Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Frank

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 14, 2017, 10:27:09 PM »
also, Mr. Bishop: I understand that you think that Latitude and Longitude are not precise because they use the round Earth as a model, however the Earth in your opinion is flat. Do I understand you correctly?

How can it be, that Latitude and Longitude work very well in navigation, then? So well, that it is possible to fly 8000 nautical miles and then do an instrument approach and an automatic landing on a 45m wide Runway solely by refering to Lat/Lon, as good as 100% of the time?

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 14, 2017, 10:21:54 PM »
Mr. Bishop, can you reply to this?

uh, and I just read further. It seems to me you, Mr. Bishop, are fixating on the need to prove that distances between points are indeed the distances that people who "believe in a globe" are claiming they are. Your claim that GPS data is based on a globe and therefore cannot be used to prove or disprove groundspeed, distances and other claims made in this thread, is unfortunately not quite correct. Whereas GPS data is indeed based on data derived from the model of a rotational ellipsoid and then corrected for the parts of (round) Earth that don't match the mathematical model with the World Geodatic System 1984 (WGS84), it is not the only way a modern airliner measures it's position and ground speed. As a matter of fact, GPS wouldn't be needed at all (and wasn't as a general rule until the nineties). An Airliner navigates by the use of an inertial reference system, which is self-reliant, if the correct position is inserted before the aircraft starts to move. (By way of design, that reference system would not even work on a flat Earth, especially one that is not rotating.) However, the reference system accumulates errors, and thus the position becomes more inaccurate the longer the aircraft is moving. Old(er) aircraft like the 737-300 generation, 747 classic, DC10 and the likes used solely ground based navigation systems (VOR, DME-DME updating) to correct the "drift" of their inertial reference system (which then was called inertial navigation system). Over oceanic airspace that was not possible, hence there was an increasing drift error the longer the aircraft flew over water (without updating). That was accounted for in the design of the airways, so no aircraft would get too close to another one. Modern airliners update their position also by GPS. So now we have ground based navigaton aids that reflect the actual distances on Earth and that can be used for very accurate ground speed estimation, and GPS, and we find, that there is no difference outside normal tolerances in between the two - neither in position nor in speed measurement. This means, we are using systems that would work on a flat Earth (ground based navigation) and systems that use the round Earth as a model (GPS) and both enable us to navigate very accurately on the real Earth. So, if I read you correctly, this invalidates your claim, that data based on a globe can not be used to prove actual distances on the real Earth (flat or round). Furthermore, any conceivable model of a flat Earth causes distances away from its center to become so large, that far bigger speeds than the actual ones would be necessary to cover them. And by "far bigger" I mean multiples of the speed of sound. However, airliners don't fly that fast. (The problems of supersonic, let alone hypersonic airtravel are rediculously high.) Not even the geatest inaccuracy of an airborne air speed indicator, independent of any navigation system, could explain that impossibility away, because of the sheer velocity that would be required. Air masses don't move that fast either - especially not in one direction and, for the way back, in the other. Which brings me to the problem of weather systems, which cannot be explained by a flat earth eiter, especially one that is not rotating.

Where this may be possible to explain with refering to (for you) more tangible explanations, it seems to be involving a lot of text to write. I would rather like to point out the following:

We, the people who believe the earth is a globe, have a mathematical model of "our" earth. I am working with this model every day, and it works in real life - both, in the air, and on the oceans, to a great precision. Furthermore, weather observation, the physics of gyros, gasses and many, many other easily observabale trades of nature and the world we live in, whatever shape it may have, match that model.

Without disrespect,  that the earth should be flat bears a lot of problems. First and foremost, that, as you claim, no model of a flat earth has been charted that can explain and unify all or even a small percentage of the observations that can easily made by man. As a matter of fact, it stops explaining most of the things beyond "the earth does not look like a ball from where I am standing". While you of course have every right to believe anything you like, I hope I am not being rude by saying, that your "model" of a flat earth is very underdeveloped at the moment. So much so, that you (and/or your fellow believers) have to withdraw into the "fog of uncertainty" very often, where suddenly mismatches between your statements and between your statements and so far undisputed claims (e.g. the speed of sound, accuracy of ground speed measurment and so on) are being "explained away" to make other things match - and, as a last resort, the sources of those so far undisputed claims are being brought into disrepute by implying (or openly writing), they are part of a conspiracy. Thus, to a fictive observer without any further knowledge of the earth, who is venturing past "The Earth Looks Flat From My Position", your flat Earth bears more questions than answers, and that is without claiming, that any other model is more correct - wouldn't you agree?

So, for practical purposes, your flat Earth model does not work, starting from the absence of the actual "model", which makes, it seems, - and please correct me if I am wrong - this whole "Flat Earth Debate" obsolete.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 14, 2017, 10:11:23 PM »
As Frank pointed out, there is no need for GPS, it just makes the system more accurate. Totally invalidates your argument. Please address his comments on ground speed necessary to travel the southern hemisphere distances.

Why are you fighting this?  You should have embraced this thread as a way to map a flat Earth.    You keep saying there are no resources to map FE but you have been handed methodology to do just that.

As commented, if those other systems use Latitude and Longitude in any way, that makes them inaccurate too. Or, are you arguing that an airplane can get to a very distant location without knowing the coordinates of itself or its destination?

Latitude an longitude are very accurate in describing a point on the real Earth, whatever shape it may have. I do not quite understand where you get the idea that this wouldn't be the case. The system works very well. You can use latitude and longitude on a map with doing all calculations on a paper and get to where you want just by using a compass, and it works. Or what do I not understand?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 14, 2017, 10:07:21 PM »
If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.
All over. So....what? FE doesn't even have something to do that with, seeing as it doesn't have a working map. For a given coordinate system to work (such as Lat/Long) doesn't it mean the figure has to be the shape the coordinate system assumes it is in order for it to work at all? I can't take a sphere, unfold and stretch it out into a flat plane, and still have all of the coordinates match up properly. Hell, I'll be left with areas that don't have coordinates at all. Please explain. You keep objecting to these things because they "Use a RE coordinate system" but please explain how a system can be accurate for a shape it isn't designed for.

Accuracy is a matter that is in contention. Please refer to my previous post about GPS distances not being valid. The GPS systems carried by athletes gave different distances when compared to the USATF certified track distances which were measured with a wheeled device.

Sorry. GPS is very accurate. It may happen, that there are some inaccuracies (within meters) for a given period of time, but they do not play any role when it comes to proving or disproving any of the arguments in this thread. We are talking about accuracy of within three meters >95% of the time and the likes. Differential GPS is even more accurate.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 14, 2017, 10:02:53 PM »
If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.

Some do. And they consistently work together with the ones that don't. And all of them take us to the points we want to go, in the time that we calculate. That means that navigation systems that use the globe as a model work on the world that we live and walk on very accurately. Which in turn means, that the model of a globe is pretty much suitable in describing the world we live on, which in turn means, that there is some likelyhood that the world is round. They, however, do not work on a flat earth.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2017, 09:58:24 PM »
yes, I see. But is that not verging on psychotic?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Complete Circumnavigation
« on: August 14, 2017, 09:56:00 PM »
I just read through this, and someone wrote the (magnetic) heading changes on a great circle route are so small, they are actually not detectable. That is not true, expecially not when you are flying over great distances (which I do professionally). As a matter of fact they are quite big and very detectable and also a challenge, if you have to calculate your great circle distance on a chart rather than letting the Flight Management Computer do it. Whereas the Flat Earth Map would give you heading changes as well on most great circle routes, they are different to the ones we get flying in real life, which, in turn, are consistent with the mathematical modell of a rotational elipsoid ("the globe").  There is one great circle route on the Flat Earth Map however, that is completely different to the real world navigation, and that is the Equator. In real life, if you fly along the equator, there is no heading change. That is not the case on the Flat Earth Map, where you have significant heading changes even over a short distance. I brough this up in the thread "Navigation", but no flat earth person replied to it yet.

In the flat earth map on the Wiki (and probably on all other FE maps too) - the concept is that compasses still point toward the North pole (the center of the map) - so if you define "heading" as "angle from where the compass needle points" - then you can travel the equator in FET and RET alike just by flying at 90 degrees to the compass needle.

In fact, on that map, compasses work entirely identically to the round earth...weird shit happens at the Ice Wall because in RET, all southward motion takes you to the south pole - but in FET - it sends you off in some radial direction depending on where you started.

Sadly (for FET folk) we rarely use magnetic compasses for navigation - and even when we did, we used celestial navigation to back that up - an celestial navigation completely falls apart in the southern regions of the Flat Earth.

Yeah, sorry, I wrote bollocks, I meant course and not heading. I corrected it in the original post.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 14, 2017, 06:31:23 AM »
uh, and I just read further. It seems to me you, Mr. Bishop, are fixating on the need to prove that distances between points are indeed the distances that people who "believe in a globe" are claiming they are. Your claim that GPS data is based on a globe and therefore cannot be used to prove or disprove groundspeed, distances and other claims made in this thread, is unfortunately not quite correct. Whereas GPS data is indeed based on data derived from the model of a rotational ellipsoid and then corrected for the parts of (round) Earth that don't match the mathematical model with the World Geodatic System 1984 (WGS84), it is not the only way a modern airliner measures it's position and ground speed. As a matter of fact, GPS wouldn't be needed at all (and wasn't as a general rule until the nineties). An Airliner navigates by the use of an inertial reference system, which is self-reliant, if the correct position is inserted before the aircraft starts to move. (By way of design, that reference system would not even work on a flat Earth, especially one that is not rotating.) However, the reference system accumulates errors, and thus the position becomes more inaccurate the longer the aircraft is moving. Old(er) aircraft like the 737-300 generation, 747 classic, DC10 and the likes used solely ground based navigation systems (VOR, DME-DME updating) to correct the "drift" of their inertial reference system (which then was called inertial navigation system). Over oceanic airspace that was not possible, hence there was an increasing drift error the longer the aircraft flew over water (without updating). That was accounted for in the design of the airways, so no aircraft would get too close to another one. Modern airliners update their position also by GPS. So now we have ground based navigaton aids that reflect the actual distances on Earth and that can be used for very accurate ground speed estimation, and GPS, and we find, that there is no difference outside normal tolerances in between the two - neither in position nor in speed measurement. This means, we are using systems that would work on a flat Earth (ground based navigation) and systems that use the round Earth as a model (GPS) and both enable us to navigate very accurately on the real Earth. So, if I read you correctly, this invalidates your claim, that data based on a globe can not be used to prove actual distances on the real Earth (flat or round). Furthermore, any conceivable model of a flat Earth causes distances away from its center to become so large, that far bigger speeds than the actual ones would be necessary to cover them. And by "far bigger" I mean multiples of the speed of sound. However, airliners don't fly that fast. (The problems of supersonic, let alone hypersonic airtravel are rediculously high.) Not even the geatest inaccuracy of an airborne air speed indicator, independent of any navigation system, could explain that impossibility away, because of the sheer velocity that would be required. Air masses don't move that fast either - especially not in one direction and, for the way back, in the other. Which brings me to the problem of weather systems, which cannot be explained by a flat earth eiter, especially one that is not rotating.

Where this may be possible to explain with refering to (for you) more tangible explanations, it seems to be involving a lot of text to write. I would rather like to point out the following:

We, the people who believe the earth is a globe, have a mathematical model of "our" earth. I am working with this model every day, and it works in real life - both, in the air, and on the oceans, to a great precision. Furthermore, weather observation, the physics of gyros, gasses and many, many other easily observabale trades of nature and the world we live in, whatever shape it may have, match that model.

Without disrespect,  that the earth should be flat bears a lot of problems. First and foremost, that, as you claim, no model of a flat earth has been charted that can explain and unify all or even a small percentage of the observations that can easily made by man. As a matter of fact, it stops explaining most of the things beyond "the earth does not look like a ball from where I am standing". While you of course have every right to believe anything you like, I hope I am not being rude by saying, that your "model" of a flat earth is very underdeveloped at the moment. So much so, that you (and/or your fellow believers) have to withdraw into the "fog of uncertainty" very often, where suddenly mismatches between your statements and between your statements and so far undisputed claims (e.g. the speed of sound, accuracy of ground speed measurment and so on) are being "explained away" to make other things match - and, as a last resort, the sources of those so far undisputed claims are being brought into disrepute by implying (or openly writing), they are part of a conspiracy. Thus, to a fictive observer without any further knowledge of the earth, who is venturing past "The Earth Looks Flat From My Position", your flat Earth bears more questions than answers, and that is without claiming, that any other model is more correct - wouldn't you agree?

So, for practical purposes, your flat Earth model does not work, starting from the absence of the actual "model", which makes, it seems, - and please correct me if I am wrong - this whole "Flat Earth Debate" obsolete.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 14, 2017, 05:20:47 AM »
If the earth were a globe (convex) we should expect to see more than 180 degrees when the interior angles are added between any three connecting flight routes which create a triangle.

Lets assume that these values on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en are accurate values from flight logs:

Quote
Brisbane   Darwin   2849km   4hr 05min   Qantas
...
Darwin   Perth   2649km   3hr 50min   Qantas
...
Perth   Brisbane   3605km   4hr 10min   Qantas

Inputting those figures into an SSS Triangle Theorem Calculator to get the interior angles of the triangle those three sides create:

Angles:
A = 46.6692 °
B = 81.857 °
C = 51.4738 °

Adding up the angles: 46.6692 ° + 81.857 ° + 51.4738 ° = 180 °

Therefore the earth is flat.

-----------

Lets try some international flights for added resolution:

Quote
Sydney   London (LHR)   17174km   23hr 20min   Qantas
...
London (LHR)   Dubai   5493km   7hr 40min   Qantas
...
Dubai   Sydney   12039km   13hr 40min   Qantas

Angles:
A = 7.77844 °
B = 17.2553 °
C = 154.966 °

7.77844 ° + 17.2553 ° + 154.966 ° = 179.99974 °

Therefore the earth is slightly concave.

-----------

Another international flight route:

Quote
Los Angeles   Sydney   12052km   14hr 30min   Qantas
..
Honolulu   Los Angeles   4114km   5hr 10min   Codeshare
..
Honolulu   Sydney   8154km   10hr 0min   Qantas

Angles:
A = 7.60894 °
B = 15.2149 °
C = 157.176 °

7.60894 ° + 15.2149 ° + 157.176 ° = 179.99984 °

Therefore the earth is slightly concave.

Dear Mr. Bishop, please forgive me replying to you. I am new to this group. I just read part of this thread, until I came to your comment about adding up the angles. Please let me correct you: The angles do indeed add up to more then 180°. I am a long haul pilot and also a sailor, and to people like me the mathematical challenge you are trying to tackle is an "everyday problem", so to speak, and one that our students have to solve over and over again in training. I don't know what kind of calculator it is you are refering to, however that calculation can be solved on a piece of paper and a chart. Just by looking at it I can tell right now that the distances and angles match and by no means do disprove that the earth is a globe. In the face of the numbers, however, it would be hard to maintain the opinion that the earth is flat.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Complete Circumnavigation
« on: August 14, 2017, 05:05:58 AM »
I just read through this, and someone wrote the (magnetic) heading changes on a great circle route are so small, they are actually not detectable. That is not true, expecially not when you are flying over great distances (which I do professionally). As a matter of fact they are quite big and very detectable and also a challenge, if you have to calculate your great circle distance on a chart rather than letting the Flight Management Computer do it. Whereas the Flat Earth Map would give you heading changes as well on most great circle routes, they are different to the ones we get flying in real life, which, in turn, are consistent with the mathematical modell of a rotational elipsoid ("the globe").  There is one great circle route on the Flat Earth Map however, that is completely different to the real world navigation, and that is the Equator. In real life, if you fly along the equator, there is no heading and no course change. That is not the case on the Flat Earth Map, where you have significant course changes even over a short distance. (That means you have to turn constantly to maintain the heading.) I brough this up in the thread "Navigation", but no flat earth person replied to it yet.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2017, 04:43:38 AM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.

You are obviously part of The Grand Conspiracy.

Darn!  And he seemed such a nice guy too!

(Psst - Frank - when's the next grand conspiracy group meeting?  Also, I've forgotten the secret handshake.)

I am surprised to see that no-one who believes that the earth is flat is actually replying to this. Reading through the other topics I got the impression, they are realy vocal about it. I showed this to my wife and she thinks it is a big joke, or some kind of experiment.
Having just flown from Asia to North America again, I came to think of how we used to fly freight around the world: Amsterdam-Dubai-Hongkong-Anchorage-Chicago-London-Amsterdam. All our navigational data would have been different if the earth was flat. Also the way a gyroscope works cannot be explained on a flat earth that is not rotating around itself.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Navigation
« on: July 20, 2017, 12:12:47 AM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.
We have discussed this problem here before - the FE'ers are generally reluctant to respond to these issues.

There is one response I got.

We'd been talking about the Qantas airlines' published travel times around the Southern Hemisphere (er: "Hemiplane").   The distances you see on the "standard" FE map (the one mostly shown on the Wiki) says that the 747 would have to be traveling at 2.1 times the speed of sound to meet their schedule to non-stop destinations in either South Africa or South America...and that they'd run out of fuel about halfway to their destination.

The SINGLE meaningful response (sorry, I forget who said it) was that the Jetstream carries their aircraft to the destination.

(I'm not defending that answer - I merely pass it along!)

To my mind:

* It doesn't explain how they make it back again - the jetstream doesn't blow in both directions!
* It doesn't explain how Qantas could be unaware of this effect and blindly go on assuming the earth is round...despite seeing odd islands and ships whizzing past the window at unreasonably large speeds.
* It doesn't explain how large surface shipping companies (without the benefit of the jet stream) don't discover that their ocean trips routinely take three times as long as they "should".

So it wasn't exactly an acceptable answer...but it was the only one we got that actually addressed this perfectly reasonable question.

But maybe you, as a long haul pilot, could point out additional flaws in that response?

Yes, well it would have to be a jet stream that has the velocity of 1000 knots. Although we do have strong jetstreams (for example over Japan), they are rarely much over 200 kts, and only for part of the way. Indeed, it also would have to be a reveresed jet stream on the way back, which is - of course - total bollocks.
But there are other aspects, for example if you fly along the (real) equator exactly east or west, you are also flying the great circle distance, i.e. the shortest way between two points on a rotational elipsoid (which is the geometrical model we use for calculations on earths surface). If you fly exactly east or west on the flat earther's model on the "equator", it is not the shortest distance, because to have a constant compass heading of east (or west) you would have to fly a semi circle around the flat earther's north pole. To do that you would constantly have to bank the aircraft, which, in real life, doesn't happen. This, by the way, is something anyone can confirm who has sailed on a boat over long distances (the lack of heading change, that is). To understand that better, it helps to look at a globe rather than a map.
Here is another one: I you fly from NY to Hong Kong on an exact straight line, without banking the aircraft (i.e. without changing the direction the nose is pointing) the real north pole is on the right. On the flat earther's map it is on the left. This can be easily proven by looking out the window on a clear day - the land masses of Canada, Greenland, Russia etc. can be easily pointed out by anyone with a rudimentary geographical knowledge.
In a nutshell: Simple experiments, that easily can be conducted with highschool knowledge, prove that there is no way that the earth can be flat. Things just wouldn't fit - the movement of the stars and planets, the speed of sound, the properties of radio and light waves, and more.

I also have a question:  Does the effect of the coriolis force have a practical bearing on how pilots navigate long-haul north/south routes?    The FE model cannot reproduce the coriolis effect - and maybe there is yet another avenue of disproof (or perhaps PROOF!) that can be found by considering that?

The coriolis force does not influence the navigation directly, but the weather and, with that, the wind direction, which, in turn influences the navigation. However, if you argue that the flat earth is spinning (which I don't know if the flat earthers claim that it is), then you would indeed have coriolis force. On the real earth the coriolis force makes low pressure systems rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere - that can be seen from the ground, sometimes. That would be non existing on a flat earth. Even if the flat earth was spinning, the pressure systems would all be rotating in the same direction.

13