1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 07, 2014, 07:43:03 AM »

Im Back,

I didn't say commercial airliners. I said corporate aircraft like the gulfstream V or Falcon900.
Both aircraft that fly higher than normal commercial aircraft. 51,000ft.

T

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 02, 2014, 06:20:22 PM »

hahaha,

Mine did.

OK interest lost for now. I'll be back another day. keep up the good work

T

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 02, 2014, 03:07:37 PM »

Good afternoon,

I didn't say the curvature of space-time I said the distortion. Who said its curved?

No lensing through the cockpit windows, especially the uncurved side cockpit windows.
I've had a look at the horizon through the one sat on my desk here and it doesn't cause any curvature and i can see a very long way today.
Perspective is not the cause.

Does the earth revolve around the sun still? your arguments suggest not. how do you explain the values garnered from stellar parallax?

T

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 02, 2014, 07:52:52 AM »

Morning,

No I don't for one second think that the Coriolis effect works on a small scale. Thats half your blurb wasted.

"Fuel is more efficient than people think" - Touche, didn't see that coming. The fuel flow figures for all aircraft are documented and you can actually watch the display in the cockpit and see fuel use per minute and the starting figure. So you can see what's burnt over what distance.

Heres more.
If the world is a disc, how thick is the disc? Even if its very thick it wont have the same mass as a spherical earth.
How do you explain the distortion values in space time around the world as observed by GP-B.
Also.
What causes the curvature of the earth as viewed from 52,000ft in a Gulfstream V or Challenger 605?
Also
Does God live on the back side of the disc?

Have a good day
T

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 01, 2014, 08:47:27 PM »

Ah yes, that well known half of the world, the southern hemidisc.......

Ok, so assuming no map can be accurately drawn of your world, as none of you are cartographers, and you don't care about winning or losing.

Could you explain to me how the Coriolis effect is supposed to work on a flat earth and please could you explain why the stars in the sky are so different from different parts of each hemidisc?
Aren't we all looking up at the same sky?

Also I'm off to bed, I will ponder long and hard on these replies and come back to you tomorrow with some more easily disproved questions for the flat earthests

Peace
T

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 01, 2014, 06:46:10 PM »

Always satisfied,

Quite a long way their, NZ to south america? Where are all the planes crashing?
Are these debates boring when we don't say anything that's refutable?

Whats the distance from one side of the disk to the other?
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was  45,317km.
Bit shorter than your map suggests.
Arent you supposed to answer a question with a question? that way you lose less?
T

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 01, 2014, 05:30:54 PM »

Excellent Map,
I will take it with a dumper truck of salt, however can I assume the countries are fundamentally in the correct position?

If so, Can you explain why the most southern commercial airline route operated by Aerolineas Argentinas from Auckland to Buenos Aires doesn't carry enough fuel to even make it half way across your map, yet, it makes the flight quite happily without breaking any international fuel policies? Or crashing.

The distance between the two airports (in my spherical world) is 6436 miles, great circle. Your map would make that same straight line roughly 20,000miles give or take 5000miles.
This would mean (you know what this would mean), that old Aerolineas Argentinas would be losing a few too many planes regularly.

And yes an Azimuthal equidistant map would be a better option than the one you have posted. Antarctica would be more believable for one. Still it doesn't help your cause.

T

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 01, 2014, 04:38:25 PM »

thanks for the replies,

As a matter of fact planes feature frequently in my day to day work.
No the North atlantic tracks cant always avoid the Jet stream. the Planners try their best to get the best track but its not always the case, Slots etc.

I know what the route is because there are a series of 5-7 pre-set north atlantic tracks all taking the planes way further north than a straight line would suggest they take.
in fact if we had a flat earth and the crews flew direct then it would avoid the jetstream altogether. So why are these planes all taking this more northerly route even though it sometimes clashes with the westerlies?

Jroa, has anyone seen a flat earth map??

Thanks and again cant wait for the reply.

T

9

Flat Earth Theory / OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 01, 2014, 03:34:51 PM »

Firstly I would like to say I love this website.

Its mental and the guys answering the posts are very funny.

So here is my attempt at debating. Apologies if this is already asked. I couldn't be bothered to trawl the forum to find it.

Please can you tell me why airliners who fly from Heathrow to Florida Fly so far north over the Atlantic and come down closer to the east coast of the USA as opposed to going in a straight line direct?
A straight line (on a flat earth) would take them very close to the azores for this route, but alas they don't.

Why are fuel conscious airlines burning so much needless fuel??? unless they aren't and in fact the earth is a sphere.
I look forward to your response
Tom