The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Bruce Rauner on September 24, 2018, 05:16:54 PM

Title: Flight Paths
Post by: Bruce Rauner on September 24, 2018, 05:16:54 PM
Hi all, new member here and this is my first post. I have always loved aircraft and was interested in flight patterns from a very early age. On a flat earth model, A flight path from say New York to London makes sense, but the flight path from aircraft that travel from Chile to Australia don't. This distance seems astronomical on a flat earth map. So how is this possible?

Sorry if I haven't been abiding by the posting rules, as I said before, I'm new here.

- Bruce
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: Bruce Rauner on September 25, 2018, 04:49:47 PM
Please reply thanks
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: junker on September 25, 2018, 05:32:06 PM
Please reply thanks

Please refrain from bumping threads that shortly after posting them. If people want to reply, they will, and sometimes it may be longer than a day (if at all).
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: RonJ on October 07, 2018, 10:23:36 PM
It doesn't have to be a flight path.  Any path of a longer length will bring out the curved nature of the path around a globe.  Before I retired, I worked on ships that made the transit between China and the US.  The shortest distance between the two ports is known as a great circle route.  The airlines fly those paths as well, again because they are the shortest distance.  I've made countless long trips over the earth's oceans both on airplanes and on ships.  When you are burning fuel, which costs a bunch of money, you must take the shortest routes possible.  Just try to plot out a long course on a flat earth map.  You will quickly see that your path course and distance won't match what is actually needed to make the transit between point A and point B. Navigators know down to a 'gnat's ass' just how far it is between two ports.  Additionally they plot our position, hourly, on the chart. The accumulated time and distance is also noted.  If something doesn't match then it's looked into.  On a route that's a regular run, it would be hard to fool anyone. Both the airlines and shipping companies use charts that were drawn using a representation of the global earth.  There is no getting around the fact that they 'just work'.  I've seen it for myself, first hand.  All my old 'shipping buddies' would tell you the same thing. 
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: geologyboy on January 08, 2019, 08:47:10 PM
Hi all, new member here and this is my first post. I have always loved aircraft and was interested in flight patterns from a very early age. On a flat earth model, A flight path from say New York to London makes sense, but the flight path from aircraft that travel from Chile to Australia don't. This distance seems astronomical on a flat earth map. So how is this possible?

Sorry if I haven't been abiding by the posting rules, as I said before, I'm new here.

- Bruce

The earth is not flat. It's a ball, and flying from Chile to Australia or Australia to South Africa involves very simply flying around that ball. You can track planes online easy enough.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: iamcpc on January 08, 2019, 10:15:14 PM
Hi all, new member here and this is my first post. I have always loved aircraft and was interested in flight patterns from a very early age. On a flat earth model, A flight path from say New York to London makes sense, but the flight path from aircraft that travel from Chile to Australia don't. This distance seems astronomical on a flat earth map. So how is this possible?

Sorry if I haven't been abiding by the posting rules, as I said before, I'm new here.

- Bruce


1-3. This is the official Flat Earth Wiki map. If it is so inaccurate that even the positions of the continents are uncertain, why post it at all? Isn't this as inaccurate as posting a rotating globe on the site?
4. Which flights don't exist? Sydney to Buenos Aires in particular, or no flights exist at all? Because if Argentina and Australia are actually close, why fake a flight at all?
5. Point 5 kind of contradicts point 4. You are saying there are flights, but they are assisted by jet streams. But jet streams go in one direction - shouldn't the flight in the opposite direction be twice as slow?

 You are not the first to ask such questions and you are not the last. How can the distances/flight times/travel times/shipping times/cartography on the wiki map be possible when they don't match the distances/flight times/travel times/shipping times/modern cartography.







This has been discussed so many times. I was also VERY curious about it. I got all the responses from a flight time superthread. (Pick any one of your rebuttals from the list below) Here's a link:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0




-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
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: J-Man on January 11, 2019, 02:02:50 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FuO8lQV18

Of course Mark Sargent gives and explanation of flight paths for the flat earth and the very accepted map.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: stack on January 11, 2019, 07:52:30 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FuO8lQV18

Of course Mark Sargent gives and explanation of flight paths for the flat earth and the very accepted map.

Unfortunately for Mark Sargent all he proves here is that he's terrible at searching for non-stop flights and the "very accepted map" he uses, ironically, is an AE globe projection. Meaning it is derived from a globe.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 11, 2019, 09:27:24 AM
Of course Mark Sargent gives and explanation of flight paths for the flat earth and the very accepted map.

Northern Hemisphere:

Distance from London to Las Vegas
Distance is 5236 miles

Direct flight time: 10h 50 minutes
That gives us an average speed of 483.32mph

Santiago to Melbourne
Distance is 7022 miles

Direct flight time is: 14h 45minutes

https://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/scla/mela/190315/?adults=1&children=0&adultsv2=1&childrenv2=&infants=0&cabinclass=economy&rtn=0&preferdirects=true&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false&ref=home#details/16137-1903151245--31940-0-13981-1903161730

That gives us an average speed of 476mph

Weird that Mark Sargent spent a whole evening not finding anything and I spent about 15 minutes and found this.
Distances taken from https://www.timeanddate.com , one of the sites Sargent suggests


Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 12, 2019, 02:22:07 AM
Seargant does say that there are a few claimed direct nonstops in the video.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: stack on January 12, 2019, 02:38:17 AM
Seargant does say that there are a few claimed direct nonstops in the video.

He does, in a way, around the 6:00 mark. He states that you may find one. But then basically launches into the "GPS is a part of the conspiracy, maps are wrong, pilots are too afraid to bring it up, everyone is doing it wrong" thing, peppered with fuel/speed/distance nonsense. Like airlines and their crew don't calculate down to the gallon/mph/mile.  If they didn't there would be planes dropping out of the sky by the thousands. 
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 12, 2019, 02:52:01 AM
Planes make unscheduled stops for fuel on supposed "nonstop" flight all of the time.

 Annoyed by a fuel stop on your direct flight? (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4495744)

Nonstop Flights Stop for Fuel (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203436904577152974098241982)

Air travel: So-called nonstop flights now stop for fuel (http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/mainlinetimes/news/air-travel-so-called-nonstop-flights-now-stop-for-fuel/article_353ddf8a-b55f-5b3b-a171-9f0fba573886.html)

The airliners basically do anything they want.

The travel industry only appears to consider stops with passenger exchanges as stops. If bus stopped for fuel on a 29 stop route, would the route be advertised to customers as 29 stops or 30 stops?
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: stack on January 12, 2019, 03:16:11 AM
Planes make unscheduled stops for fuel on supposed "nonstop" flight all of the time.

 Annoyed by a fuel stop on your direct flight? (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4495744)

Nonstop Flights Stop for Fuel (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203436904577152974098241982)

Air travel: So-called nonstop flights now stop for fuel (http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/mainlinetimes/news/air-travel-so-called-nonstop-flights-now-stop-for-fuel/article_353ddf8a-b55f-5b3b-a171-9f0fba573886.html)

The airliners basically do anything they want.

The travel industry only appears to consider stops with passenger exchanges as stops. If bus stopped for fuel on a 29 stop route, would the route be advertised to customers as 29 stops or 30 stops?

Sure, it’s called weather. From the articles you referenced:

"Dozens of Continental Airlines flights to the East Coast from Europe have been forced to make unexpected stops in Canada and elsewhere to take on fuel after running into unusually strong headwinds over the Atlantic Ocean.”

“Be aware that so-called nonstop flights now stop for fuel. Flights to the East Coast from Europe are being forced to make dozens of totally unexpected stops in Canada and elsewhere to take on fuel after running into unusually strong head winds over the Atlantic Ocean."

But tons of non-stop flights exist that are not diverted due to weather. I fail to see your point. Just have a look at historical flight data. It's not hard.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 12, 2019, 03:25:10 AM
Planes make fuel stops when they want and call it what they want. You said that it was based on careful planning, yet we see numerous articles complaining of nonstop flights making fuel stops.

Can you provide a source on the flight data that doesn't come from NASA?

See the following video at 15:07:

https://youtu.be/AoS3pe94qMk
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: stack on January 12, 2019, 03:47:07 AM
Planes make fuel stops when they want and call it what they want. You said that it was based on careful planning, yet we see numerous articles complaining of nonstop flights making fuel stops.

Sure, but your logic is that ALL non-stop flights make a fuel stop. But not all do. So, again, I don't see your point.

Can you provide a source on the flight data that doesn't come from NASA?

See the following video at 15:07:

Maybe, watched the vid, haven't looked into it. Give me a bit. In the mean time, can you provide a source that all worldwide flight data flows through NASA? But, to put a fine point on it, in the short run, your argument is that all flight travel data, worldwide, flows through NASA?


Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 12, 2019, 07:38:00 AM
Seargant does say that there are a few claimed direct nonstops in the video.
So what is the issue then?
After I wrote the above post I looked at the comments on Sargent’s video and it was full of people saying they’d personally flown the route I found and other similar ones.
Of course those comments were often followed by FE people calling them liars but that’s a lazy argument. You can “prove” anything if you ignore or call lies anything which shows you to be wrong.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 12, 2019, 08:45:12 AM
Planes make unscheduled stops for fuel on supposed "nonstop" flight all of the time.

I think the key word there is "unscheduled". The first article says that one airline had to do it twice in January and another airline only did it once all year. So it's not something which happens often. It also explains why they sometimes have to do that.

The second article says that "dozens" of flights had to make stops - it doesn't say what percentage that is - but it also explains why and it's clear that this is the exception rather than the rule. You have to subscribe to read the whole thing.
The third article is not accessible from the UK for some legal reason.

I have never been on a non-stop flight which has stopped. Clearly it happens sometimes but the idea that they "do what they like" is ludicrous. The airline industry is highly competitive, any airline that "did what they liked" would quickly go out of business as people would use alternatives.

I'm not clear how you think any of this helps FE theory. Are you trying to cast doubt on the whole airline industry? Are they all "in on it" too?
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: edby on January 12, 2019, 09:52:42 AM
I thought of starting an FE investigation on southern flight paths across the ocean, but they are kind of dull, because they fly across the ocean and nothing much to see. But FYI here are three of them now

https://www.flightradar24.com/LAN800/1f27f141

As I write (09:40 UCT) I can see 3 aircraft over the South Pacific.

LAN800 Auckland Santiago
QF27     Sydney Santiago
ANZ30 Auckland Buenos Aires

None of these flights tend to make unscheduled stops, o/a of the whole flight (except ANZ30) is across the ocean. I calculate LAN800 should be flying at a speed of around 2,300km/h, based on the AE projection. According to the website (which may be lying) speed is actually around 900 km/h.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: RonJ on January 12, 2019, 03:19:58 PM
The idea that the airlines can 'do anything they want' is not completely true.  Yes, they can decide to offer a direct flight between any two airports they want, but are then faced with lots of federal/international regulations regarding that flight.  Additionally the airline has to believe that the seats in the plane would be filled, otherwise why offer a flight if will be a money looser?  Surprise, an airline is a company and has to receive more revenue from ticket sales than they pay in expenses, on the average, or they can't stay in business.  Any direct flight has to be flown by a plane that has sufficient range with ample reserve capacity at the end of the flight.  There are a lot of international regulations regarding the maximum distance a aircraft can be from an emergency field during the flight.  This distance depends a lot on the type of aircraft being flown (two engine or four). 

In my personal experience, I would say that most non-stop long haul flights are conducted without stopping.  I've been on quite a few over the years and can only remember 1 where a stop was necessary.  It was a direct flight from Chicago to Hong Kong.  The weather had been bad the whole route and there was a potential weather problem in Hong Kong as well.  We landed at Beijing, China and took on some fuel and waited on the ramp for about 2 hours until the situation got better.  It was a good thing too, because we had to be in a holding pattern for about 30 minutes at Hong Kong because the previous delays had traffic backed up.   

I have held a commercial pilot's license myself for a lot of years.  Any flight I planned always had to have enough fuel for the entire route as well as sufficient reserve for unexpected circumstances.  If your projected reserve is used up along the way due to weather or weather related diversions, then it's time to land somewhere and get more fuel and/or wait on the ground until things in the air become more favorable for you to continue. 

What would be the potential consequences of not doing that?  You could die, along with all your passengers.  It's better be safe than sorry.  I didn't blame the pilot for a second on my Chicago to Hong Kong flight.  I wanted to arrive safely.   
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: edby on January 13, 2019, 02:39:11 PM
Looks as though LAN800 got in successfully and on time yesterday (12 Jan). It's now 3 hours into today's flight from Auckland. I will report back tomorrow.

[EDIT]
Looking also at LA804 Melbourne Santiago. On the flight track website the flight path looks weirdly curved. However the Google Earth shows it as straight. It’s almost as if the earth were a globe.

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/8/8f/Melbourne-santiago.jpg)
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: iamcpc on January 14, 2019, 07:59:53 PM
Planes make fuel stops when they want and call it what they want. You said that it was based on careful planning, yet we see numerous articles complaining of nonstop flights making fuel stops.

Tom,

      Everyone here has conceded that flights, at one point or another, will make unscheduled stops on non-stop flights. When we talk about these flights we are talking about the flights that didn't stop. Where if you gave the passengers a questionnaire "Did this flight stop before it reached its destination" 100% would say no.


Can you provide a source on the flight data that doesn't come from NASA?

This depends on what flight data you are asking for. Information like takeoff location, landing location, number of stops, takeoff time, landing time, and flight time can be easily verified. They can be corroborated by every passenger on the plane, air traffic controllers for multiple airlines, friends/family of the airline passengers, thousands of airport employees, non passengers at the airport who watched the plane takeoff/land and the airlines themselves.

Things like landmarks the plane has passed over could be corroborated by anyone with a windows seat.

Could this data also come from NASA? I dunno maybe. But if NASA lied about anything listed above it would be very easy to debunk as there would be hundreds of thousands of witnesses to this lie every single day.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2019, 08:58:06 PM
Quote
But if NASA lied about anything listed above it would be very easy to debunk as there would be hundreds of thousands of witnesses to this lie every single day.

The news articles do say that nonstop flights divert from course and make unscheduled stops on a regular basis, and that it annoys people. The articles are evidence that they do regularly do that, and you are professing only belief that they don't do that.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 14, 2019, 09:41:17 PM
The articles also explain why they sometimes do that and make it clear that this is very much the exception rather than the rule.
There is a clue in the word "unscheduled".
And the examples in the article are northern hemisphere routes - well, the one I could read were.
None of this in any way casts doubt on the fact that there are non-stop southern hemisphere routes and the YouTube video by Mark Sargent which started this discussion has plenty of comments from people who say they have been on these routes.
So I don't know what point you think you're making.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: RonJ on January 14, 2019, 09:47:13 PM
Lots of mis-information here. 

When an airliner closes the door, and leaves the gate, the captain of aircraft (pilot in command) is in absolute control of the aircraft by federal regulations. If the pilot in command believes that a stop is necessary for the safety of the passengers, crew, and aircraft then a stop will be made.  You can be sure that if the airline believes that the pilot in command wasn't justified in his decision, based upon the judgement of the airlines chief pilot, then that pilot may loose his job.  Any non-stop flight can stop along the way due to a whole host of reasons.  Airlines have been sued by people who thought that they should have stopped but didn't.  Maybe a passenger had a medical condition, like a bad hang nail, and requested medical attention.  At that point the pilot in command has to make a very difficult decision.  Additionally, while the aircraft is at the gate the aircraft is fueled.  The more fuel that's put aboard the less payload can be carried.  It's a real balancing act.  If the pilot had a crystal ball and knew exactly what the weather conditions would be along the way, better decisions could be made.

The news reports did say that there had been some unusual weather conditions aloft causing a lot of headwinds.  Of course when this happens the over the ground speed of the plane slows down and the aircraft runs low on fuel.

Flight information regarding the position of the aircraft along the way most likely is coming from a private company called INMARSAT.  They have a service called Sat-C that provided regular position reports.  We used the same service on ships.  I am familiar with the equipment.   I doubt that NASA is involved here. 

The nice video Tom had linked was a little mis-informed.  The commentator did say that the aircraft was being tracked by ATC.  He did use the words Arctic, but of course what he should have said was 'air traffic control', that's what ATC means.  Radar (ATC) can only be used for a tiny fraction of the route.  Radar has a very limited range.  INMARSAT is the real workhorse here.

What you have here is airlines struggling to make a profit, they moved into more efficient aircraft to reduce costs like any good corporation should do.  Would blame them if you were a stock holder?  Unusual weather conditions were working against them and they had to make unscheduled stops that looked bad for them.  Do you really think the company wanted to do things that way?  Would it look a lot worse if an aircraft ran out of fuel, crashed & killed all aboard?  Is this a NASA conspiracy?  Are the Masons at fault for producing a defective earth map?  All some really good questions but I'm sure that most really believe that the whole problem is just some unusual weather conditions that eventually will change.

 
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: inquisitive on January 14, 2019, 10:05:47 PM
Quote
But if NASA lied about anything listed above it would be very easy to debunk as there would be hundreds of thousands of witnesses to this lie every single day.

The news articles do say that nonstop flights divert from course and make unscheduled stops on a regular basis, and that it annoys people. The articles are evidence that they do regularly do that, and you are professing only belief that they don't do that.
Please provide numbers to justify the word regular.  No stops mid Atlantic.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: iamcpc on January 15, 2019, 02:04:50 AM
Quote
But if NASA lied about anything listed above it would be very easy to debunk as there would be hundreds of thousands of witnesses to this lie every single day.

The news articles do say that nonstop flights divert from course and make unscheduled stops on a regular basis, and that it annoys people. The articles are evidence that they do regularly do that, and you are professing only belief that they don't do that.

Tom,

I had previously explained that everyone agrees. We all agree that nonstop flights make unscheduled stops on a regular basis. As a counterpoint there are many times that nonstop flights DON'T make any stops other than takeoff and landing. Those are the flights we are talking about.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: edby on January 15, 2019, 09:04:10 AM
The news articles do say that nonstop flights divert from course and make unscheduled stops on a regular basis, and that it annoys people. The articles are evidence that they do regularly do that, and you are professing only belief that they don't do that.
Evidence is the regularity of flights across wide stretches of ocean, e.g. Pacific and Atlantic, where unscheduled stops are not possible.

Also, as the previous post asked, please quantify 'regular'. 1 in 100? 1 in 1000?
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 15, 2019, 11:57:21 AM
The news articles do say that nonstop flights divert from course and make unscheduled stops on a regular basis, and that it annoys people. The articles are evidence that they do regularly do that, and you are professing only belief that they don't do that.
Evidence is the regularity of flights across wide stretches of ocean, e.g. Pacific and Atlantic, where unscheduled stops are not possible.

Also, as the previous post asked, please quantify 'regular'. 1 in 100? 1 in 1000?
I'm not even sure that matters. The articles make clear that these are unscheduled stops. As in they are not planned.
So yes, on occasion planes which are supposed to fly direct actually don't. I've never been on one but fine, let's concede that happens sometimes.
So what?
Let's pretend that half the time plans make unscheduled stops - in real life it's nowhere near that high, but let's suppose.
That still means that half the time these plans do fly those routes non-stop in the time they say they will.
The original assertion in the video was you can't find non-stop flights like this in the southern hemisphere. I spent about 15 minutes and found one and then later noticed that the video has lots of comments from people saying they'd personally taken those routes.
So I'm not sure what the fact that sometimes flights have to make unscheduled stops adds to the discussion.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: edby on January 15, 2019, 12:44:09 PM
Punctuality statistics from Uk Civil Aviation Authority here (https://www.caa.co.uk/Data-and-analysis/UK-aviation-market/Flight-reliability/Datasets/Punctuality-data/Punctuality-statistics-2017/).
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: iamcpc on January 15, 2019, 07:54:20 PM
Also, as the previous post asked, please quantify 'regular'. 1 in 100? 1 in 1000?

There are two types of flights.
1. Flights which have no stops other than departing for a destination and landing at the destination. We call these nonstop flights.
2. Flights with a stop which is either scheduled or unscheduled.


It does not matter if it's 1 in 10, or 1 in 2. There are still two types of flights. We are still talking about nonstop flights if they make up 50% of flights or 90% of flights.  Tom's evidence is about group number 2.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: stack on January 15, 2019, 09:18:57 PM
Also, as the previous post asked, please quantify 'regular'. 1 in 100? 1 in 1000?

There are two types of flights.
1. Flights which have no stops other than departing for a destination and landing at the destination. We call these nonstop flights.
2. Flights with a stop which is either scheduled or unscheduled.


It does not matter if it's 1 in 10, or 1 in 2. There are still two types of flights. We are still talking about nonstop flights if they make up 50% of flights or 90% of flights.  Tom's evidence is about group number 2.

Agreed, it doesn't matter. Some nonstops stop, unscheduled, due to weather, equipment issues, whatever, doesn't matter. Lots of nonstop flights don't stop and are, in fact, nonstop flights. It's just a Tom distraction to evade the question in the OP:

"This distance seems astronomical on a flat earth map. So how is this possible?"
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 02:14:26 PM
The news articles do say that nonstop flights divert from course and make unscheduled stops on a regular basis, and that it annoys people. The articles are evidence that they do regularly do that, and you are professing only belief that they don't do that.
Evidence is the regularity of flights across wide stretches of ocean, e.g. Pacific and Atlantic, where unscheduled stops are not possible.

Also, as the previous post asked, please quantify 'regular'. 1 in 100? 1 in 1000?
You have no strong evidence of regular flights occurring non-stop over wide stretches of open ocean.

You have a pretty red line drawn on a globe (something any six year old can do) purporting to be a flight path, you have a website purorting these flights exists, with the same website demanding (NON-REFUNDABLE AND UPFRONT) thousands of USD to even reserve a ticket on these supposed flights, and an interview with John Travolta...

Not very strong evidence...

THE FACT REMAINS most flights from Sydney or Perth still take what turn out to be routes most easily navigated above a flat plain of the earth and make planned stops in Dubai and/or LA.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: edby on January 16, 2019, 02:25:06 PM
you have a website purorting these flights exists
As mentioned in an earlier post, I live close to a major airport landing path, and can see aircraft landing from my window. What I see from the window exactly matches what I see on the website.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 04:38:08 PM
you have a website purorting these flights exists
As mentioned in an earlier post, I live close to a major airport landing path, and can see aircraft landing from my window. What I see from the window exactly matches what I see on the website.
Oh, so you admit you are the one doing the false graphics for the website?
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: iamcpc on January 16, 2019, 05:02:10 PM
You have no strong evidence of regular flights occurring non-stop over wide stretches of open ocean.

Uh yes I do. I flew to Hawaii with my wife. We looked out the window with an airplane full of people all excited to go to Hawaii. Our flight didn't stop and all we saw was oceans. Not only my wife and I saw this but EVERYONE on the plane corroborated that we didn't fly over any land on our way to Hawaii. Did my honeymoon not exist? It's funny because pictures of it and the ocean flight are all over my wife's facebook page.

My mom flew to Hawaii. She looked out the window with an airplane full of people all excited to go to Hawaii. Her flight didn't stop and all she saw was oceans. Not only my wife and I saw this but EVERYONE on the plane corroborated that we didn't fly over any land on our way to Hawaii. Did that trip not exist?

My coworker flew to Hawaii. She looked out the window with an airplane full of people all excited to go to Hawaii. Her flight didn't stop and all we saw was oceans. Not only my wife and I saw this but EVERYONE on the plane corroborated that we didn't fly over any land on our way to Hawaii. Is my coworker lying?

I flew to Europe in high school with the orchestra. One of our flights was from was from new york to london. The entire orchestra was looking out the window with an airplane full of people all excited to go to London. Our flight didn't stop and all we saw was oceans. Not only the entire orchestra saw this but EVERYONE on the plane corroborated that we didn't fly over any land on our way to London. Did the entire orchestra hallucinate this flight?

I've done more traveling so Do I really need to continue? Based on your statement you have never taken a flight to Europe or Asia.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 05:06:50 PM
You have no strong evidence of regular flights occurring non-stop over wide stretches of open ocean.

Uh yes I do. I flew to Hawaii with my wife...I flew to Europe in high school with the orchestra...
Congratulations on your trips.

Hope you get to go again real soon.

Neither of these flights you mention are considered "wide stretches of open ocean."
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: iamcpc on January 16, 2019, 05:45:10 PM
Congratulations on your trips.

Hope you get to go again real soon.

Neither of these flights you mention are considered "wide stretches of open ocean."

Thank you for the contgrats!
Also thank you so much for the response!

A bit of advice: if you go to Hawaii just don't come back. Coming back from that tropical paradise was the biggest mistake of my life.



Also sorry for the confusion. What is considered a wide stretch of open ocean?

Some in the FE community claim that long distances over the ocean have not been measured. I've slowly been leaning toward the idea that they have. Are you of the opinion that the distance between like New York and Paris is known? Tom has pointed out several times that measurements made based on a spherical coordinate system will always give results that would only be possible on a sphere.

The FE model I most closely relate to is not very popular. The flat circular disk with the North Pole in the middle has a hard time matching up with this flight data so any help you can give me is greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on January 16, 2019, 05:48:30 PM
I flew from Los Angeles to Tokyo over the entire Pacific Ocean without any stops. Is that wide enough?
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: stack on January 16, 2019, 07:14:37 PM
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 01:32:51 PM
I flew from Los Angeles to Tokyo over the entire Pacific Ocean without any stops. Is that wide enough?
You have no method of reporting what route you actually took.

Even so, the straight line distance between the two points you mention is not all that different from the difference touted between New York and Paris.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 01:39:36 PM
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: stack on January 17, 2019, 03:49:07 PM
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 04:37:52 PM
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.
The globe is merely the extrusion of the azimuthal.

All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: ChrisTP on January 17, 2019, 05:01:14 PM
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.
All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.
If someone draws a portrait of you does that then mean you are flat?
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 05:21:46 PM
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.
All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.
If someone draws a portrait of you does that then mean you are flat?
Do you normally make up false equivalencies?
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: ChrisTP on January 17, 2019, 05:52:59 PM
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.
All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.
If someone draws a portrait of you does that then mean you are flat?
Do you normally make up false equivalencies?
the point I was trying to make was that just because because someone drew a map on a flat sheet of paper doesn't mean the land is also flat. Mapping out something from a bird's eye view isn't the same as mapping out a 2D object. They didn't draw a flat map because it was flat land. A flat map and the land they are on aren't the same thing and one doesn't mean the other. Do you always assume something is the way it is because of someone's interpretation? Is Picasso's later paintings accurate to reality simply because that's how he painted it?

If I had minimal resources and knowledge right now and about to draw a map of my local land I wouldn't start carving a tiny map out of a giant sphere because that would be impractical and harder to do than say, scratching directions onto the surface of something or anything. A wall in a cave, dirt on the ground, carving into a tree. Any surface really, no need for my local land to be mapped out on a sphere as that has no benefits to me in this case.

Maps aren't drawn on a flat surface because of a flat earth and that shouldn't be an example of flat earth. The same as how we have flat maps of stars/planets yet we know that stars and planets are up in the sky in a 3D space (whether you think it's on a dome, planets in actual  space or whatever).

Your statement that maps are flat because the world is flat is just incorrect. Unless I've misunderstood your meaning? In which case feel free to correct me here.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: inquisitive on January 17, 2019, 08:47:16 PM
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.
The globe is merely the extrusion of the azimuthal.

All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.
Wrong, find out about projection.. Clearly you really know about it from geography at school.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: stack on January 17, 2019, 09:01:48 PM
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.
The globe is merely the extrusion of the azimuthal.

All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.

As per usual, incorrect. Long haul airline pilots and ship captains take the shortest route between two points and that is called a straight line, on a globe it is technically referred to as a 'great circle'.

In case you are unaware what a great circle is, it's defined by the air, sea travel/navigation industry worldwide as: A circle on the surface of a sphere which lies in a plane passing through the sphere's center. As it represents the shortest distance between any two points on a sphere, a great circle of the earth is the preferred route taken by a ship or aircraft.

If you have a problem with the way all global travel/transport/navigation is carried out using the globe earth model I'd suggest you take it up with the folks who run, maintain and carry out all global travel/transport/navigation. I don't believe your "better way of doing things" notions are reaching the correct audience by posting here.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: iamcpc on January 18, 2019, 02:59:56 AM
I flew from Los Angeles to Tokyo over the entire Pacific Ocean without any stops. Is that wide enough?
You have no method of reporting what route you actually took.

Even so, the straight line distance between the two points you mention is not all that different from the difference touted between New York and Paris.

Well if all you see during the entire flight is ocean out the windows then you have an idea of the path that it didn't take.

This flight path could possibly account for that trip in which all that you see for 99% of the flight is ocean


(http://www.travelstart.co.za/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NRTLAX-780x341.png)

This corroborates pretty much every shipping boat that's traveled between these two nations. You travel west from LA to get to Japan and you travel East from Japan to get to LA.




This flight path says that Tokyo is north, then south of LA.
This flight path takes you north up the west coast, over Alaska, over parts of Russia. Based on the direction of travel, and not seeing Alaska and Russia out of the window I would venture to say this flight path is not the one people are taking between LA and Japan.
(https://i.imgur.com/zEL0gaz.png)




The globe is merely the extrusion of the azimuthal.

All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper

I disagree with this. Google has drawn a map on an interactive sphere.

based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.

First paper is a 2d medium. Anything that goes on paper is considered 2d. If someone wanted to make a 3d map they would have to sculpt it, 3d print it, or make some sort of globe.

Secondly I could paint "continents" on a basketball then draw a map of it. I think you can have a 2d map and a 2d surface or a 2d map and a 3d surface. I looked at a map of Colorado 2d but I can assure you Colorado is very mountainous and is not a flat 2d plane.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: robinofloxley on January 18, 2019, 09:44:28 AM
I flew from Los Angeles to Tokyo over the entire Pacific Ocean without any stops. Is that wide enough?
You have no method of reporting what route you actually took.

Even so, the straight line distance between the two points you mention is not all that different from the difference touted between New York and Paris.

Well if all you see during the entire flight is ocean out the windows then you have an idea of the path that it didn't take.

This flight path could possibly account for that trip in which all that you see for 99% of the flight is ocean


(http://www.travelstart.co.za/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NRTLAX-780x341.png)

This corroborates pretty much every shipping boat that's traveled between these two nations. You travel west from LA to get to Japan and you travel East from Japan to get to LA.




This flight path says that Tokyo is north, then south of LA.
This flight path takes you north up the west coast, over Alaska, over parts of Russia. Based on the direction of travel, and not seeing Alaska and Russia out of the window I would venture to say this flight path is not the one people are taking between LA and Japan.
(https://i.imgur.com/zEL0gaz.png)




The globe is merely the extrusion of the azimuthal.

All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper

I disagree with this. Google has drawn a map on an interactive sphere.

based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.

First paper is a 2d medium. Anything that goes on paper is considered 2d. If someone wanted to make a 3d map they would have to sculpt it, 3d print it, or make some sort of globe.

Secondly I could paint "continents" on a basketball then draw a map of it. I think you can have a 2d map and a 2d surface or a 2d map and a 3d surface. I looked at a map of Colorado 2d but I can assure you Colorado is very mountainous and is not a flat 2d plane.

Completely agree. If you decided to do some long distance walking in Nepal and took a map with you, you really shouldn't be surprised to find the ground is anything but flat and climbing gear and oxygen is required in places. Just because the map is literally flat, doesn't mean the ground it depicts is literally flat - it's just a representation in a 2D format, much more convenient than any other format. You could just as well take a basketball and project it to a flat surface using any map projection you like - North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant (i.e. the beloved AE projection), Bi-polar, Mercator, Transverse Mercator, you name it. Doesn't make the basketball flat does it.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: Grex on January 26, 2019, 02:56:48 AM
I have a very simple question.
If the earth is truly flat, has no roundness whatsoever (EXCL. Mountains, Lakes, Oceans etc.), then how can flights in the Southern hemisphere take the same amount of time as in the Northen hemisphere.
I have included screenshots of the plane tickets with time, drawn out distance lines on RE map and also on the FE map.
The only differences between two of the maps is that one of the lines on the FE map is more than twice as long (green) than the other one (red).
If the earth is truly flat, then these flights, that are being sold, are not possible and one of them would take at least twice as long.
(I have included a link of the album containing the pictures, solely because the maximum size for attachments here is only 192KB)
The link is: https://photos.app.goo.gl/ggvh6dWRnHGat8Mj7

Thanks for the reply in advance!
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: iamcpc on January 27, 2019, 05:01:09 AM
I have a very simple question.
If the earth is truly flat, has no roundness whatsoever (EXCL. Mountains, Lakes, Oceans etc.), then how can flights in the Southern hemisphere take the same amount of time as in the Northen hemisphere.
I have included screenshots of the plane tickets with time, drawn out distance lines on RE map and also on the FE map.
The only differences between two of the maps is that one of the lines on the FE map is more than twice as long (green) than the other one (red).
If the earth is truly flat, then these flights, that are being sold, are not possible and one of them would take at least twice as long.
(I have included a link of the album containing the pictures, solely because the maximum size for attachments here is only 192KB)
The link is: https://photos.app.goo.gl/ggvh6dWRnHGat8Mj7

Thanks for the reply in advance!

The answer to these questionsx have already been provided in this thread

Here is a list to all of the answers for a flat disk model.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10817.msg178610#msg178610

There is another flat earth model which does much better with explaining flight times, flight distances, and flight paths here:

www.mapquest.com
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: inquisitive on January 27, 2019, 09:57:27 AM
I have a very simple question.
If the earth is truly flat, has no roundness whatsoever (EXCL. Mountains, Lakes, Oceans etc.), then how can flights in the Southern hemisphere take the same amount of time as in the Northen hemisphere.
I have included screenshots of the plane tickets with time, drawn out distance lines on RE map and also on the FE map.
The only differences between two of the maps is that one of the lines on the FE map is more than twice as long (green) than the other one (red).
If the earth is truly flat, then these flights, that are being sold, are not possible and one of them would take at least twice as long.
(I have included a link of the album containing the pictures, solely because the maximum size for attachments here is only 192KB)
The link is: https://photos.app.goo.gl/ggvh6dWRnHGat8Mj7

Thanks for the reply in advance!

The answer to these questionsx have already been provided in this thread

Here is a list to all of the answers for a flat disk model.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10817.msg178610#msg178610

There is another flat earth model which does much better with explaining flight times, flight distances, and flight paths here:

www.mapquest.com
mapqust is based on openstreetmap which uses a round earth WGS84 model.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: Max_Almond on January 27, 2019, 12:21:44 PM
Some useful tools:

metabunk.org/flat (http://metabunk.org/flat) for quickly seeing what routes on a flat earth and in reality would look like, as well as their distances

marinetraffic.com (http://marinetraffic.com) for tracking 50,000+ ships sailing around the globe, including thousands between the southern hemisphere continents, which is even more impossible than the 80+ planes per week that fly direct southern hemisphere flights
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: inquisitive on January 27, 2019, 03:11:02 PM
I have a very simple question.
If the earth is truly flat, has no roundness whatsoever (EXCL. Mountains, Lakes, Oceans etc.), then how can flights in the Southern hemisphere take the same amount of time as in the Northen hemisphere.
I have included screenshots of the plane tickets with time, drawn out distance lines on RE map and also on the FE map.
The only differences between two of the maps is that one of the lines on the FE map is more than twice as long (green) than the other one (red).
If the earth is truly flat, then these flights, that are being sold, are not possible and one of them would take at least twice as long.
(I have included a link of the album containing the pictures, solely because the maximum size for attachments here is only 192KB)
The link is: https://photos.app.goo.gl/ggvh6dWRnHGat8Mj7

Thanks for the reply in advance!

The answer to these questionsx have already been provided in this thread

Here is a list to all of the answers for a flat disk model.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10817.msg178610#msg178610

There is another flat earth model which does much better with explaining flight times, flight distances, and flight paths here:

www.mapquest.com
Look at https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/qf28 for direct flights. 13hours.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: iamcpc on January 29, 2019, 02:27:51 AM
mapqust is based on openstreetmap which uses a round earth WGS84 model.

regardlesss of what the map is based on it represents the earth at a flat plane. I'm using that projection of the earth as a flat plane as the basis for a alternate flat earth models.

google maps represents the earth as a sphere.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: inquisitive on January 29, 2019, 07:34:32 AM
mapqust is based on openstreetmap which uses a round earth WGS84 model.

regardlesss of what the map is based on it represents the earth at a flat plane. I'm using that projection of the earth as a flat plane as the basis for a alternate flat earth models.

google maps represents the earth as a sphere.
All maps we use have an underlying grid of latitude and longidtude of the round earth.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: Max_Almond on February 11, 2019, 06:13:38 AM
They also fly on different bearings, too, and, on the flat earth model, over recognisable landmasses instead of ocean and ice.

Last time I checked there were 80+ direct southern hemisphere flights every week. For the conundrum, Melbourne, Sydney and Auckland to Santiago, and Auckland to Buenos Aires are probably the most relevant ones.

Ships ought to be taken into consideration too, since their routes are perhaps even more difficult to explain.

marinetraffic.com is a ship tracking site similar to the flight tracking ones where you can look at southern hemisphere ships and see where they're going/where they've been.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: inquisitive on February 11, 2019, 08:50:54 AM
mapqust is based on openstreetmap which uses a round earth WGS84 model.

regardlesss of what the map is based on it represents the earth at a flat plane. I'm using that projection of the earth as a flat plane as the basis for a alternate flat earth models.

google maps represents the earth as a sphere.
Reality is that the earth is a sphere.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: retlaw on March 13, 2019, 07:00:51 PM
Look at flights from Perth to Capetown.
 
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: retlaw on March 13, 2019, 07:02:49 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzmjDFv23Ng

Flight emergency stops have some interesting issues.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: stack on March 13, 2019, 10:31:21 PM
Flight emergency stops have some interesting issues.

Not really. What are the issues? The first one the guy talks about, he has an incorrect flight path for the diversion to AK.

(https://i.imgur.com/KoUbQHt.png?1)

Here's why they went to Alaska:

(https://i.imgur.com/f8NBQ3Y.gif)
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: Max_Almond on March 14, 2019, 07:53:56 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzmjDFv23Ng

Flight emergency stops have some interesting issues.

He would find the globe earth flight paths less confusing if he put them in the right place. Maybe using a piece of string would be better to measure the shortest distance between points on a sphere, rather than drawing them by hand: they're wildly inaccurate.

To be fair, he did a follow up video to this where he used Google Maps - but, alas, still got it wrong.

Here's a short video explaining his mistakes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJQYPS7ezlU

I would say he ought to try his methods for the southern hemisphere, but he did actually do that and - surprise, surprise - made it work for the flat earth by the power of imagination. Never mind the different scenery and compass directions, though. Belief conquers all! :)
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: retlaw on March 14, 2019, 03:46:38 PM
Australia to south Africa flights make no sense on a globe traveling twice the distance then needed.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13979.0
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: stack on March 14, 2019, 04:55:03 PM
Australia to south Africa flights make no sense on a globe traveling twice the distance then needed.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13979.0

There's a direct flight from Perth to Johannesburg once a day. Approximately 8,325 KM. Makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: retlaw on March 15, 2019, 03:40:06 AM

There's a direct flight from Perth to Johannesburg once a day. Approximately 8,325 KM. Makes perfect sense.

You are correct. When I was looking for flights the other day I could not see those options.
Have to look further into them.
Title: Re: Flight Paths
Post by: Jeppspace on March 15, 2019, 04:12:19 AM
In my view, if we are going to debate the shape of the world, then who is to say whether continents are identical?

I am not an orthodox FlatEarther, my views are somewhat difficult to relate, however in reference to short flights passing Antarctica, which by the way do only pass Antarctica, I find it interesting to suggest that:


My own model doesn't require conspiracies as a corner stone, as such, and so I'm not really into them, but I don't know if any of you have considered these theories, so am just posting this for interest.

Of course, as other FE's have suggested, perhaps a modified plane is employed.