conditioning to understand. For now, don't question flat earth answers in the Q&A. Just accept
Just accept?? How very zetetic
That would be easier if there was A flat earth position, which there is not on so many issues here so why should we accept your answer? Are you better than Tom, Junker, Rushy or Pete? What if they have a different view?
What if your answer makes no sense can we not ask for clarification? If I ask how perspective accounts for sunsets and you answer "Lemons" just because you are a flat earther does not make your answer unquestionable.
-
Actually, the rules here say that the FIRST answer in Q&A should come from an FE'er (or at least explain the FET perspective) - after that contrary viewpoints are allowed.
And where in the rules does it say that is the case? I thought I had made it fairly clear how Q&A is supposed to work (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6108.0) in the only stickied topic in this forum (since the forum's general rules don't address it specifically).
I am starting to think that Pete is correct about your inability to tell the truth.
-
I'm not trying to debate, I just honestly don't understand "the squares are the same size, tiny in the middle and large at the edges." I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm asking for your help in understanding it.
-
There is no Flat Earth map.
-
There is no Flat Earth map.
You mean it is not possible to use measured distances to produce a map that shows the earth is flat.
-
There is no Flat Earth map.
You mean it is not possible to use measured distances to produce a map that shows the earth is flat.
The problem with creating a map and model is that those "measured distances" rely on a Round Earth coordinate system to compute a distance. No one has ever verified the accuracy of the distances computed from that coordinate system. No one has ever taken a tape measurer across the Atlantic to verify the spherical lat/lon distances, for example.
If we accept the round earth coordinate system as true, we might as well accept that the earth is round. The claim that GPS, or whatever Round Earth coordinate device, is true and accurate, is a positive claim brought to these discussions which must be demonstrated as accurate.
-
If we accept the round earth coordinate system as true, we might as well accept that the earth is round.
This sums up FE belief. You can't accept that the Earth is round, so you must reject every article of evidence and science that conflicts with your belief.
Distances not verified. Can you honestly say that you believe all these planes have not verified distances and don't know how far they are flying each day. How you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously with claims like that?
-
This sums up FE belief. You can't accept that the Earth is round, so you must reject every article of evidence and science that conflicts with your belief.
Distances not verified. Can you honestly say that you believe all these planes have not verified distances and don't know how far they are flying each day. How you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously with claims like that?
How does the pilot know that the output from the round earth coordinate system is exactly true?
-
This sums up FE belief. You can't accept that the Earth is round, so you must reject every article of evidence and science that conflicts with your belief.
Distances not verified. Can you honestly say that you believe all these planes have not verified distances and don't know how far they are flying each day. How you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously with claims like that?
How does the pilot know that the output from the round earth coordinate system is exactly true?
Because they fly from point A to point B. They leave point A with known aircraft weight and fuel, they know the route, they know the speed, heading and fuel consumption of their aircraft, and they know when they land.
Do you REALLY think that pilots don't know that the distance they travel matches the expectation based on coordinates?
Have you ever been on a commercial flight where they couldn't forecast a landing time?
-
The pilot knows the distance is correct because the plane used the predicted amount of fuel. Because the flight took the predicted amount of time. Because the plane's GPS indicates the distance traveled.
See also, (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122051#msg122051) a thread on the same topic. It's a lock for proving the Earth is not flat, by Tom's own standards (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.msg126065#msg126065).
-
How does the pilot know that the amount of consumed fuel equates to a true distance traveled rather than a distance traveled according to the Round Earth coordinate system?
Equally questionable, how does the pilot know that the time of flight equates to distance traveled? Cruising speed? How did these airplanes get their cruising speed calculated? Based on a distance provided by a Round Earth coordinate system?
-
How does the pilot know that the amount of consumed fuel equates to a true distance traveled rather than a distance traveled according to the Round Earth coordinate system?
The round earth coordinate system has nothing to do with measured distances by an object travelling at a given speed for a given time.
DISTANCE = VELOCITY * TIME
-
How does the pilot know that the amount of consumed fuel equates to a true distance traveled rather than a distance traveled according to the Round Earth coordinate system?
The round earth coordinate system has nothing to do with measured distances by an object travelling at a given speed for a given time.
The plane would need to know how fast it is traveling.
Airspeed indicator devices are not accurate and are not used in navigation. It is not possible to create an odometer for an airplane to guess how fast it is moving through the air. It is measuring fluids traveling within fluids. The airspeed of fluids against the wings is only used in things like banking maneuvers.
Groundspeed indicators which measure against the ground (such as GPS) are based on a Round Earth coordinate system, and would produce a Round Earth result.
-
Airspeed indicator devices are not accurate and are not used in navigation.
Please provide your reference for this claim.
-
Airspeed indicator devices are not accurate and are not used in navigation.
Please provide your reference for this claim.
See this exchange with Curious Squirrel:
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed) the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.
Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.
Read this quote from your link:
Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed
Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.
-
That planes can navigate so well using 'round Earth coordinates' is evidence that their coordinates are correct, that their navigation models are correct, and that the Earth is not flat. Not sure why you keep bringing that up like it's supposed to help your argument; it doesn't.
-
Airspeed indicator devices are not accurate and are not used in navigation.
Please provide your reference for this claim.
See this exchange with Curious Squirrel:
...
While I'm sure Curious Squirrel will be flattered to be your source material on this subject, I don't see where in that quote it is established that airspeed indicators are not used in navigation. If you want to make a claim that they are not the only source of navigation data, I would agree with that. But it is still nonsense that pilots have not confirmed distances based on conventional maps and charts.
-
Perhaps most of this thread should be moved into the debate section.
-
That planes can navigate so well using 'round Earth coordinates' is evidence that their coordinates are correct, that their navigation models are correct, and that the Earth is not flat. Not sure why you keep bringing that up like it's supposed to help your argument; it doesn't.
So if a pilot can navigate between points with a Mercator map, the world is a Mercator map? ???
-
Yes.
It means the Mercator map is sufficiently accurate for navigation to be possible. Mercator maps are cylindrical projections of a sphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#The_spherical_model). Thus, the spherical model is accurate.
-
Air speed indicators are accurate to a degree, and while they are not used for navigation, they will give a reading that can confirm the shape of the earth.
Here is an article that shows a pilot claiming that an error of 6knots is outside of safe levels. http://rec.aviation.ifr.narkive.com/ISynE1Rf/airspeed-indicator-accuracy-tolerance
An inaccuracy of 6knots on a Boeing 747 at cruse speed is an error of just over 1%.
So yes you can't draw an accurate map based on flight speeds and time alone, but I think some of them would notice if they always had to fly twice as fast in one hemisphere than another.
-
That planes can navigate so well using 'round Earth coordinates' is evidence that their coordinates are correct, that their navigation models are correct, and that the Earth is not flat. Not sure why you keep bringing that up like it's supposed to help your argument; it doesn't.
So if a pilot can navigate between points with a Mercator map, the world is a Mercator map? ???
If the round earth was correct then using a Mercator map would leave many planes running short of fuel. For example, flying across Africa would take three times as much fuel than Europe even though Europe is bigger on the projection.
But if you do fly across both Europe and Africa using the same amount of fuel then, yeah, I guess that is a good map.
-
True. I am assuming one would account for the distorted distance shown on the map, as that is a well understood feature of Mercator projection.
-
How does the pilot know that the amount of consumed fuel equates to a true distance traveled rather than a distance traveled according to the Round Earth coordinate system?
The round earth coordinate system has nothing to do with measured distances by an object travelling at a given speed for a given time.
The plane would need to know how fast it is traveling.
Airspeed indicator devices are not accurate and are not used in navigation. It is not possible to create an odometer for an airplane to guess how fast it is moving through the air. It is measuring fluids traveling within fluids. The airspeed of fluids against the wings is only used in things like banking maneuvers.
Groundspeed indicators which measure against the ground (such as GPS) are based on a Round Earth coordinate system, and would produce a Round Earth result.
Tom how do you travel? Im going to assume you have been to somewhere new, that you don't have inherent knowledge of where everything is. How did you get from point A to point B? Can't use a map, MapQuest, Google, any sort of GPS, or any modern technology as it is all based on RE measurements.
So, how the hell did you get there and back? Also did you tell whoever was on the other end of the trip, "I'll get there when I get there because I have no clue as to how far it actually is."
-
Air speed indicators are accurate to a degree, and while they are not used for navigation, they will give a reading that can confirm the shape of the earth.
Here is an article that shows a pilot claiming that an error of 6knots is outside of safe levels. http://rec.aviation.ifr.narkive.com/ISynE1Rf/airspeed-indicator-accuracy-tolerance
An inaccuracy of 6knots on a Boeing 747 at cruse speed is an error of just over 1%.
So yes you can't draw an accurate map based on flight speeds and time alone, but I think some of them would notice if they always had to fly twice as fast in one hemisphere than another.
An error of 6 knots compared to the Groundspeed.
If the round earth was correct then using a Mercator map would leave many planes running short of fuel. For example, flying across Africa would take three times as much fuel than Europe even though Europe is bigger on the projection.
But if you do fly across both Europe and Africa using the same amount of fuel then, yeah, I guess that is a good map.
The point is that pilots would be able to navigate using a different projection of the earth. You seem to agree with my assertion.
Your comment about fuel is another topic, one which was already addressed.
-
Planes navigating an 'actually flat Earth' by 'incorrect round Earth coordinates' would then appear to have significantly worse fuel efficiency and travel much slower in the Southern hemisphere.
Flying ~3650 miles from New York to Paris takes x amount of fuel... flying (what the pilots, Tom claims, erroneously think is) ~3750 miles from Rio de Janeiro to Cape Town takes 3x, 4x, 5x... some much greater amount of fuel. It would take the same proportion of time longer.
This is not the case. Ergo, the flat Earth model fails to correctly predict distances in the Southern hemisphere.
-
Air speed indicators are accurate to a degree, and while they are not used for navigation, they will give a reading that can confirm the shape of the earth.
Here is an article that shows a pilot claiming that an error of 6knots is outside of safe levels. http://rec.aviation.ifr.narkive.com/ISynE1Rf/airspeed-indicator-accuracy-tolerance
An inaccuracy of 6knots on a Boeing 747 at cruse speed is an error of just over 1%.
So yes you can't draw an accurate map based on flight speeds and time alone, but I think some of them would notice if they always had to fly twice as fast in one hemisphere than another.
An error of 6 knots compared to the Groundspeed.
If the round earth was correct then using a Mercator map would leave many planes running short of fuel. For example, flying across Africa would take three times as much fuel than Europe even though Europe is bigger on the projection.
But if you do fly across both Europe and Africa using the same amount of fuel then, yeah, I guess that is a good map.
The point is that pilots would be able to navigate using a different projection of the earth. You seem to agree with my assertion.
Your comment about fuel is another topic, one which was already addressed.
The 'projection' they use is a model of the round earth which is accurate. Find out about WGS84.
The World Geodetic System defines a reference frame for the earth, for use in geodesy and navigation.
https://www.nga.mil/productsservices/geodesyandgeophysics/pages/worldgeodeticsystem.aspx
I'm surprised you are not contributing to this with your knowledge of the shape of the earth.
-
This whole trainwreck is really just a repeat of this thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0) about flight times proving the Earth is not flat.
Suffice to say, they do.
Incidentally that thread is the source of:
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.
also,
I pulled FE map from this site and attached an example of why the FE map simply doesn't work. Basically a flight to JNB to NBO is 4 hours and a flight from JNB to SYD is 12 hours (3x). Yet the distance from JNB to SYD is at least 7x as long per the FE map. The flight route to Sydney would actually be much longer as we know flights from South Africa to Sydney go over the ocean (not Asia). Sorry about image quality (limited by Forum).
Yes - I think it's very clear that THIS flat earth map doesn't work. But you're missing the importance of this thread.
Some FE'ers (notably Tom) have put up alternative maps...and when challenged about these new maps, Tom (and others) has frequently responded that these maps are all tentative and that the FE'ers admit that they don't know for sure how the REAL Flat Earth continents are laid out.
I presume that they hope that this will deflect all problems of the kind you just gave under a layer of uncertainty...."Well, we know THIS map isn't perfect - but we're not finished with drawing the perfect FE map."...they fondly imagine that this is a sneaky way to avoid answering these "flight distance" problems.
HOWEVER
I'm not letting them get away with that.
The significance of THIS thread is that it proves that no possible flat earth map can EVER reconcile all of the distances given to us by airlines for their route distances.
So not just the map on the Wiki - not just Tom's new map - this thread clearly demonstrates that there is NO POSSIBLE flat map that can get the distances between four widely-separated cities right.
It constitutes definite proof that Flat Earth theory is wrong...AND that it can't possibly be fixed by redrawing their maps because this proof doesn't rely on their maps...instead it says that you can't resolve these distances between cities no matter how you juggle them around.
Cool or what?! :-)
-
If the round earth was correct then using a Mercator map would leave many planes running short of fuel. For example, flying across Africa would take three times as much fuel than Europe even though Europe is bigger on the projection.
But if you do fly across both Europe and Africa using the same amount of fuel then, yeah, I guess that is a good map.
The point is that pilots would be able to navigate using a different projection of the earth. You seem to agree with my assertion.
Your comment about fuel is another topic, one which was already addressed.
Actually I said they would require three times as much fuel and take three times as long for a trip that a projection would state is the same distance. So they Wouldn't be able to.
But IF they cross Africa with the same time and fuel use as Europe then that would mean a Mercator is much more accurate than a globe.