Recent Posts

The equation can be rearranged into time(hrs) = 0.72 + distance(km)/871, rounding the numbers a bit.
Which is in fact clearly visible in the chart above. If the line is continued backwards, it intersects the x axis (time) at about 45 minutes.
Looks to be a point that edby is wrong then and other things do need to be taken into account.
There is certainly more than simple time proportion to distance relationship.
All flights need time to taxi to the threshold, take off and climb at a slower speed to cruising altitude then lose altitude, approach and land, then finally taxi to the terminal.
No-one is pretending that all these are the same for every flight, but that graph demonstrates a very good correlation.

The equation can be rearranged into time(hrs) = 0.72 + distance(km)/871, rounding the numbers a bit.

This makes it clear that the average "turnaround time" lost  is about 43 minutes and the average aircraft cruising speed is 871 km/hr, about in the middle of typical cruising speed.

But this is only a way to verify that the quoted flight distances are reasonable and not grossly misleading and no great accuracy is needed to show that some maps are totally unrealistic..
Your numbers don't make sense. Look at the one over the 5hr mark. It correlates with about 4000 miles.

"Commercial jet aircraft cruise at about 400 – 500 knots (460 – 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph)"

Lets use 550 mph for example:

5hrs x 550 = 2750 miles

So your evidence is showing something contrary to the earth model you are arguing for.
Well. That's embarrassing...
This is where you come across as a troll. You misread the units and fine, that can happen.
But when that is pointed out you claim victory anyway.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on Today at 08:34:58 AM »
That's the first converted flat farther I've heard of :o

Me too. Interesting. And he did so by doing exactly what this thread suggests, trying to create a map and realising it isn't possible.
The only way to cling to flat earth belief is to make crazy assertions that airlines don't know how fast their planes are going so don't really know the distance between places, despite them reliably getting people around the globe every day. Long haul flights have those "time to destination" maps which show you where you are at all times and clearly take real time data because I've been watching them when we've had to circle before landing and the path shows that happening, they're not just representations of where the plane is.

It's telling that the people who are most entrenched on here are the ones who refuse to do any experiments or take any empirical measurements themselves. Any attempt at making a flat earth map would show that the earth cannot be flat.
Flat Earth General / Re: Latitude and Longitude
« Last post by edby on Today at 08:32:09 AM »
Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star [p. 231] sinks to the horizon as the traveller approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.

What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.

This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which [p. 232] he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth. 

That’s about as wrong as you can get.
Flat Earth General / Re: Latitude and Longitude
« Last post by hexagon on Today at 08:16:45 AM »
Found on YouTube:

‘Latitude and Longitude are concepts that originate with Astronomy and which assumes that we live on a spherical surface’.

As far as I can determine, the second part is not correct. The first part is misleading, given that the practical application of of these measurements is for navigation to avoid ships crashing into land.

The second part is wrong. No such assumption is required. Latitude is an observable quantity based on the sun’s position. Longitude requires an accurate clock and a measurement of local noon.

Both are therefore measurable quantities, and so don’t depend on spherical earth assumptions. Of course, a spherical earth is a consequence of this, but a consequence and an assumption are quite different things.

Of course coordinate systems can be transformed one into each other, but you have a kind of natural coordinate system depending on the geometry and symmetry of your space. In Euclidean space you would naturally use Cartesian coordinates, in a cylindrical space you would use an angle, radius and height as coordinates. For a sphere radius and two angles. Longitude and latitude are spherical coordinates and I would say the use of them originates in astronomy cause the night sky appears as half sphere and you can easily describe the position and movement of celestial objects in spherical coordinates. And only later this was applied to locate certain points on the earth surface. For a flat earth cylindrical coordinates would be much more natural.     
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map
« Last post by rabinoz on Today at 08:10:02 AM »
That's the first converted flat farther I've heard of :o

So Tom, back to the original question.  Why don't you do what this chap did, and use the mountain of available data in the form of flight times, distances, aircraft speeds (Oh yes, the aircraft designers AND the pilots do know what speed a plane flys at) and produce your own flat earth map? 
There's a well known equation, speed = distance/time or distance = speed * time.  I'm sure you're not going to argue the validity of that equation?

Concerned about the effect of wind?  Well, take the east/west flights and the west/east flights and work out the average.  That'll give you an answer which is not 100% accurate, but near enough to prove/disprove your flat earth map.
You will note that no-one convinced either TigerDan925 or cikljamas/odiupicku that the earth was not flat. They had to convince themselves.
Cikljamas/odiupicku is certainly a good experimenter and in trying to find better evidence for the flat earth instead found enough to convince himself that the earth could not be flat. Mind you he's still a  ;) pain-in-the-neck ;) with his geocentric arguments on

And you've already seen how TigerDan925 convinced himself while trying to make an accurate flat earth map.
Flat Earth General / Re: 100% undebunkable
« Last post by hexagon on Today at 07:55:37 AM »
Via k_B * T temperature of gas molecules is equivalent to a certain amount of kinetic energy and therefor a certain velocity. A value of 1m/s or 86400 Km/day at room temperature is a very conservative estimate...

Anyway, the earth and its atmosphere is a closed system, you don't feel it's speed because you, the air and everything else is moving with the same speed with you. You only feel accelerations, but the outward acceleration due to earth's rotation is even at the equator so tiny compared to gravity, that you can measure it, but not feel it.     
It’s Bartolo. Biot says in his account that Mechain had chosen ‘summits’ in a large triangle, one of which was the summit i.e. the highest part of Desierto las Palmas, and he later explicitly refers to ‘le sommet du Desierto de las Palmas’.

They refer to a ‘hermitage’ on the summit. I take it this is the building shown below, next to the modern radio transmitter.

And let’s go back to the OP which quotes Rowbotham
"In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

As the OP notes, 6600 feet is the drop below horizontal - or the hidden amount for a viewer whose eyeballs are at sea level, which is clearly not the case even taking Rowbotham at face value. ‘The hidden amount for a viewer at 2385 feet, 100 miles distance is 716 feet (including standard refraction; 1077 feet without) - therefore about 550 feet of Camp Vell would be visible in normal conditions’.

I am tempted to accuse Rowbotham of dishonesty here, or at least of sloppiness. Either he was aware that the experiment involved an accurate determination of the curvature of the earth, or not. If not, he was being careless. If he was, then he was grossly dishonest.

Note that Biot and Arago were not trying to discover whether the earth was curved. They already knew that. They were trying to get an accurate determination to support their work on the arc of the meridian.

Yup, look at the graph again. In 5 hrs takes 4000 kilometres, which Tom in his haste thought was miles. That's 800 km/hr or 500 mph. Perfectly reasonable for a long haul jet.

And the point anyway is that there is close correlation between time and distance, contrary to what Tom has repeatedly claimed.