The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 3DGeek on August 01, 2017, 10:18:22 PM

Title: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 01, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
OK folks - I'm going to jump through a few steps on the way to a proof - it's going to take many days and lots of posts, so just follow along as we go.

I'll include multiple sources for each claim so we know there is no funny business going on.

STEP 1: To keep things easy - I want to use a service called: http://www.worldatlas.com/travelaids/flight_distance.htm - it provides a simple way to type in the names of two cities and it tells you the flight distance between them.

I do understand that our flat earth brethren are not going to believe what it says without evidence.   So STEP 2 will be to test whether it works or not.

STEP 2: Since FET differs from RET to the greatest extent in the southern hemisphere - it makes sense to use Qantas airline's non-stop flights as a way to compare the distance the Qantas claims they are flying against the worldatlas site.   So - here's where we go:

    https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en

This tells us the distance and flight time in hours and minutes between various destinations.  These are the PUBLISHED travel times.   We may need to use other data later to confirm that the times are right...and because we know that Qantas only flies 747-400 aircraft over these long haul routes - we can compare the known cruising speeds of the aircraft to their estimated travel time to be sure that there are no HUGE errors in their data.   If necessary I can find the specifications of these aircraft - range and speeds.   Also, we'll need to look at the flights both to and from each destination to confirm that the jet stream isn't giving them a massive speed boost in one direction versus the other.

Don't worry - we'll be backing up this data very soon.

But to start with, let's look at some basic flight data:

Qantas say that Sydney to Johannesburg (South Africa) is 11,044 km and takes 11 hours 45 minutes to get there and 11 hours and 55 minutes to get back...so the Jet stream adds 5 minutes one way and subtracts 5 the other way.   Not a big deal.  If you check other routes, the outgoing and return flights times are always within 15 minutes.   Incidentally - this blows away the FE claim that jetstreams account for the 220% increase in speed needed to do Sydney-Santiago in the claimed time on EITHER the FE map shown on the Wiki OR Tom's new map that includes antarctica.  Neither map can be explained away in light of this data.

Worldmap say that this flight is 11,119 km...which is 115 more than Qantas - but we're within about 1% here - so that's pretty close.

Taking some more routes:

Sydney-Dubai is 12,039 according to Qantas and 12,008 km according to Worldmap...better than 1%.
Sydney-Singapore is 6,289 according to Qantas and 6235 km according to Worldmap...again, better than 1%
Sydney-Dallas is 13,816 according to Qantas and 13,756 km according to Worldmap...same deal.

So we can certainly get the idea that:

 a) Qantas and Worldmap seem to agree on these distances to within about 1% - so it's not that one is "great circle" and the other is "fixed compass heading".
 b) They didn't come up with EXACTLY the same numbers - which suggest that they aren't both using the same equations or the same source data.

Clearly we have independent sources here - and they agree quite well.

You can sit there all day and find different Qantas routes (although you need to be sure they are DIRECT flights) - and the Worldmap numbers agree.

We don't have to just use flights into Australia and back.

Anchorage to Honolulu - Qantas says 4,471 km - Worldmap says 4,490 km.
Calgary to Halifax - Qantas says 3,745 km - Worldmap says 3,794km.

Now - what about flight times and airplane ranges?

Qantas fly the Boeing 747-400 exclusively on long distance routes.  Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#747-400 for the exact variant of the aircraft they fly.  The straight 747-400 is by far the most popular of the 747 series.  Further down the Wikipedia article, you can see the Cruise speed of the aircraft is 933 kph and the range is 13,490km...but wait?  That can't be right - the Sydney-Dallas flight is 13,816km.   This is actually a subtle point.  That range if for the PW4000 engines - but if you look further up the page, it says that Qantas once flew non-stop from London to Sydney - which is 18,000 km.   And the reason for that is that it was a "delivery flight" - no passengers, no luggage, no freight.   So how are Qantas flying full loads to Dallas?   Turns out they are using the 747-400ER (Extended range) version.  They bought just six of them and they use them for their Australia/USA routes...and it adds another 800km of additional range to the basic airplane.

Incidentally - at the altitude theses airplanes fly, 933 kph is Mach 0.85 - well below the speed of sound.  At full speed (which guzzles fuel!) they can make 1000kph which is mach 0.92.   That's important...no matter what, a subsonic airplane can't go past mach 1 without some serious problems!

If you doubt the veracity of Wikipedia - note the little blue numbers in square brackets next to most of these facts...those link to other documents that will confirm what they say.

OK - so all is explained - this plane can fly those distances - but there isn't a whole lot of fuel to spare.

Let's look at flight times to confirm what we're seeing:

Sydney-Dubai is 12,039km - and the posted flight time is 13hrs 40mins - giving us a theoretical speed of 880 kph - which is well within the airplane's ability.
Sydney-Johannesburg is 11,044 km - and 11 hours 45 mins (with the jet-stream) which is 940 kph...but 11 hours 55mins (against the jetstream) 926 kph.  That's fast - and it may be they are pushing the plane above cruising speed to do that...definitely possible.

...again, we pick flights can do this all night - the answer is the same - the aircraft are flying within their published limits - but not by a massive degree.

Even if Qantas and WorldAtlas are somehow collaborating to fake their distance data - the flight times can't be off by much.

Another data point:

   https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/otp_annual.aspx

This is a summary of the performance of Qantas (and other) airlines that fly from Australia.   It says that 86% of Qantas flights take off on time and 88% of them arrive on time.  Qantas are one of the best airlines in the world for timeliness - so we can largely discount Tom's assertion that they are late 25% of the time...it's 12%.  What this means is that the times they quote are the actual times it take to make the trip at least 88% of the time.   Since they are arrive on time more often than they leave on time - they have the limited ability to catch up a bit if they take off later than they should.

Right - I'm out of time to do more on this "research" today...more will be coming soon.

So - conclusions from this post that (I hope) everyone is OK with:

* Qantas and Worldmap agree pretty well on every distance we can check.  You can keep doing this all day...they always agree quite well.
* Qantas and Worldmap aren't using the same software or the same data - these are clearly independent sources.
* The Qantas aircraft can fly no more than about 14,000km - and at a max speed of 1000kph and a long-range speed of around 933 kph.
* Assuming we believe the speeds and ranges for these aircraft - the distances and travel times given by Qantas and WorldAtlas have got to be very close to the truth.
* The official statistics say that Qantas really do fly these routes at the times they claim.

Next we'll try to use these data sources to confirm or deny the flat earth hypotheses and try to imagine a flat earth map that could work.

FE'ers - if you have disputes with these data items - please let me know here - and I'll find more evidence for you.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 02, 2017, 02:45:36 PM
OK folks - I'm going to jump through a few steps on the way to a proof - it's going to take many days and lots of posts, so just follow along as we go.

I'll include multiple sources for each claim so we know there is no funny business going on.

STEP 1: To keep things easy - I want to use a service called: http://www.worldatlas.com/travelaids/flight_distance.htm - it provides a simple way to type in the names of two cities and it tells you the flight distance between them.

I do understand that our flat earth brethren are not going to believe what it says without evidence.   So STEP 2 will be to test whether it works or not.

STEP 2: Since FET differs from RET to the greatest extent in the southern hemisphere - it makes sense to use Qantas airline's non-stop flights as a way to compare the distance the Qantas claims they are flying against the worldatlas site.   So - here's where we go:

    https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en

This tells us the distance and flight time in hours and minutes between various destinations.  These are the PUBLISHED travel times.   We may need to use other data later to confirm that the times are right...and because we know that Qantas only flies 747-400 aircraft over these long haul routes - we can compare the known cruising speeds of the aircraft to their estimated travel time to be sure that there are no HUGE errors in their data.   If necessary I can find the specifications of these aircraft - range and speeds.   Also, we'll need to look at the flights both to and from each destination to confirm that the jet stream isn't giving them a massive speed boost in one direction versus the other.

Don't worry - we'll be backing up this data very soon.

But to start with, let's look at some basic flight data:

Qantas say that Sydney to Johannesburg (South Africa) is 11,044 km and takes 11 hours 45 minutes to get there and 11 hours and 55 minutes to get back...so the Jet stream adds 5 minutes one way and subtracts 5 the other way.   Not a big deal.  If you check other routes, the outgoing and return flights times are always within 15 minutes.   Incidentally - this blows away the FE claim that jetstreams account for the 220% increase in speed needed to do Sydney-Santiago in the claimed time on EITHER the FE map shown on the Wiki OR Tom's new map that includes antarctica.  Neither map can be explained away in light of this data.

Worldmap say that this flight is 11,119 km...which is 115 more than Qantas - but we're within about 1% here - so that's pretty close.

Taking some more routes:

Sydney-Dubai is 12,039 according to Qantas and 12,008 km according to Worldmap...better than 1%.
Sydney-Singapore is 6,289 according to Qantas and 6235 km according to Worldmap...again, better than 1%
Sydney-Dallas is 13,816 according to Qantas and 13,756 km according to Worldmap...same deal.

So we can certainly get the idea that:

 a) Qantas and Worldmap seem to agree on these distances to within about 1% - so it's not that one is "great circle" and the other is "fixed compass heading".
 b) They didn't come up with EXACTLY the same numbers - which suggest that they aren't both using the same equations or the same source data.

Clearly we have independent sources here - and they agree quite well.

You can sit there all day and find different Qantas routes (although you need to be sure they are DIRECT flights) - and the Worldmap numbers agree.

We don't have to just use flights into Australia and back.

Anchorage to Honolulu - Qantas says 4,471 km - Worldmap says 4,490 km.
Calgary to Halifax - Qantas says 3,745 km - Worldmap says 3,794km.

Now - what about flight times and airplane ranges?

Qantas fly the Boeing 747-400 exclusively on long distance routes.  Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#747-400 for the exact variant of the aircraft they fly.  The straight 747-400 is by far the most popular of the 747 series.  Further down the Wikipedia article, you can see the Cruise speed of the aircraft is 933 kph and the range is 13,490km...but wait?  That can't be right - the Sydney-Dallas flight is 13,816km.   This is actually a subtle point.  That range if for the PW4000 engines - but if you look further up the page, it says that Qantas once flew non-stop from London to Sydney - which is 18,000 km.   And the reason for that is that it was a "delivery flight" - no passengers, no luggage, no freight.   So how are Qantas flying full loads to Dallas?   Turns out they are using the 747-400ER (Extended range) version.  They bought just six of them and they use them for their Australia/USA routes...and it adds another 800km of additional range to the basic airplane.

Incidentally - at the altitude theses airplanes fly, 933 kph is Mach 0.85 - well below the speed of sound.  At full speed (which guzzles fuel!) they can make 1000kph which is mach 0.92.   That's important...no matter what, a subsonic airplane can't go past mach 1 without some serious problems!

If you doubt the veracity of Wikipedia - note the little blue numbers in square brackets next to most of these facts...those link to other documents that will confirm what they say.

OK - so all is explained - this plane can fly those distances - but there isn't a whole lot of fuel to spare.

Let's look at flight times to confirm what we're seeing:

Sydney-Dubai is 12,039km - and the posted flight time is 13hrs 40mins - giving us a theoretical speed of 880 kph - which is well within the airplane's ability.
Sydney-Johannesburg is 11,044 km - and 11 hours 45 mins (with the jet-stream) which is 940 kph...but 11 hours 55mins (against the jetstream) 926 kph.  That's fast - and it may be they are pushing the plane above cruising speed to do that...definitely possible.

...again, we pick flights can do this all night - the answer is the same - the aircraft are flying within their published limits - but not by a massive degree.

Even if Qantas and WorldAtlas are somehow collaborating to fake their distance data - the flight times can't be off by much.

Another data point:

   https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/otp_annual.aspx

This is a summary of the performance of Qantas (and other) airlines that fly from Australia.   It says that 86% of Qantas flights take off on time and 88% of them arrive on time.  Qantas are one of the best airlines in the world for timeliness - so we can largely discount Tom's assertion that they are late 25% of the time...it's 12%.  What this means is that the times they quote are the actual times it take to make the trip at least 88% of the time.   Since they are arrive on time more often than they leave on time - they have the limited ability to catch up a bit if they take off later than they should.

Right - I'm out of time to do more on this "research" today...more will be coming soon.

So - conclusions from this post that (I hope) everyone is OK with:

* Qantas and Worldmap agree pretty well on every distance we can check.  You can keep doing this all day...they always agree quite well.
* Qantas and Worldmap aren't using the same software or the same data - these are clearly independent sources.
* The Qantas aircraft can fly no more than about 14,000km - and at a max speed of 1000kph and a long-range speed of around 933 kph.
* Assuming we believe the speeds and ranges for these aircraft - the distances and travel times given by Qantas and WorldAtlas have got to be very close to the truth.
* The official statistics say that Qantas really do fly these routes at the times they claim.

Next we'll try to use these data sources to confirm or deny the flat earth hypotheses and try to imagine a flat earth map that could work.

FE'ers - if you have disputes with these data items - please let me know here - and I'll find more evidence for you.


This is a great exercise.  I would recommend using Flight Aware as it tracks flights in as close to real time as you can get without getting telemetry from the actual aircraft.  This is one of the services that use the flight track data that is used by travelers worldwide.  You can look at the flight plans filed by the crew as well. 

I personally use it when ever I fly or meet someone at an airport.



This exercise could actually help build an FE map.

https://flightaware.com/live/






Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 02, 2017, 06:32:00 PM
69 views and not a peep of a response.   This topic is the best example of the impracticality of an FE map.  I have not seen a single answer to the flight distance and times question that made any sense.   Surely Tom Bishop has an answer.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Merkava on August 03, 2017, 04:02:52 AM
Surely Tom Bishop has an answer.

Tom never has a real answer, and we all know why these FET nutjobs completely avoided this thread.

I'd sure really like to know why none of them decide:  "Hey, I'll go on a sweet vacation and while I'm at it, just time a flight and find out if billions of people are idiots or if it's just the hundred of us FE'ers."  I mean really, if you thought the world was flat, who wouldn't hop on a plane?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2017, 07:34:37 PM
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 (https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-plane/triangle-theorems.php) 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.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 03, 2017, 08:19:33 PM
Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2017, 09:02:55 PM
Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degree triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degree. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 03, 2017, 09:13:48 PM
Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degree triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degree. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.
The amount those two were off is easily explained by rounding errors. Show me a set of three sides that match the criteria I set, that return a total angle less than or greater than 180 degrees by one degree or more using that calculator. If you can I'll admit I'm wrong. But using that calculator and giving only side measurements, I don't believe it's possible. As a reminder the criteria is: a+b>c, where side c is the longest.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 03, 2017, 09:43:50 PM
Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degree triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degree. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.
Example please of 3 lengths that dont make 180deg.  The calculator is based on straight lines, not ones on a sphere.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: WanderingMan on August 03, 2017, 09:51:43 PM
OK I'll bite, I'm curious and skeptical of your proof Tom. In order to assume the SSS angle theorem, your theory must assume that the planes fly in straight lines to their destination.  Lets look at this.  I want to see for myself if your argument that the earth is flat holds water.  I took your first 2 itineraries and plotted them approximately on the FE world map posted on this site: Brisbane -> Sydney ->Perth -> Sydney and  Sydney -> London -> Dubai -> Sydney.  So these do indeed create triangles as can be expected from 3 points on a plane.  Looking good so far.  Please feel free to correct my airport placements if they are in error.

Based on your previous response it seems that you agree with 3DGeek that WorldAtlas and Qantas publish approximately accurate travel distances and times. Lets take these distances (same distances you used in your SSS angle calculations) and see what they look like on the map.

For the AUS loop: 2849km, 2649km, 3605km respectively. (Red Dots and lines)  Seems plausible based on my rough approximation of city locations on the FE world map.

Next for the INTL loop: 17174km, 5493km, 12039km respectively. (Yellow Dots and lines) Sydney to London (flight 1) and London to Dubai (flight 2) seem to match up relatively well.  Flight 2 appears to be just less than 1/3 the length of flight 1 if we look at the lengths of the yellow lines.  Flight 3 however doesnt match up, it should be just more than 2/3 the length of flight 1, but it's nearly the same length.  OK, that's a little weird but its difficult to approximate line lengths.  Let's not rely on this for this proof.

To summarize so far, plotting airport locations on an FE map when the airports are in close proximity makes sense but it is difficult to approximate exact line lengths and airport locations on a small map.

Let's continue to dig a little deeper.  Tom let's look at your Triangle Theory. Geometry, that's something I can get behind.  I still want to refer to the map that I attached because I feel it is close enough to prove or disprove the SSS Theorem that Tom offers.

AUS loop:
A = 46.6692 °
B = 81.857 °
C = 51.4738 °
So we have 3 acute angles based on this calculation. Let's look at the map. Looks like one obtuse angle is in there.  Hmm, that's strange.  Anyway let's move to the International loop.  Looking at the map I would have to be way off on my city approximations in order for the angles Tom calculated to be correct.

INTL Loop:
A = 7.77844 °
B = 17.2553 °
C = 154.966 °
Two acute and one VERY obtuse angle. I would have to have at least two of those airports on the wrong CONTINENT if these angles were to match up.

So Tom it seems to me this is very shaky "Proof" that the earth is flat.  The response I'm expecting is that the distances are not correct, that airlines do not fly in straight lines, or that airlines do not fly at cruising speeds.  All of these arguments contradict the assumption your worked on to create the proof you presented earlier in this thread. Unless you can provide a reason why you must contradict yourself I cannot accept it.  3DGeek showed us two independent sources proving flight distances as well as calculations based on facts showing that they are plausible. 

Also, I started this response before you responded to Curious Squirrel, but I'd like to field a response to that one as well; the sum of the angles of a triangle will always be 180 degrees, no more, no less. This is in every math text book ever printed, I won't go through the proof on that I'll leave that burden to you.  The reason your calculations do not add up to 180 every time due to rounding error.  +/-.0003 is not significant enough to base this argument off of.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 03, 2017, 10:35:25 PM
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 (https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-plane/triangle-theorems.php) 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.

LOL.  Show me a triangle that does not have 180 degrees as the sum of the angles.  Nice try Tom but now let's look at the OP.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 03, 2017, 10:39:04 PM
With a bit more accuracy:

Formula =DEGREES(ACOS((B2^2+B3^2-B1^2)/(2*B2*B3)))

157.17614057
7.60894152
15.21491791

180.00000000

51.47378604
46.66921095
81.85700302

180.00000000

If you leave a bit off the number the total will obviously be less than 180.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Merkava on August 04, 2017, 03:28:22 AM
Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degree triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degree. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.

Your the gift that keeps on giving.  You spent the entirety of my first thread hating on calculators.  Now I find you've been off inventing your own new calculators that add the angles of TRIANGLES that don't add to 180°  Wait..... Holy Crap.....  Bro, you have found it........  THE BISHOP CONSTANT.   
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 04, 2017, 02:12:59 PM
Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degrees triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degrees. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.


A triangle on a plane will always equal 180 degrees.  Always.. excluding rounding.  A triangle laid out on a sphere will always be greater than 180.  You, as usual, proved nothing but your blindness and ignorance of the real world.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 04, 2017, 03:25:47 PM
After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 04, 2017, 03:41:12 PM
After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.
He appears to have decided to walk away from/ignore at least two other subjects on these forums recently when evidence was presented after he claimed we never give any evidence. Shame, be interested to see what he actually had to say on some of these topics, assuming he didn't simply attempt to direct to other sources, or deflect to a different issue.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on August 04, 2017, 03:46:51 PM
After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.

Oh, you are so mistaken! He’s the crusty Trump of the FE world, revered, never questioned by his minions.
 
You would have thought that after messing up the beach photos in the Bishop experiment, he would have changed his name, but no, he came back with the famous video and the angles of the moon debacle, anyone else would have burnt their computer from embarrassment and gone to live under a rock after the slapping he got there but here he is, Teflon Tom.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 04, 2017, 07:34:23 PM
After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.

Oh, you are so mistaken! He’s the crusty Trump of the FE world, revered, never questioned by his minions.
 
You would have thought that after messing up the beach photos in the Bishop experiment, he would have changed his name, but no, he came back with the famous video and the angles of the moon debacle, anyone else would have burnt their computer from embarrassment and gone to live under a rock after the slapping he got there but here he is, Teflon Tom.

Oh Lord, I am too new to know about the Bishop experiment.  Do you have a link?

The man is hopeless, I have never seen anyone scurry away from a debate as fast as he does.  But, my prediction was he would ignore this thread all around so I have to give him a tiny bit of credit.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 04, 2017, 07:48:43 PM
After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.

Oh, you are so mistaken! He’s the crusty Trump of the FE world, revered, never questioned by his minions.
 
You would have thought that after messing up the beach photos in the Bishop experiment, he would have changed his name, but no, he came back with the famous video and the angles of the moon debacle, anyone else would have burnt their computer from embarrassment and gone to live under a rock after the slapping he got there but here he is, Teflon Tom.

Oh Lord, I am too new to know about the Bishop experiment.  Do you have a link?

The man is hopeless, I have never seen anyone scurry away from a debate as fast as he does.  But, my prediction was he would ignore this thread all around so I have to give him a tiny bit of credit.
Sure thing, it's on the wiki! The Bishop Experiment. (http://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment) I also suggest checking out Electromagnetic Accelerator (http://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator) where The Bishop Constant is located, although we've never gotten a hold of the "much longer and nastier expression as x approaches infinity" that I'm aware of. As such, no one can really verify the equation, nor help find just what that number might be.

Agreed, credit for at least attempting to address what was presented. Although I wanna know where 3D got off to, as this ends sounding like a part 1 and I'm really curious where he was going with all of this. Is there any way to like, ping him and ask about it?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 04, 2017, 09:30:20 PM
After this triangle nonsense I doubt if we will hear from Tom again.

Oh, you are so mistaken! He’s the crusty Trump of the FE world, revered, never questioned by his minions.
 
You would have thought that after messing up the beach photos in the Bishop experiment, he would have changed his name, but no, he came back with the famous video and the angles of the moon debacle, anyone else would have burnt their computer from embarrassment and gone to live under a rock after the slapping he got there but here he is, Teflon Tom.

Oh Lord, I am too new to know about the Bishop experiment.  Do you have a link?

The man is hopeless, I have never seen anyone scurry away from a debate as fast as he does.  But, my prediction was he would ignore this thread all around so I have to give him a tiny bit of credit.
Sure thing, it's on the wiki! The Bishop Experiment. (http://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment) I also suggest checking out Electromagnetic Accelerator (http://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator) where The Bishop Constant is located, although we've never gotten a hold of the "much longer and nastier expression as x approaches infinity" that I'm aware of. As such, no one can really verify the equation, nor help find just what that number might be.

Agreed, credit for at least attempting to address what was presented. Although I wanna know where 3D got off to, as this ends sounding like a part 1 and I'm really curious where he was going with all of this. Is there any way to like, ping him and ask about it?


Interesting.  I assume there are no pictures of the Bishop Experiment?   But since he goes there any time he doubts the shape of the earth it should be easy to replicate.

Quote
Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
—Tom Bishop

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 05, 2017, 08:15:21 PM
Well, seeing as we haven't seen anything but Tom's nonsense reply, and nothing from him since it was pointed out his postulation has a giant hole in it, I'm gonna chalk that part up as closed in favor of Round Earth. Although I DO still really want to know where 3DGeek was going with this, as once again the first post seems to suggest more is coming. I have a guess, but does anyone know for sure where he was headed here?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 06, 2017, 03:39:29 PM
Well, seeing as we haven't seen anything but Tom's nonsense reply, and nothing from him since it was pointed out his postulation has a giant hole in it, I'm gonna that part up as closed in favor of Round Earth. Although I DO still really want to know where 3DGeek was going with this, as once again the first post seems to suggest more is coming. I have a guess, but does anyone know for sure where he was headed here?

Agree, 3d is awol and I'd love to know where he was going with this.  My assumption was that he wanted to compile point to point data to see if a flat map was possible.

Tom Bishop just cut and ran as usual.  These threads are helpful for newcomers to observe that logical arguments are either derailed or ignored.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 07, 2017, 08:48:52 PM
Sorry - guys - I've been temporarily overwhelmed with work over the past few days - hence little time for FET disproofs.

You can't do this calculation with just triangles.  Any three lengths will make a triangle (So long as A+B<C, etc)!

Mr Bishop's "Proof" is silly.

STEP 3:

You have to use TWO triangles.   Take four cities that make a quadrilateral (basically, any four so long as they aren't "colinear").

Let's call them A, B, C, D.

(https://sjbaker.org/FETtest.png)

Using the "cosine law" (which Mr.Bishop clearly accepts) you can say that IF the world is flat, then calculating the angle BAD from the lengths A-B, B-D and A-D will give you the same answer as if you calculate the angle CAD plus BAC.  After all BAD must equal CAD + BAC - right?

If the world is flat then all of the geometry will work out nicely - you can calculate all of the angles and the'll all add up more or less perfectly...right?

If the world is not flat then there will be wildly different results from calculating the angle BAD directly and from the sum of CAD and BAC.

(Clearly "BAD" is well named!)

When I have time, I'll find four suitable cities and do the math.    But if someone else wants to give it a shot first, there is a handy triangle calculator here:

    http://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html

Just be sure to find four cities that are WIDELY spread.  The further apart they are, the more convincing the answers will be.


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 08, 2017, 04:54:31 PM
Let us wait for Tom to respond.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 08, 2017, 06:03:11 PM
Let us wait for Tom to respond.
Don't hold your breath. Once he leaves a thread I've not seen him come back.

3DGeek if you wanna throw me some cities I'd be more than happy to do the math legwork. Been having some difficulty locating a good fourth as one section of the FE map is basically deserted (darn you Pacific Ocean and your vastness!)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 08, 2017, 06:35:55 PM
Let us wait for Tom to respond.
Don't hold your breath. Once he leaves a thread I've not seen him come back.

3DGeek if you wanna throw me some cities I'd be more than happy to do the math legwork. Been having some difficulty locating a good fourth as one section of the FE map is basically deserted (darn you Pacific Ocean and your vastness!)
New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries
NY - PA 5834
NY - BA 3346
NY - CT 7803
CT - PA 12844
CT - BA 6865
BA - PA 11043

NY angles are 123.6° or 100.9 + 61.5 = 162.4°

QED
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 08, 2017, 06:54:02 PM
Let us wait for Tom to respond.
Don't hold your breath. Once he leaves a thread I've not seen him come back.

3DGeek if you wanna throw me some cities I'd be more than happy to do the math legwork. Been having some difficulty locating a good fourth as one section of the FE map is basically deserted (darn you Pacific Ocean and your vastness!)
New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries
NY - PA 8834
NY - BA 3346
NY - CT 7803
CT - PA 12844
CT - BA 6865
BA - PA 11043

NY angles are 123.6° or 100.9 + 61.5 = 162.4°

QED
Awesome, thank you and I'm stealing this to link to in my signature!
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 08, 2017, 08:17:29 PM
Let us wait for Tom to respond.
Don't hold your breath. Once he leaves a thread I've not seen him come back.

3DGeek if you wanna throw me some cities I'd be more than happy to do the math legwork. Been having some difficulty locating a good fourth as one section of the FE map is basically deserted (darn you Pacific Ocean and your vastness!)
New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries
NY - PA 8834
NY - BA 3346
NY - CT 7803
CT - PA 12844
CT - BA 6865
BA - PA 11043

NY angles are 123.6° or 100.9 + 61.5 = 162.4°

QED

Many thanks!  You saved me some legwork there.

So - that brings us to STEP 4:

STEP 4:


There is no possible planar ("flat") quadrilateral that can have the four sides and two diagonals be what they are calculated to be here.

Hence there is no possible Flat Earth map that can reconcile flight times and distances that we KNOW are true.

This result cannot prove whether the Earth is concave or convex - but it certainly proves that it cannot under any circumstances be flat.

Soo....can we shut down this stupid website now?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2017, 08:29:52 PM
If the lines are too long for the triangle, then it is entirely possible for a triangle to have more than 180 degrees.


I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 08, 2017, 08:38:35 PM
I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.

Try calling American Airlines or a local travel agency.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2017, 09:37:37 PM
How are we supposed to know if those distances are based on actual flight logs or on calculations which assume a globe if the author neglects to provide his sources?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 08, 2017, 10:03:45 PM
How are we supposed to know if those distances are based on actual flight logs or on calculations which assume a globe if the author neglects to provide his sources?
As usual a well crafted reply.  Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to dispute the numbers?  I am surprised, maybe, that you spend so much time claiming round earth numbers are wrong, it's just a game for you, isn't it?  Entertainment for others.

Please note NY-PA is 5834, finger problem.

Actual flight at https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/af6#e632a81
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2017, 10:22:32 PM
You originally said 8834 km. You "misfingered" three characters. And we are supposed to trust your math now?

Regardless, that website just says "GREAT CIRCLE DISTANCE 5,850 km." How do we know whether that figure on the website is based on a flight log or on a Round Earth theory about how far New York should be from Paris?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 08, 2017, 10:26:15 PM
You originally said 8834 km. You "misfingered" three characters. And we are supposed to trust your math now?

Regardless, that website just says "GREAT CIRCLE DISTANCE 5,850 km." How do we know whether that figure on the website is based on a flight log or on a Round Earth theory about how far New York should be from Paris?
I read 8834 wrongly from what I had written on a piece of paper.

What do you believe the distance from New York to Paris to be?

Or 'Tom, how far is it from New York to Paris?'
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2017, 10:52:15 PM
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 08, 2017, 11:21:33 PM
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.
Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?  My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 09, 2017, 02:28:09 AM
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

OMG, now that was funny.   

https://www.google.com/search?q=flight+distance+new+york+to+paris&oq=flight+distance+new&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0l5.7295j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 09, 2017, 02:57:43 AM
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

OMG, now that was funny.   

https://www.google.com/search?q=flight+distance+new+york+to+paris&oq=flight+distance+new&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0l5.7295j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Shhh, those calculations presuppose a round Earth, and unless you've personally measured the distance and have proof, they don't count. <- Literally what is being said. My mind is boggled.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2017, 04:57:33 AM
Quote
Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed .

However, Latitude and Longitude is a spherical coordinate system. The points and the theoretical distance between them depends on the concept that the earth is a sphere.

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 09, 2017, 05:01:11 AM
My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
Really? Because mine is pretty spot on within 1 MPH usually. As long as I'm not changing speeds faster than it's refresh rate. It also does a pretty damn good job at giving arrival times, which means it needs to be fairly accurate for speed, distance, and current location.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2017, 06:20:51 AM
Quote
Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
GPS speed is more accurate that a speedometer.  Please give us your method of measurements.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2017, 10:41:09 AM
My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
Really? Because mine is pretty spot on within 1 MPH usually. As long as I'm not changing speeds faster than it's refresh rate. It also does a pretty damn good job at giving arrival times, which means it needs to be fairly accurate for speed, distance, and current location.

The internet is littered with complaints asking why GPS speed differs so drastically from their speedometer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/2sjy8x/which_is_more_accurate_my_factory_speedometer_or/

Quote
Which is more accurate? My factory speedometer or my garmin GPS? (self.cars)

I notice a difference in my GPS speed from my factory speedo. At 100kph there is almost a 15kph difference. The vehicle speedo always reads a bit higher. I use the GPS speedo usually because its hard to read the kilo's on my US Spec speedo. Just trying to avoid a possible ticket!

https://en.discussions.tomtom.com/tomtom-traffic-live-and-other-services-47/why-is-my-speed-always-4-5-mph-out-of-sync-272539

Quote
WHY IS MY SPEED ALWAYS 4-5 MPH OUT OF SYNC ?

all my TT devices eg: XXL IQ  and recently GO 1005 World`s speed info is always 4-5 MPH out and other people I have met say on a motorway service station are spot on?

Is there a reason for this ... I have tried many positions on my windscreen and its the same and I only have a mondeo and not some strangely obscuring windscreen type of car or truck?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2017, 11:18:30 AM
Quote
Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
GPS speed is more accurate that a speedometer.  Please give us your method of measurements.

That is what is claimed as an explanation for the difference. But all we really know is that the speeds are different and there are a few explanation floating around to try and explain why. We will need some kind of test independent of looking at your car's speedometer to tell us the accuracy of GPS if a speedometer cannot be relied on at all.

Since the speeds often differ, for whatever reason, the "speed accuracy" argument that GPS is spot-on cannot be used as an argument to say that GPS is correct.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on August 09, 2017, 11:59:08 AM

I know you lot don’t get out much, but lame excuses like we can’t be totally sure the maps and GPS aren’t lying to us, so we can’t make a map, sorry, it just wouldn’t be zetetic enough. Really!

There may be some reddit whingers where discrepancies in speeds are the only excitement they will ever get, but I’m pretty sure there aren’t any saying, I drove to Edinburgh/(anywhere) using my Michelin map/Garmin but it wasn’t there, and the old guy sitting there reckons it’s 20miles north.





(Then again, my wife had an appointment at Birmingham Uni’ at 9.30 am, didn’t get back to just past Leicester (50 miles) until 8.00 at night, I just thought she was shagging someone else, I guess I’d better dig her up and apologise, the flat earth made me do it officer.)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2017, 12:35:14 PM
Quote
Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
GPS speed is more accurate that a speedometer.  Please give us your method of measurements.

That is what is claimed as an explanation for the difference. But all we really know is that the speeds are different and there are a few explanation floating around to try and explain why. We will need some kind of test independent of looking at your car's speedometer to tell us the accuracy of GPS if a speedometer cannot be relied on at all.

Since the speeds often differ, for whatever reason, the "speed accuracy" argument that GPS is spot-on cannot be used as an argument to say that GPS is correct.
You agree about the location accuracy and repeatibility of GPS?  Used by surveyors across the world.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 09, 2017, 12:39:41 PM
My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
Really? Because mine is pretty spot on within 1 MPH usually. As long as I'm not changing speeds faster than it's refresh rate. It also does a pretty damn good job at giving arrival times, which means it needs to be fairly accurate for speed, distance, and current location.

The internet is littered with complaints asking why GPS speed differs so drastically from their speedometer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/2sjy8x/which_is_more_accurate_my_factory_speedometer_or/

Quote
Which is more accurate? My factory speedometer or my garmin GPS? (self.cars)

I notice a difference in my GPS speed from my factory speedo. At 100kph there is almost a 15kph difference. The vehicle speedo always reads a bit higher. I use the GPS speedo usually because its hard to read the kilo's on my US Spec speedo. Just trying to avoid a possible ticket!

https://en.discussions.tomtom.com/tomtom-traffic-live-and-other-services-47/why-is-my-speed-always-4-5-mph-out-of-sync-272539

Quote
WHY IS MY SPEED ALWAYS 4-5 MPH OUT OF SYNC ?

all my TT devices eg: XXL IQ  and recently GO 1005 World`s speed info is always 4-5 MPH out and other people I have met say on a motorway service station are spot on?

Is there a reason for this ... I have tried many positions on my windscreen and its the same and I only have a mondeo and not some strangely obscuring windscreen type of car or truck?
These are both at least 2 years old, which with the speed of technological advancement is a bigger issue than one would normally think. They also appear to be one case each, for two different GPS brands/devices. Not to completely steal a page out of your book, but how do we know both A) They aren't lying and B) They aren't isolated incidents? Even the best manufactured products, when made in bulk, are going to get defects and issues with some percentage of them. As I recall from the Xbox 360 fiasco, the 'standard'/accepted rate is somewhere in the 1.5-2% ballpark.

You also aren't going to find hosts of people going "My GPS gives my speed perfectly all the time, thank you!" because that's not the nature of the internet, or humanity. I would argue that, logically, if it was a huge issue and not accurate often enough, GPS devices wouldn't have the feature anymore. Because if a feature is shown to be bad over and over again, with enough frequency of occurrence among multiple batches, you remove it so it doesn't hurt your brand.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 09, 2017, 01:07:15 PM
I certainly wouldn't rely on any speed display in a car.   Car speedometers are not 100% precise.  Because car manufacturers don't want to be sued in the event that their speedometer reads a little too low and someone gets a speeding ticket when their speedometer said that they were within the speed limit.  For this reason almost all cars have speedometers that are DELIBERATELY made to read higher speeds than the car is actually moving...the precise amount varies between cars.  BMW say that their speedometers are designed to read "high" by 5mph or 2.5% whichever is less.  The same thing happens with GPS units built into cars and those roadside displays that show your speed when you approach them.  Cars also go up and down hills - which means that the distance on the odometer doesn't match the distance as drawn on a map.  The four wheels of the car rotate at different rates as you go around curves - and if the speedometer takes the speed from just one of them - then it'll either read faster or slower than the true speed of the car itself.   So, yeah - car speedometers suck.  People don't believe it - so there is a ton of Internet debate on the subject.   GPS is remarkably accurate though...within 10 feet if the receiver can pick up 3 satellites - better than that if it can 'see' 4 of them.

But speed isn't the issue here...and neither are cars.

This is about distances between cities...as measured by airlines.  Please - let us not let Mr Bishop deflect the conversation away from areas of discomfort and back into his comfort zone.

So forget cars...they are not important to this calculation.

Tom:

In STEP 1 I established that distances quoted by Qantas airline are 100% credible.  They match the performance of the aircraft and their stated flight times.  Their "on time" record is good enough that their times and distances are 100% trustworthy.

In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth.  As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into.   I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

In STEP 3 I pointed out that simple Euclidean geometry allows us to calculate the internal angles of a PLANAR quadrilateral in two different ways if you know the length of the sides and the diagonals.   If the Earth is flat then those angles will be the same for both calculation methods.

In STEP 4, User "Inquisitive" kindly did the calculations for us - presumably using the (trustworthy) WorldAtlas data for those distances...and discovered that for at least one internal angle of the quadrilateral between New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries, there is a HUGE discrepancy...123 degrees versus 162 degrees.

Those four steps are a CLEAR disproof that no possible FLAT Earth map can possibly make the distances between those four cities come out correctly.   It is IMPOSSIBLE to make a planar quadrilateral where those four distances come out right.

Now you're flim-flamming about STEP 2...(which you seemed to trust so long as you thought it proved your theory).   STEP 2 is that we demonstrate that WorldAtlas's software does indeed come out with the correct distances for every route we tested.   I invite you to test it for as many other routes and as many other airlines as you like...the answer will always be the same.

So - what you resort to is the rather pathetic complaint that there are no direct flights between some of those four cities with which we could back up the WorldAtlas distances between them.   I would also point out that if you go to Google Maps - and enter those same cities and ask for an route BY AIRPLANE - it comes out with very similar numbers...within 1%.

What that means is that you must either believe that:

1) WorldAtlas, and Google are a part of the global conspiracy and that their software produces distances that match those of Qantas flights - but are deliberately incorrect for the four cities that Inquisitive just happened to pick...OR...

2) WorldAtlas produces incorrect distances by accident but just happens to produce very good distances for all of the Qantas routes.

OK - well, we can test your two theories with some more experiments.

FIRSTLY:  We can find a bunch more "quadrilaterals of widespread cities"...and demonstrate that NONE of the distances between them work in FET.  This would be good evidence that Inquisitive didn't "cherry pick" four cities that didn't include a route for which WorldAtlas' data is incorrect.

SECONDLY: We can find a "quadrilateral of widespread cities" for which we CAN find direct airline flight distances to confirm the WorldAtlas distances.

These two approaches would inevitably prove that there is no possible Flat Earth map that can match what the airlines tell us are their flight distances.  And we already demonstrated in STEP 1 that those distances are a very accurate match for their "On time" flight times and for the range and capabilities of real aircraft.

Do you really believe that this data cannot be found?   That WorldAtlas just happens selectively correct for one airline and wildly incorrect for others?

WorldAtlas are not some secret society - there is a list of all of their staff: http://www.worldatlas.com/about.htm

   "We're a group of publishers who delight hundreds of thousands of people every day
    by providing them with access to information at their fingertips. Our flagship web property
    is WorldAtlas.com, the world's oldest and most authoritative geography website."

...don't you think that if their flight distances were HORRIBLY inaccurate for non-Qantas airlines that nobody would have noticed this?

Tom - you ARE going to be boxed in a corner here.

Surely you know that I'll find published airline flight distances that produce the same "quadrilateral problem" that Inquisitive's data produces?   Do you really doubt that this information can be found?

You are 100% certain to come out of this knowing in your heart that you're wrong...that the Earth is not flat...you may continue to flim-flam and deflect - but YOU know that you're doing this rather than honestly facing the facts and following a clear line of evidence to a conclusions which you may not like, but you must know is the truth.   At that point, you'd be a dishonest man...and I don't think you are.

Intellectual honesty must eventually lead you to believe that you've been wrong all this time.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 09, 2017, 01:15:39 PM
Quote
Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
GPS speed is more accurate that a speedometer.  Please give us your method of measurements.

That is what is claimed as an explanation for the difference. But all we really know is that the speeds are different and there are a few explanation floating around to try and explain why. We will need some kind of test independent of looking at your car's speedometer to tell us the accuracy of GPS if a speedometer cannot be relied on at all.

Since the speeds often differ, for whatever reason, the "speed accuracy" argument that GPS is spot-on cannot be used as an argument to say that GPS is correct.

I certainly wouldn't rely on any speed display in a car.   Car speedometers are not 100% precise and because car manufacturers don't want to be sued in the event that their speedometer reads a little too low and someone gets a speeding ticket when their speedometer said that they were within the speed limit.  For this reason almost all cars have speedometers that are DELIBERATELY made to read higher speeds than the car is actually moving.   The same thing happens with GPS units inside cars and those roadside displays that show your speed when you approach them.

But speed isn't the issue here...and neither are cars.

This is about distances between cities...as measured by airlines.  Please - let us not let Mr Bishop deflect the conversation away from areas of discomfort and back into his comfort zone.

So forget cars...they are not important to this calculation.

Tom:

In STEP 1 I established that distances quoted by Qantas airline are 100% credible.  They match the performance of the aircraft and their stated flight times.  Their "on time" record is good enough that their times and distances are 100% trustworthy.

In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth.  As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into.   I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

In STEP 3 I pointed out that simple Euclidean geometry allows us to calculate the internal angles of a PLANAR quadrilateral in two different ways if you know the length of the sides and the diagonals.   If the Earth is flat then those angles will be the same for both calculation methods.

In STEP 4, User "Inquisitive" kindly did the calculations for us - presumably using the (trustworthy) WorldAtlas data for those distances...and discovered that for at least one internal angle of the quadrilateral between New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries, there is a HUGE discrepancy...123 degrees versus 162 degrees.

Those four steps are a CLEAR disproof that no possible FLAT Earth map can possibly make the distances between those four cities come out correctly.   It is IMPOSSIBLE to make a planar quadrilateral where those four distances come out right.

Now you're flim-flamming about STEP 2...(which you seemed to trust so long as you thought it proved your theory).   STEP 2 is that we demonstrate that WorldAtlas's software does indeed come out with the correct distances for every route we tested.   I invite you to test it for as many other routes and as many other airlines as you like...the answer will always be the same.

So - what you resort to is the rather pathetic complaint that there are no direct flights between some of those four cities with which we could back up the WorldAtlas distances between them.   I would also point out that if you go to Google Maps - and enter those same cities and ask for an route BY AIRPLANE - it comes out with very similar numbers...within 1%.

What that means is that you must either believe that:

1) WorldAtlas, and Google are a part of the global conspiracy and that their software produces distances that match those of Qantas flights - but are deliberately incorrect for the four cities that Inquisitive just happened to pick...OR...

2) WorldAtlas produces incorrect distances by accident but just happens to produce very good distances for all of the Qantas routes.

OK - well, we can test your two theories with some more experiments.

FIRSTLY:  We can find a bunch more "quadrilaterals of widespread cities"...and demonstrate that NONE of the distances between them work in FET.  This would be good evidence that Inquisitive didn't "cherry pick" four cities that didn't include a route for which WorldAtlas' data is incorrect.

SECONDLY: We can find a "quadrilateral of widespread cities" for which we CAN find direct airline flight distances to confirm the WorldAtlas distances.

These two approaches would inevitably prove that there is no possible Flat Earth map that can match what the airlines tell us are their flight distances.  And we already demonstrated in STEP 1 that those distances are a very accurate match for their "On time" flight times and for the range and capabilities of real aircraft.

Do you really believe that this data cannot be found?   That WorldAtlas just happens selectively correct for one airline and wildly incorrect for others?

WorldAtlas are not some secret society - there is a list of all of their staff: http://www.worldatlas.com/about.htm

   "We're a group of publishers who delight hundreds of thousands of people every day
    by providing them with access to information at their fingertips. Our flagship web property
    is WorldAtlas.com, the world's oldest and most authoritative geography website."

...don't you think that if their flight distances were HORRIBLY inaccurate for non-Qantas airlines that nobody would have noticed this?

Tom - you ARE going to be boxed in a corner here.

Surely you know that I'll find published airline flight distances that produce the same "quadrilateral problem" that Inquisitive's data produces?   Do you really doubt that this information can be found?

You are 100% certain to come out of this knowing in your heart that you're wrong...that the Earth is not flat...you may continue to flim-flam and deflect - but YOU know that you're doing this rather than honestly facing the facts and following a clear line of evidence to a conclusions which you may not like, but you must know is the truth.   At that point, you'd be a dishonest man...and I don't think you are.

Intellectual honesty must eventually lead you to believe that you've been wrong all this time.
Damn, I had managed to completely miss the implications between step 1 & 2 somehow. Now I feel like a dunce. Thanks for the great summation 3DGeek, I knew you were going somewhere great with all of this and I wish I had 100% grasped to where and from where that the first go round. XD

Also thank you for getting us fully back on track with a very useful post. Now back to Tom.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 09, 2017, 02:00:43 PM
Damn, I had managed to completely miss the implications between step 1 & 2 somehow. Now I feel like a dunce. Thanks for the great summation 3DGeek, I knew you were going somewhere great with all of this and I wish I had 100% grasped to where and from where that the first go round. XD

Also thank you for getting us fully back on track with a very useful post. Now back to Tom.

Indeed.  The thing here is to produce a "chain of evidence".   If someone wishes to dispute some weak step in the chain - then we can re-visit that step and strengthen it with more evidence.   Unfortunately, describing each step does tend to get a little "wordy".   So the idea is to provide a short summary of the steps (there are only four) - and if anyone wishes to dispute any of those steps, then there will be a longer post that elaborates and provides references for it.

* Find an authoritative list of distances between known points on the Earth (Steps 1 & 2).
* Use Euclidean geometry to show that those distances are (or are not) consistent with a flat plane over widespread places (Steps 3 and 4).

The second part is easy - It's impossible deny Euclids proofs for geometry on a plane or dispute the veracity of the cosine theorem.

If the Earth's surface does not obey Euclidean geometry, it cannot be flat.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 09, 2017, 03:56:57 PM
I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.

http://onw.innosked.com/(S(mizq3vf4cnmfklzngbi0u5kt))/default.aspx?show=MAP

(You have to be sure to click the "Sort By" button and select "Number of Stops" and only use the "Non-stop" results!)

So, for example - if you click on Paris - it shows flight distances to three different NY airports as 5,840km, 5,861lm and 5,829km...all pretty close to the 5,834km number that Inquisitive used.

Sorry - I don't have more time to work on this today - but I will certainly produce a "city quadrilateral" using data that can be backed up directly from the airlines when I have free time available.

(You already know how this is going to turn out...right?)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: BigFatRoundEarther on August 09, 2017, 04:00:55 PM
I pulled FE map from this site and attached an example of why the FE map simply doesn't work.  Basically a flight to JNB to NBO is 4 hours and a flight from JNB to SYD is 12 hours (3x).  Yet the distance from JNB to SYD is at least 7x as long per the FE map.  The flight route to Sydney would actually be much longer as we know flights from South Africa to Sydney go over the ocean (not Asia).  Sorry about image quality (limited by Forum). 
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 09, 2017, 04:18:53 PM
I certainly wouldn't rely on any speed display in a car.   Car speedometers are not 100% precise.  Because car manufacturers don't want to be sued in the event that their speedometer reads a little too low and someone gets a speeding ticket when their speedometer said that they were within the speed limit.  For this reason almost all cars have speedometers that are DELIBERATELY made to read higher speeds than the car is actually moving...the precise amount varies between cars.  BMW say that their speedometers are designed to read "high" by 5mph or 2.5% whichever is less.  The same thing happens with GPS units built into cars and those roadside displays that show your speed when you approach them.  Cars also go up and down hills - which means that the distance on the odometer doesn't match the distance as drawn on a map.  The four wheels of the car rotate at different rates as you go around curves - and if the speedometer takes the speed from just one of them - then it'll either read faster or slower than the true speed of the car itself.   So, yeah - car speedometers suck.  People don't believe it - so there is a ton of Internet debate on the subject.   GPS is remarkably accurate though...within 10 feet if the receiver can pick up 3 satellites - better than that if it can 'see' 4 of them.

But speed isn't the issue here...and neither are cars.

This is about distances between cities...as measured by airlines.  Please - let us not let Mr Bishop deflect the conversation away from areas of discomfort and back into his comfort zone.

So forget cars...they are not important to this calculation.

Tom:

In STEP 1 I established that distances quoted by Qantas airline are 100% credible.  They match the performance of the aircraft and their stated flight times.  Their "on time" record is good enough that their times and distances are 100% trustworthy.

In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth.  As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into.   I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

In STEP 3 I pointed out that simple Euclidean geometry allows us to calculate the internal angles of a PLANAR quadrilateral in two different ways if you know the length of the sides and the diagonals.   If the Earth is flat then those angles will be the same for both calculation methods.

In STEP 4, User "Inquisitive" kindly did the calculations for us - presumably using the (trustworthy) WorldAtlas data for those distances...and discovered that for at least one internal angle of the quadrilateral between New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries, there is a HUGE discrepancy...123 degrees versus 162 degrees.

Those four steps are a CLEAR disproof that no possible FLAT Earth map can possibly make the distances between those four cities come out correctly.   It is IMPOSSIBLE to make a planar quadrilateral where those four distances come out right.

Now you're flim-flamming about STEP 2...(which you seemed to trust so long as you thought it proved your theory).   STEP 2 is that we demonstrate that WorldAtlas's software does indeed come out with the correct distances for every route we tested.   I invite you to test it for as many other routes and as many other airlines as you like...the answer will always be the same.

So - what you resort to is the rather pathetic complaint that there are no direct flights between some of those four cities with which we could back up the WorldAtlas distances between them.   I would also point out that if you go to Google Maps - and enter those same cities and ask for an route BY AIRPLANE - it comes out with very similar numbers...within 1%.

What that means is that you must either believe that:

1) WorldAtlas, and Google are a part of the global conspiracy and that their software produces distances that match those of Qantas flights - but are deliberately incorrect for the four cities that Inquisitive just happened to pick...OR...

2) WorldAtlas produces incorrect distances by accident but just happens to produce very good distances for all of the Qantas routes.

OK - well, we can test your two theories with some more experiments.

FIRSTLY:  We can find a bunch more "quadrilaterals of widespread cities"...and demonstrate that NONE of the distances between them work in FET.  This would be good evidence that Inquisitive didn't "cherry pick" four cities that didn't include a route for which WorldAtlas' data is incorrect.

SECONDLY: We can find a "quadrilateral of widespread cities" for which we CAN find direct airline flight distances to confirm the WorldAtlas distances.

These two approaches would inevitably prove that there is no possible Flat Earth map that can match what the airlines tell us are their flight distances.  And we already demonstrated in STEP 1 that those distances are a very accurate match for their "On time" flight times and for the range and capabilities of real aircraft.

Do you really believe that this data cannot be found?   That WorldAtlas just happens selectively correct for one airline and wildly incorrect for others?

WorldAtlas are not some secret society - there is a list of all of their staff: http://www.worldatlas.com/about.htm

   "We're a group of publishers who delight hundreds of thousands of people every day
    by providing them with access to information at their fingertips. Our flagship web property
    is WorldAtlas.com, the world's oldest and most authoritative geography website."

...don't you think that if their flight distances were HORRIBLY inaccurate for non-Qantas airlines that nobody would have noticed this?

Tom - you ARE going to be boxed in a corner here.

Surely you know that I'll find published airline flight distances that produce the same "quadrilateral problem" that Inquisitive's data produces?   Do you really doubt that this information can be found?

You are 100% certain to come out of this knowing in your heart that you're wrong...that the Earth is not flat...you may continue to flim-flam and deflect - but YOU know that you're doing this rather than honestly facing the facts and following a clear line of evidence to a conclusions which you may not like, but you must know is the truth.   At that point, you'd be a dishonest man...and I don't think you are.

Intellectual honesty must eventually lead you to believe that you've been wrong all this time.

This exercise should be iron clad proof to anyone with an ability to comprehend math and geometry.   Knowing the size and shape of each continent, it would be simple to arrange the pieces in such a way to create a flat map using known distances if one were possible.   

But, I would bet this will fall on deaf ears becuse... reasons.


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 09, 2017, 04:22:50 PM
Damn, I had managed to completely miss the implications between step 1 & 2 somehow. Now I feel like a dunce. Thanks for the great summation 3DGeek, I knew you were going somewhere great with all of this and I wish I had 100% grasped to where and from where that the first go round. XD

Also thank you for getting us fully back on track with a very useful post. Now back to Tom.

Indeed.  The thing here is to produce a "chain of evidence".   If someone wishes to dispute some weak step in the chain - then we can re-visit that step and strengthen it with more evidence.   Unfortunately, describing each step does tend to get a little "wordy".   So the idea is to provide a short summary of the steps (there are only four) - and if anyone wishes to dispute any of those steps, then there will be a longer post that elaborates and provides references for it.

* Find an authoritative list of distances between known points on the Earth (Steps 1 & 2).
* Use Euclidean geometry to show that those distances are (or are not) consistent with a flat plane over widespread places (Steps 3 and 4).

The second part is easy - It's impossible deny Euclids proofs for geometry on a plane or dispute the veracity of the cosine theorem.

If the Earth's surface does not obey Euclidean geometry, it cannot be flat.

Linking to this thread will be very useful for newcomers to the site.  They are always asking for proof and this is well... proof.   

I will try and get some time free to provide an example or 2 myself. 
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 09, 2017, 04:26:51 PM
Quote
Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
GPS speed is more accurate that a speedometer.  Please give us your method of measurements.

That is what is claimed as an explanation for the difference. But all we really know is that the speeds are different and there are a few explanation floating around to try and explain why. We will need some kind of test independent of looking at your car's speedometer to tell us the accuracy of GPS if a speedometer cannot be relied on at all.

Since the speeds often differ, for whatever reason, the "speed accuracy" argument that GPS is spot-on cannot be used as an argument to say that GPS is correct.


Consumer GPS is not 100% accurate.  But over thousands of miles, it is close enough.  Rounding error will not get you out of the corner you painted yourself into.  You displayed rounding error in you flawed attempt with math.  I bet you didn't see this coming.

Quote
The United States government currently claims 4 meter RMS (7.8 meter 95% Confidence Interval) horizontal accuracy for civilian (SPS) GPS. Vertical accuracy is worse. Mind you, that's the minimum. Some devices/locations reliably (95% of the time or better) can get 3 meter accuracy.Dec 10, 2012
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2017, 04:41:14 PM
Quote
Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
GPS speed is more accurate that a speedometer.  Please give us your method of measurements.

That is what is claimed as an explanation for the difference. But all we really know is that the speeds are different and there are a few explanation floating around to try and explain why. We will need some kind of test independent of looking at your car's speedometer to tell us the accuracy of GPS if a speedometer cannot be relied on at all.

Since the speeds often differ, for whatever reason, the "speed accuracy" argument that GPS is spot-on cannot be used as an argument to say that GPS is correct.


Consumer GPS is not 100% accurate.  But over thousands of miles, it is close enough.  Rounding error will not get you out of the corner you painted yourself into.  You displayed rounding error in you flawed attempt with math.  I bet you didn't see this coming.

Quote
The United States government currently claims 4 meter RMS (7.8 meter 95% Confidence Interval) horizontal accuracy for civilian (SPS) GPS. Vertical accuracy is worse. Mind you, that's the minimum. Some devices/locations reliably (95% of the time or better) can get 3 meter accuracy.Dec 10, 2012
WRONG.  GPS is not a case of percent accurate.  It is about the accuracy of a particular location.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 09, 2017, 05:12:38 PM
Quote
Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
GPS speed is more accurate that a speedometer.  Please give us your method of measurements.

That is what is claimed as an explanation for the difference. But all we really know is that the speeds are different and there are a few explanation floating around to try and explain why. We will need some kind of test independent of looking at your car's speedometer to tell us the accuracy of GPS if a speedometer cannot be relied on at all.

Since the speeds often differ, for whatever reason, the "speed accuracy" argument that GPS is spot-on cannot be used as an argument to say that GPS is correct.


Consumer GPS is not 100% accurate.  But over thousands of miles, it is close enough.  Rounding error will not get you out of the corner you painted yourself into.  You displayed rounding error in you flawed attempt with math.  I bet you didn't see this coming.

Quote
The United States government currently claims 4 meter RMS (7.8 meter 95% Confidence Interval) horizontal accuracy for civilian (SPS) GPS. Vertical accuracy is worse. Mind you, that's the minimum. Some devices/locations reliably (95% of the time or better) can get 3 meter accuracy.Dec 10, 2012
WRONG.  GPS is not a case of percent accurate.  It is about the accuracy of a particular location.

That's what my quote said, it can be off by a few meters and that can skew speed readouts.  Hence the "not 100% accurate" statement.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2017, 06:17:28 PM
Quote
Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
GPS speed is more accurate that a speedometer.  Please give us your method of measurements.

That is what is claimed as an explanation for the difference. But all we really know is that the speeds are different and there are a few explanation floating around to try and explain why. We will need some kind of test independent of looking at your car's speedometer to tell us the accuracy of GPS if a speedometer cannot be relied on at all.

Since the speeds often differ, for whatever reason, the "speed accuracy" argument that GPS is spot-on cannot be used as an argument to say that GPS is correct.
'We' know how to measure speeds and distances with known accuracy.  You and yours have not shown any interest in providing anything to disprove that.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 09, 2017, 09:08:19 PM
I pulled FE map from this site and attached an example of why the FE map simply doesn't work.  Basically a flight to JNB to NBO is 4 hours and a flight from JNB to SYD is 12 hours (3x).  Yet the distance from JNB to SYD is at least 7x as long per the FE map.  The flight route to Sydney would actually be much longer as we know flights from South Africa to Sydney go over the ocean (not Asia).  Sorry about image quality (limited by Forum).

Yes - I think it's very clear that THIS flat earth map doesn't work.  But you're missing the importance of this thread.

Some FE'ers (notably Tom) have put up alternative maps...and when challenged about these new maps, Tom (and others) has frequently responded that these maps are all tentative and that the FE'ers admit that they don't know for sure how the REAL Flat Earth continents are laid out.

I presume that they hope that this will deflect all problems of the kind you just gave under a layer of uncertainty...."Well, we know THIS map isn't perfect - but we're not finished with drawing the perfect FE map."...they fondly imagine that this is a sneaky way to avoid answering these "flight distance" problems.

HOWEVER

I'm not letting them get away with that.

The significance of THIS thread is that it proves that no possible flat earth map can EVER reconcile all of the distances given to us by airlines for their route distances.

So not just the map on the Wiki - not just Tom's new map - this thread clearly demonstrates that there is NO POSSIBLE flat map that can get the distances between four widely-separated cities right.

It constitutes definite proof that Flat Earth theory is wrong...AND that it can't possibly be fixed by redrawing their maps because this proof doesn't rely on their maps...instead it says that you can't resolve these distances between cities no matter how you juggle them around.

Cool or what?!   :-)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 09, 2017, 09:34:04 PM
A few observations.

Flat Earth Maps :
Amongst the only things I have read and seen from flat eathers on the subject of "A Flat Earth Maps" are :
(1) There is no flat earth map.
(2) We haven't had time to develop a flat earth map, but we're working on it.
(3) The Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe)(with the ice ring) is the flat earth map.
(4) The Bipolar Map (according to Tom Bishop)                                                           "   "      "       "         "

Mileage and Speed Readings on cars  :
I have checked the mileage readings on the car's trip odometer against Mile Markers and the results were the same.
I have checked the speed on a level road at 60 MPH between Mile Markers by using a stop watch with the same results.

If a flat earther asks the usual question "Did you do this yourself and observe it yourself ? "
The answer is  "Yes ! I have done it many times on I-40 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California."

Both checks proved they were reasonably acccurate.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 09, 2017, 09:39:25 PM
I pulled FE map from this site and attached an example of why the FE map simply doesn't work.  Basically a flight to JNB to NBO is 4 hours and a flight from JNB to SYD is 12 hours (3x).  Yet the distance from JNB to SYD is at least 7x as long per the FE map.  The flight route to Sydney would actually be much longer as we know flights from South Africa to Sydney go over the ocean (not Asia).  Sorry about image quality (limited by Forum).

Yes - I think it's very clear that THIS flat earth map doesn't work.  But you're missing the importance of this thread.

Some FE'ers (notably Tom) have put up alternative maps...and when challenged about these new maps, Tom (and others) has frequently responded that these maps are all tentative and that the FE'ers admit that they don't know for sure how the REAL Flat Earth continents are laid out.

I presume that they hope that this will deflect all problems of the kind you just gave under a layer of uncertainty...."Well, we know THIS map isn't perfect - but we're not finished with drawing the perfect FE map."...they fondly imagine that this is a sneaky way to avoid answering these "flight distance" problems.

HOWEVER

I'm not letting them get away with that.

The significance of THIS thread is that it proves that no possible flat earth map can EVER reconcile all of the distances given to us by airlines for their route distances.

So not just the map on the Wiki - not just Tom's new map - this thread clearly demonstrates that there is NO POSSIBLE flat map that can get the distances between four widely-separated cities right.

It constitutes definite proof that Flat Earth theory is wrong...AND that it can't possibly be fixed by redrawing their maps because this proof doesn't rely on their maps...instead it says that you can't resolve these distances between cities no matter how you juggle them around.

Cool or what?!   :-)

Cool enough  ! :-)  They jist ain't no flat earth map cuz the earth ain't flat ! :-)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2017, 10:09:18 PM
I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.
All a bit sad really, you carefully reply to avoid making progress when you know you could look further and argue about detail.  Do you really think there are no New York to Paris flights by any airline?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 10, 2017, 01:22:06 AM
I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.
All a bit sad really, you carefully reply to avoid making progress when you know you could look further and argue about detail.  Do you really think there are no New York to Paris flights by any airline?

Go here:

http://onw.innosked.com/(S(mizq3vf4cnmfklzngbi0u5kt))/default.aspx?show=MAP

Click on Paris...when the pop-up appears, scroll it down to New York - and you'll see there are scheduled flights to all three major NY airports.

(You have to be sure to click the "Sort By" button and select "Number of Stops" and only use the "Non-stop" results!)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 10, 2017, 03:55:27 PM
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

Whaaattt !!!!! ??????
Distance New York to Paris = 3,625  miles
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 10, 2017, 04:06:08 PM
I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.

Simple. You're looking in the wrong place, Tom. Qantas is an Australia airline. Of course Australia doesn't exist !

Try American Airlines, British Airways, et cetera, et cetera , and so forth !
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 10, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.

Simple. You're looking in the wrong place, Tom. Qantas is an Australia airline. Of course Australia doesn't exist !

Try American Airlines, British Airways, et cetera, et cetera , and so forth !

British Airways is a great place to start.  They fly all over the world and the fleet of 787's allows plenty of non-stops.  We have an Austin to Heathrow once a day from little old Austin.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 10, 2017, 04:44:03 PM
I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.

Simple. You're looking in the wrong place, Tom. Qantas is an Australia airline. Of course Australia doesn't exist !

Try American Airlines, British Airways, et cetera, et cetera , and so forth !

British Airways is a great place to start.  They fly all over the world and the fleet of 787's allows plenty of non-stops.  We have an Austin to Heathrow once a day from little old Austin.

DFW has flights to all over the world.
Including Paris.
There are even also flights from DFW to AUS.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 04:43:27 AM

In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth.  As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into.   I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

Please show that the distances in that link are based on flight times and not a round earth.

Quote
So - what you resort to is the rather pathetic complaint that there are no direct flights between some of those four cities with which we could back up the WorldAtlas distances between them.   I would also point out that if you go to Google Maps - and enter those same cities and ask for an route BY AIRPLANE - it comes out with very similar numbers...within 1%.

Please show that any of those sources are based on logs and not a Round Earth model.

And if you bring up cruising speed, please show how the cruising speed of the aircraft was calculated. Based on a test flight to a location with a "known" distance according to Round Earth Theory in the aircraft's development?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 04:44:18 AM
I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.
All a bit sad really, you carefully reply to avoid making progress when you know you could look further and argue about detail.  Do you really think there are no New York to Paris flights by any airline?

I do think that there are flights between those locations. Think about how a pilot would know his distance between Point A and Point B.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 11, 2017, 05:13:28 AM

In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth.  As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into.   I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

Please show that the distances in that link are based on flight times and not a round earth.
Irrelevant. They match the distances that have been corroborated via the flight times within 1%. How that site got them is therefore immaterial, since we have a known (I thought agreeable) method that concurs with the distances they are giving.

So - what you resort to is the rather pathetic complaint that there are no direct flights between some of those four cities with which we could back up the WorldAtlas distances between them.   I would also point out that if you go to Google Maps - and enter those same cities and ask for an route BY AIRPLANE - it comes out with very similar numbers...within 1%.

Please show that any of those sources are based on logs and not a Round Earth model.

And if you bring up cruising speed, please show how the cruising speed of the aircraft was calculated. Based on a test flight to a location with a "known" distance according to Round Earth Theory in the aircraft's development?

Air speed isn't calculated that way. It's calculated thusly (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on August 11, 2017, 07:28:43 AM

I'm flying to Lisbon Sunday morning from Luton airport (England), distance 994.06 miles, estimated time of flight 2hrs 50mins, I'll time it.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 07:33:11 AM

I'm flying to Lisbon Sunday morning from Luton airport (England), distance 994.06 miles, estimated time of flight 2hrs 50mins, I'll time it.

And how will you know that the distance isn't really 980 or 1015 miles?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 11, 2017, 08:11:45 AM
I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.
All a bit sad really, you carefully reply to avoid making progress when you know you could look further and argue about detail.  Do you really think there are no New York to Paris flights by any airline?

I do think that there are flights between those locations. Think about how a pilot would know his distance between Point A and Point B.
Think, the rest of us know.  You tell us how we know distances.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on August 11, 2017, 11:37:13 AM

Well I know where you are going with this, as you will cavil away until the end of time rather than concede a point. However I have driven a good deal of this continent (from northern Scandinavia to southern Spain) over the years, using both maps and GPS, and it joins up, mileage is in the limits you expect from elevation changes and getting lost and I have always got where I wanted within the times I calculated.   
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 02:30:38 PM
I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.
All a bit sad really, you carefully reply to avoid making progress when you know you could look further and argue about detail.  Do you really think there are no New York to Paris flights by any airline?

I do think that there are flights between those locations. Think about how a pilot would know his distance between Point A and Point B.

He would know it based on the charts he uses, the calculations the airline and he made for fuel consumption, time at the gate, time on the ramp, time in the air, time in the pattern and time again on the ramp.  If the engines are running he is costing the airline money and he knows to the minute how long the fuel will last.  I would submit airlines know as much or more about distances between two points than any other entities.   Airlines are in the business to make money, not to try and trick you or any other delusional group.


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 02:37:58 PM

I'm flying to Lisbon Sunday morning from Luton airport (England), distance 994.06 miles, estimated time of flight 2hrs 50mins, I'll time it.

And how will you know that the distance isn't really 980 or 1015 miles?

Not relevant.  You are trying to introduce a 2-3% error.  Any published flat earth map produces errors of 200% to 400% in distances between southern hemisphere flights.  The sad thing is you know that, but continue to try to derail a thread that is based on provable facts.  One would think a zealot would jump on board and help prove what you think is true.  A flat earth map could be roughed in based on point to point distances within your 3% error.  If it was possible that is.

You are a very dishonest debater.  What are you so afraid of?






Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 02:43:02 PM

In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth.  As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into.   I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

Please show that the distances in that link are based on flight times and not a round earth.

Quote
So - what you resort to is the rather pathetic complaint that there are no direct flights between some of those four cities with which we could back up the WorldAtlas distances between them.   I would also point out that if you go to Google Maps - and enter those same cities and ask for an route BY AIRPLANE - it comes out with very similar numbers...within 1%.

Please show that any of those sources are based on logs and not a Round Earth model. 




Everything you need to know is right here

https://flightaware.com/live/

Look at every commercial flight in the air.  All with metadata.

Quote
And if you bring up cruising speed, please show how the cruising speed of the aircraft was calculated. Based on a test flight to a location with a "known" distance according to Round Earth Theory in the aircraft's development

Pretty simple science.

Now Tom, let's get this thread back on track.







Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 03:15:58 PM
Here is my plan for this.  Pretty simple really and somewhat of a high school project.  I am going to print out scale models of each continent based on localized maps.  Sized to known distances. Then it will be a simple matter of laying those out on a flat table and position them based on known indisputable distances via published airline data.  Should be exactly what a flat earth looks like right?  I would welcome help from Tom Bishop on this.  It could support his position.


Photos to follow.


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 03:30:54 PM
Here is a very informative article about southern routes in the southern hemisphere.  A lot I did not know such as twin engine limitations and how that explains flight distances and time variations based on 2 or 4 engines.

Quote
Antarctica[edit]
Few airlines fly between cities having a great circle route over Antarctica. Nonstop flights between South Africa and New Zealand, or between Perth, Australia and certain destinations in South America (including Buenos Aires and São Paulo), would overfly Antarctica, but no airline has scheduled such flights. Flights between Australia and South America and between Australia and South Africa pass near the Antarctic coastline. Depending on the winds, the Qantas flight QF 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg-O. R. Tambo sometimes flies over the Antarctic Circle to latitude 71 degrees as well and allowing views of the icecap.[19] Qantas also flies nonstop between Sydney and Santiago de Chile, the most southerly polar route. Depending on winds, this flight may reach 55 degrees south latitude, but other times 71 degrees, which is enough to cross the polar ice cap.[20][better source needed] The polar route across the remote southern Pacific Ocean between South America and Oceania was pioneered by Aerolineas Argentinas, which began service between Buenos Aires via Rio Gallegos to Auckland in the 1980s with a Boeing 747-200 aircraft. Aerolineas Argentinas later operated to Sydney, but ended its flights to New Zealand and Australia in 2014.[21]
Because of ETOPS limitations on twin-engined aircraft—the maximum distance the aircraft can operate from an airport for emergency landings—only 4-engined aircraft such as the Boeing 747 or Airbus A340 can operate routes near Antarctica. Twin-engined aircraft must fly further north, closer to potential diversion airports; for example, when Virgin Australia operated a flight from Melbourne to Johannesburg on twin-engined Boeing 777 aircraft with a 180-minute ETOPS rating, the flight was two hours longer than a Qantas flight from Sydney to Johannesburg.[22] Air New Zealand flies nonstop between Auckland and Buenos Aires-Ezeiza; in 2015, government regulators approved its twin-engined Boeing 777-200ER aircraft that operate the route for a 330-minute ETOPS rating (i.e. its 777 aircraft can fly a maximum 330 minutes away from the nearest diversion airport), an increase from its previous 240-minute ETOPS rating.[23] LATAM Airlines began a nonstop flight between Santiago de Chile and Sydney via Auckland in April 2015 with twin-engined Boeing 787 aircraft with a 330-minute ETOPS rating.[24][25] LATAM has announced a nonstop flight between Santiago de Chile and Melbourne to begin in October 2017.[26][27]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route#Antarctica
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 11, 2017, 03:34:56 PM
Here is my plan for this.  Pretty simple really and somewhat of a high school project.  I am going to print out scale models of each continent based on localized maps.  Sized to known distances. Then it will be a simple matter of laying those out on a flat table and position them based on known indisputable distances via published airline data.  Should be exactly what a flat earth looks like right?  I would welcome help from Tom Bishop on this.  It could support his position.


Photos to follow.
I can see Tom's rebuttal already. "How do you know any of those distances are correct?" Jura appears to be right, he'd rather attempt to cavil at every turn, than actually accept a point against FE. Which I find mildly amusing when he personally can barely form a point FOR FE. I'm interested to see what you come up with though, I'm fairly confident in what will happen but curious just where the 'worst' locations and 'best' locations will be. Hey, maybe you'll suddenly find a way it can work somehow. Considering it sounds like the FE community has put nil effort into doing this up until now, I suppose it's possible.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 03:50:27 PM
Here is my plan for this.  Pretty simple really and somewhat of a high school project.  I am going to print out scale models of each continent based on localized maps.  Sized to known distances. Then it will be a simple matter of laying those out on a flat table and position them based on known indisputable distances via published airline data.  Should be exactly what a flat earth looks like right?  I would welcome help from Tom Bishop on this.  It could support his position.


Photos to follow.
I can see Tom's rebuttal already. "How do you know any of those distances are correct?" Jura appears to be right, he'd rather attempt to cavil at every turn, than actually accept a point against FE. Which I find mildly amusing when he personally can barely form a point FOR FE. I'm interested to see what you come up with though, I'm fairly confident in what will happen but curious just where the 'worst' locations and 'best' locations will be. Hey, maybe you'll suddenly find a way it can work somehow. Considering it sounds like the FE community has put nil effort into doing this up until now, I suppose it's possible.

Tom gives himself away regularly.  Like a "poker face".  You can plot what topics he's afraid of based on which threads he runs away from or tries to derail. 

But to your point. Distances between continents using average published flight distances, speeds, and duration of 4 engine aircraft in the southern hemisphere would be hard to argue.   Distances within continents would be much more accurate since we know how big Australia, South America, New Zealand (yes I know, not a continent), and Africa are.

This thread needs to be kept alive and linked to provide valid data to newcomers of the site.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 11, 2017, 03:58:56 PM
Here is my plan for this.  Pretty simple really and somewhat of a high school project.  I am going to print out scale models of each continent based on localized maps.  Sized to known distances. Then it will be a simple matter of laying those out on a flat table and position them based on known indisputable distances via published airline data.  Should be exactly what a flat earth looks like right?  I would welcome help from Tom Bishop on this.  It could support his position.


Photos to follow.
I can see Tom's rebuttal already. "How do you know any of those distances are correct?" Jura appears to be right, he'd rather attempt to cavil at every turn, than actually accept a point against FE. Which I find mildly amusing when he personally can barely form a point FOR FE. I'm interested to see what you come up with though, I'm fairly confident in what will happen but curious just where the 'worst' locations and 'best' locations will be. Hey, maybe you'll suddenly find a way it can work somehow. Considering it sounds like the FE community has put nil effort into doing this up until now, I suppose it's possible.

Tom gives himself away regularly.  Like a "poker face".  You can plot what topics he's afraid of based on which threads he runs away from or tries to derail. 

But to your point. Distances between continents using average published flight distances, speeds, and duration of 4 engine aircraft in the southern hemisphere would be hard to argue.   Distances within continents would be much more accurate since we know how big Australia, South America, New Zealand (yes I know, not a continent), and Africa are.

This thread needs to be kept alive and linked to provide valid data to newcomers of the site.
Unless you believe (as Tom seems to) that air speeds are based on how long it takes to get from one location to another with 'Round Earth math' distances. I showed him how air speed is actually calculated, but he's so far ignored the whole post. I presume he'll find some way to pretend air speed isn't accurate either though honestly.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Mock on August 11, 2017, 04:22:19 PM
3DGeek, I want you to know you're a genius. This eradicates any doubt for anyone in their right mind.

Tom Bishop, I want you to know that your argumentation here is really, really lazy and I think it's embarassing that you as kind of an authority on FET run away from every thread that threatens your worldview with sound logic and pretty much indisputable proof, all while bringing minimal evidence to the table yourself and cowardly questioning thoroughly explained and verified numbers AFTER YOU USED THEM YOURSELF to try and prove your own thesis. I wonder how you justify that last bit in particular? ::)


Anyway, TomInAustin, while I think it's cool that you're trying this, keep in mind that even if you should find a configuration where all the distances miraculously match up, there's still huge problems like the possibility of circumnavigation and the Earth's magnetic field that need to be thought of. Though personally, I would love to see a FE map that actually works out.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 11, 2017, 04:40:24 PM

In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth.  As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into.   I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

Please show that the distances in that link are based on flight times and not a round earth.

I already did that in STEP 1.   Notice that I looked up the cruise speed of the specific aircraft that Qantas fly - then compared their stated flight time at that speed with the distances they claim and the match is extremely good.   I also gave a link to a site that tracks how many times flights from various airlines are on-time - and for Qantas, it's very good - so again, we know that the stated flight times along with the speed at which their airplanes fly is a great match for the distances they say they are flying.

So I have verified the flight distances - by comparing them to times - and proving that this is how long they actually take to get there.

We could repeat this exercise with the other airlines too - but to be honest, you're clutching at straws if you think that's going to change the answer here.

Bear in mind - we're not looking at subtle differences -  your maps (ALL OF THEM) predict flight distances that are 200% to 300% of what the airlines claim - and which would require aircraft to fly at twice to three times their maximum airspeed in order to EVER make their schedules.

Quote
Quote
So - what you resort to is the rather pathetic complaint that there are no direct flights between some of those four cities with which we could back up the WorldAtlas distances between them.   I would also point out that if you go to Google Maps - and enter those same cities and ask for an route BY AIRPLANE - it comes out with very similar numbers...within 1%.

Please show that any of those sources are based on logs and not a Round Earth model.

We can do that too - there are plenty of realtime flight tracking web sites that show the aircraft moving along those routes.

Quote
And if you bring up cruising speed, please show how the cruising speed of the aircraft was calculated. Based on a test flight to a location with a "known" distance according to Round Earth Theory in the aircraft's development?

Well, they know the drag coefficient of the airplane - some from theoretical measurements from the CAD data and other times from actual wind tunnel data.  Combine that with the navier-stokes equation - the known (measured) efficiency of the engines and the rate of fuel consumption - and you wind up with the optimum fuel consumption rate.

But do you truly believe that airplanes are designed - then test flown to determine how fast they'll fly?   That's not been true for at least 40 years.   The airplane is designed VERY SPECIFICALLY for a particular speed, range and endurance.   All of this is carefully calculated long before the first piece of metal is cut.   Airlines buy airplanes that meet a specific performance before the first test flight...and actually, test flights have become something of an anachronism anyway.   We know exactly how a plane as expensive as an airliner will fly long before it ever flies.

However, this argument isn't going to get you anywhere for two very good reasons:

1) Your maps consistently produce shorter routes than are realistic in the Northern hemisphere and longer routes than are realistic in the southern hemisphere.  Since the cruise speed of an airplane is the same in the North as in the South - your conjecture that the cruise speeds are "off" by a factor of two or three doesn't hold water.

2) In order to make the Sydney-Australia/Santiago-Chile route with either of the two FET maps - the airplane would have to be flying at twice the speed of sound.   Now - when an airplane breaks the sound barrier, (a) it creates an almighty sonic boom...which isn't happening for passenger airlines and (b) the airplane has to be DESIGNED to handle the airflow around the body and (especially) through the engines because air behaves VERY differently at 1mph over the speed of sound than 1mph below it.   The 747-400 (and every other passenger airplane except Concorde) is not designed to handle those speeds.   The engines alone would simply cease to function.

So no Tom...these are just coming across as really whiney, pathetic criticisms.   I've covered ALL the bases here.   There is not one single chink in the armor of this series of logical steps.

YOU   ARE   WRONG!

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 11, 2017, 05:05:06 PM
3DGeek, I want you to know you're a genius. This eradicates any doubt for anyone in their right mind.

No, sadly - I'm no genius.  I just follow the FET argument toward it's logical conclusion until it reached breaking point...then I back-track to where their theory is broken and try to find evidence to back it up.

In my job, I make 3D graphical representations of the world for flight simulation - so I know a lot about geometry and a lot about aircraft, spacecraft, etc.

Computer graphics chips are not really designed for round earth - hardly any video games have round earth geometry in them...it's just easier to make everything flat.

But in "serious" flight simulators, the errors that are showing up in FET would be insanely obvious.   Pilots need round-earth simulations in order to be able to fly from point A to point B in the simulator.    Many simulators actually use real-world aircraft parts (because it's expensive to re-engineer a "fake" that would function exactly the same).   So (for example) the 747 simulators we built for Qantas (and many others) use the actual navigation computer from a real 747 of the same model number.   We have to use our software to feed it position, compass, air-speed, GPS and accelerometer data so that the instrument 'believes' it's really flying around the world.   Therefore I know for 100% certain that if you feed a 747's navigation system with flat earth data - it'll get severely screwed up and produce utter garbage for your position, speed, etc.   It would literally be "unflyable".   So our simulator has to provide an accurate representation of the shape of the world.

We don't treat the world as a sphere - or even an "oblate spheroid" because neither is a sufficiently accurate description to make things like the 747's nav computer behave.   We use a mathematical description of the shape called "WGS-84" which derives from the "World Geophysical Survey of 1984" (which has subsequently been confirmed in several other WGS reports).

The true shape of the planet is very *VERY* close to being a perfect sphere - but not close enough to actually work for airlines and military aircraft.   If you shrunk the world to the size of a pool/billiards ball, it would be sufficiently close to a perfect sphere to be acceptable for competition pool/billards under their rules!

Anyway - I know the Earth is round - it truly can't be any other shape.  The enormous mountain of nonsense put out by the likes of Tom Bishop don't hold water.   They are vague to the point of stupidity - these theories of how various things happen are inconsistent - there is no viable map (and now we've proved that there can't ever BE such a map) - gravity doesn't work, the motion and appearance of sun, moon, planets and stars don't work...really it's an untenable hypothesis.

But it is rather amusing to come up with ideas like this thread that pile on the evidence layer upon layer - forcing the likes of Tom into more and more bizarre suppositions.

Now we're supposed to believe that the makers of passenger airplanes don't know how fast they can really fly and the pilots of them are mistakenly flying them faster than the speed of sound without knowing it!

Please...NOBODY believes that Tom...just nobody...you're making an idiot of yourself if that's your claim.

Anyway - onward.   I have some more ideas for proofs along these lines.   Right now I'm trying to get a group of people who'll take a photo of the moon at some particular date and time from at least three places with the same longitude and different latitudes.   It turns out that this isn't easy because photos of the moon taken with cellphones are crap - so I need to find three or more people with decent SLR cameras.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 05:52:53 PM

Well I know where you are going with this, as you will cavil away until the end of time rather than concede a point. However I have driven a good deal of this continent (from northern Scandinavia to southern Spain) over the years, using both maps and GPS, and it joins up, mileage is in the limits you expect from elevation changes and getting lost and I have always got where I wanted within the times I calculated.

GPS coordinates distances are based on a Round Earth. It will just tell you the Round Earth value.


In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth.  As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into.   I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

Please show that the distances in that link are based on flight times and not a round earth.

I already did that in STEP 1.   Notice that I looked up the cruise speed of the specific aircraft that Qantas fly - then compared their stated flight time at that speed with the distances they claim and the match is extremely good.   I also gave a link to a site that tracks how many times flights from various airlines are on-time - and for Qantas, it's very good - so again, we know that the stated flight times along with the speed at which their airplanes fly is a great match for the distances they say they are flying.

You will need to show that the aircraft is not using maps, instruments, or GPS computers which assume Round Earth coordinates. How is this distance being computed, exactly?

Quote
So I have verified the flight distances - by comparing them to times - and proving that this is how long they actually take to get there.

No, you have not. Firstly, we don't know whether the distances between two points stated on that Qantas website, or on any of the website which were posted here, is based on flight times or the Round Earth expectation. You have yet to demonstrate this.

Secondly, you will need to demonstrate that a flight time from Point A to Point B is a reliable indicator of the average cruising speed. If the aircraft's cruising speed was originally measured based on the distance between two points, since all instruments assume Round Earth coordinates, that cruising speed may be in error.

Quote
Bear in mind - we're not looking at subtle differences -  your maps (ALL OF THEM) predict flight distances that are 200% to 300% of what the airlines claim - and which would require aircraft to fly at twice to three times their maximum airspeed in order to EVER make their schedules.

There is no Flat Earth Map. We don't know where any discrepancies might show on such a map. There are monopole and bi-polar models, with a near infinite number of continental map configurations.

Quote
We can do that too - there are plenty of realtime flight tracking web sites that show the aircraft moving along those routes.

You will need to show that the distance from A to B is actually what is displayed on such "live" maps, and you will need to show that the cruising speed is accurate.

Those maps are probably assuming Round Earth data.

Quote
But do you truly believe that airplanes are designed - then test flown to determine how fast they'll fly?   That's not been true for at least 40 years.   The airplane is designed VERY SPECIFICALLY for a particular speed, range and endurance.   All of this is carefully calculated long before the first piece of metal is cut.   Airlines buy airplanes that meet a specific performance before the first test flight...and actually, test flights have become something of an anachronism anyway.   We know exactly how a plane as expensive as an airliner will fly long before it ever flies.

Unless they are pointing a police speedometer laser at the airplane, how do they actually know how fast it flies without some kind of reference to the ground? Since all navigational instruments assume a Round Earth, a Round Earth distance between two points will return a Round Earth result.

The plane may be built "very specifically" for a certain speed and range, but all of that is based on the Round Earth speeds and ranges of previous planes, and therefore that is a fallacious argument.

Quote
However, this argument isn't going to get you anywhere for two very good reasons:

1) Your maps consistently produce shorter routes than are realistic in the Northern hemisphere and longer routes than are realistic in the southern hemisphere.  Since the cruise speed of an airplane is the same in the North as in the South - your conjecture that the cruise speeds are "off" by a factor of two or three doesn't hold water.

Again, there is NO flat earth map. It is UNKNOWN if the Southern Hemisphere is large, if it is large and the continents are more squished together, or if the bi-polar model or other type of model with a smaller Southern Hemisphere is correct.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Mock on August 11, 2017, 05:57:53 PM
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 05:59:10 PM
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 11, 2017, 06:03:27 PM
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed) the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 06:10:54 PM
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed) the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.

Read this quote from your link:

Quote
Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed

Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 11, 2017, 06:12:27 PM
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed) the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable.

Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 06:19:19 PM
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Mock on August 11, 2017, 06:20:00 PM
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
Of course he has. Didn't you read his posts? Half of his proof consisted of making sure the distance figures were all right. He put more effort into producing a legitimate source than any FE-supporter I have ever seen.

You literally get people pulling stories out of their arse about how the moon is a dormant cold sun that symbolizes yang, and you people say it's an interesting idea worth looking into. Then some RE-supporter comes around with a proof derived from sound sources that follows sound logic and sound, universally accepted science and math, and you suddenly have the audacity to assert that his carefully researched numbers, which were good enough for you mere hours ago when you made a futile and pathetic attempt to prove your own theory, do not accurately represent the distances they should.

Well, maybe those discussions would be easier if you actually got things done with your FE theory. You're not even able to make a map - actually you can't even devise a mere model for how your hypothetical map might look that works in accordance with observed phenomena. What distances is he going to use? He already did great work by not just googling the distances, but actually cross-checking with flight times from airlines. If you can come up with a better way to determine the distances in question so you'll finally be happy with them, please enlighten us. Sadly we can't use a Flat Earth Map because - hey, did I mention you still fail to come up with a map of your own?

It's like for some reason you think you know the Earth is flat, but apart from that you really have no idea at all about how it might look. Of course it's not easy to argue about something you consciously refuse to even sufficiently define. God, the hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 06:21:31 PM
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed) the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.

Read this quote from your link:

Quote
Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed



LOL, everyone in aviation knows airspeed is not used for navigation.  I have actually glided backward due to headwinds.   Ground speed is what is used to calculate distance traveled, ETA, etc. 

Now try and stay focused Tom.  Saying that using distance to calculate flight duration is not accurate is just lazy or dishonest.  Take your pick. 


Quote
Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.

Ussualy called miles or kilometers.  Look them up, quite useful.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 06:24:02 PM
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.

Man, you just can't stop digging that hole, can you?  Any clue as to why they assume a round model?  Could it be because they have worked for centuries?  From Sextants to Loran, to GPS?







Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 11, 2017, 06:25:12 PM
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed) the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.

Read this quote from your link:

Quote
Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed

Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.
IAS, CAS, and EAS are all used and quite useful for the aircraft. 3DGeek even explained much about what goes into the workings of a plane and it's instruments in the post above, and the accuracy to which they are held (demanded in fact) for flight. At this point I might just wait for him to chime in again, because you're being picky about things you appear to know little to nothing about, and I know very little (if anything) more than you about them.

Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
Of course he has. Didn't you read his posts? Half of his proof consisted of making sure the distance figures were all right. He put more effort into producing a legitimate source than any FE-supporter I have ever seen.

You literally get people pulling stories out of their arse about how the moon is a dormant cold sun that symbolizes yang, and you people say it's an interesting idea worth looking into. Then some RE-supporter comes around with a proof derived from sound sources that follows sound logic and sound, universally accepted science and math, and you suddenly have the audacity to assert that his carefully researched numbers, which were good enough for you mere hours ago when you made a futile attempt to prove your own theory, do not accurately represent the distances they should.

Well, maybe those discussions would be easier if you actually got things done with your FE theory. You're not even able to make a map - actually you can't even devise a mere model for how your hypothetical map might look that works in accordance with observed phenomena. What distances is he going to use? He already did great work by not just googling the distances, but actually cross-checking with flight times from airlines. If you can come up with a better way to determine the distances in question so you'll finally be happy with them, please enlighten us. Sadly we can't use a Flat Earth Map because - hey, did I mention you still fail to come up with a map of your own?

It's like for some reason you think you know the Earth is flat, but apart from that you really have no idea at all about how it might look. Of course it's not easy to argue about something you consciously refuse to even sufficiently define. God, the hypocrisy.

Welcome to 'debating' Tom. He can't or refuses to answer simple questions about his FE, but demands detailed and intricate information about anything we put forward and demands we explain anything he doesn't get. Then from what I've seen, when we do, he cuts bait and deflects or otherwise. Shame really, but FE has put very little effort into actually coming up with anything to do with math for their hypothesis that I've seen. It's all gut feeling and visuals.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 11, 2017, 06:27:29 PM
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.
Let us start with the shape and size of Australia.  Do you accept the published details?

What, exactly, do you require as instruments or programs?  I thought you were not sure the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 06:34:14 PM
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.

Man, you just can't stop digging that hole, can you?  Any clue as to why they assume a round model?  Could it be because they have worked for centuries?  From Sextants to Loran, to GPS?

They work as far as getting you to a certain coordinate, but the distance between two points is based on that coordinate system. The coordinate systems use assume a ball earth. The Round Earth coordinate system must be shown to be correct in order to use the results of any of these instruments as evidence.

Let us start with the shape and size of Australia.  Do you accept the published details?

If the details were estimated with Round Earth coordinates, no.

Quote
What, exactly, do you require as instruments or programs?  I thought you were not sure the earth is flat.

The coordinate system in Round Earth Theory assumes that the coordinate points are sitting on a sphere. This makes the use of instruments which use such assumptions (even old physical navigational instruments used with a mercator maps) to be in question and not acceptable as evidence for the matter at hand.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 11, 2017, 06:42:22 PM
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.

Man, you just can't stop digging that hole, can you?  Any clue as to why they assume a round model?  Could it be because they have worked for centuries?  From Sextants to Loran, to GPS?

They work as far as getting you to a certain coordinate, but the distance between two points is based on that coordinate system. The coordinate systems use assume a ball earth. The Round Earth coordinate system must be shown to be correct in order to use the results of any of these instruments as evidence.

Let us start with the shape and size of Australia.  Do you accept the published details?

If the details were estimated with Round Earth coordinates, no.

Quote
What, exactly, do you require as instruments or programs?  I thought you were not sure the earth is flat.

The coordinate system in Round Earth Theory assumes that the coordinate points are sitting on a sphere. This makes the use of instruments which use such assumptions (even old physical navigational instruments used with a mercator maps) to be in question and not acceptable as evidence for the matter at hand.
What instruments do you require, please provide a detailed specification.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 06:45:15 PM
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed) the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.

Read this quote from your link:

Quote
Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed

Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.
IAS, CAS, and EAS are all used and quite useful for the aircraft. 3DGeek even explained much about what goes into the workings of a plane and it's instruments in the post above, and the accuracy to which they are held (demanded in fact) for flight. At this point I might just wait for him to chime in again, because you're being picky about things you appear to know little to nothing about, and I know very little (if anything) more than you about them.

Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
Of course he has. Didn't you read his posts? Half of his proof consisted of making sure the distance figures were all right. He put more effort into producing a legitimate source than any FE-supporter I have ever seen.

You literally get people pulling stories out of their arse about how the moon is a dormant cold sun that symbolizes yang, and you people say it's an interesting idea worth looking into. Then some RE-supporter comes around with a proof derived from sound sources that follows sound logic and sound, universally accepted science and math, and you suddenly have the audacity to assert that his carefully researched numbers, which were good enough for you mere hours ago when you made a futile attempt to prove your own theory, do not accurately represent the distances they should.

Well, maybe those discussions would be easier if you actually got things done with your FE theory. You're not even able to make a map - actually you can't even devise a mere model for how your hypothetical map might look that works in accordance with observed phenomena. What distances is he going to use? He already did great work by not just googling the distances, but actually cross-checking with flight times from airlines. If you can come up with a better way to determine the distances in question so you'll finally be happy with them, please enlighten us. Sadly we can't use a Flat Earth Map because - hey, did I mention you still fail to come up with a map of your own?

It's like for some reason you think you know the Earth is flat, but apart from that you really have no idea at all about how it might look. Of course it's not easy to argue about something you consciously refuse to even sufficiently define. God, the hypocrisy.

Welcome to 'debating' Tom. He can't or refuses to answer simple questions about his FE, but demands detailed and intricate information about anything we put forward and demands we explain anything he doesn't get. Then from what I've seen, when we do, he cuts bait and deflects or otherwise. Shame really, but FE has put very little effort into actually coming up with anything to do with math for their hypothesis that I've seen. It's all gut feeling and visuals.

Yup, Tom is a piece of work.   I wish I could find the quote, in a thread about merging the 2 forums he said something along the lines of "What they get is Tom Bishop" in a response to why the 2 should join.  LOL.  I will settle for the quote in my sig that tells all, a thread he started and then ran away from.


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 11, 2017, 07:01:41 PM
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.

Man, you just can't stop digging that hole, can you?  Any clue as to why they assume a round model?  Could it be because they have worked for centuries?  From Sextants to Loran, to GPS?

They work as far as getting you to a certain coordinate, but the distance between two points is based on that coordinate system. The coordinate systems use assume a ball earth. The Round Earth coordinate system must be shown to be correct in order to use the results of any of these instruments as evidence.

Let us start with the shape and size of Australia.  Do you accept the published details?

If the details were estimated with Round Earth coordinates, no.

Quote
What, exactly, do you require as instruments or programs?  I thought you were not sure the earth is flat.

The coordinate system in Round Earth Theory assumes that the coordinate points are sitting on a sphere. This makes the use of instruments which use such assumptions (even old physical navigational instruments used with a mercator maps) to be in question and not acceptable as evidence for the matter at hand.
What instruments do you require, please provide a detailed specification.
On that note, would any of these methods (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 11, 2017, 09:03:19 PM
I already did that in STEP 1.   Notice that I looked up the cruise speed of the specific aircraft that Qantas fly - then compared their stated flight time at that speed with the distances they claim and the match is extremely good.   I also gave a link to a site that tracks how many times flights from various airlines are on-time - and for Qantas, it's very good - so again, we know that the stated flight times along with the speed at which their airplanes fly is a great match for the distances they say they are flying.

You will need to show that the aircraft is not using maps, instruments, or GPS computers which assume Round Earth coordinates. How is this distance being computed, exactly?

No Tom - please listen.

Speed of aircraft = X.   Scheduled time to complete flight = Y  (Proof that these planes are almost always meeting those times).

Distance = Y x X      (Guaranteed to be fairly accurate because plane speed is known, so is flight time).

DOES THIS MATCH THE DISTANCES QANTAS QUOTE?

Yes!  They do!

So HOWEVER Qantas arrive at those distances (it really doesn't matter) - they must be fairly close to the correct, true, honest to goodness values.

For them to be as far wrong as it takes for the Earth to be flat - they'd have to be a factor of 2 or 3 "off" from the truth - which leaves you saying that EITHER:

a) Qantas have Mach 2 passenger airplanes....or...
b) Qantas are always between 13 and 26 hours late on a 13 hour flight (which they *CLEARLY* are not - because the plane doesn't carry enough fuel for that).

SO...the Qantas distances can be trusted (within some reasonable margin of error) - and it doesn't matter how they arrived at them - because I calculated them from speeds and times - and I came up with about the same answers.

Furthermore - for one of their routes (The Sydney/Dallas route) I did those calculations and found (to my surprise) that the 747-400 couldn't make it.   I searched deeper and discover that Qantas bought four "Extended-Range" versions of the 747-400 just for that route!

This is further confirmation that they simply don't have the fuel on board to fly distances more than maybe 20% beyond the distances they actually fly.

Quote
Quote
So I have verified the flight distances - by comparing them to times - and proving that this is how long they actually take to get there.

No, you have not. Firstly, we don't know whether the distances between two points stated on that Qantas website, or on any of the website which were posted here, is based on flight times or the Round Earth expectation. You have yet to demonstrate this.

Sorry Tom - I did do that - check what I just wrote - and go back and re-read my first post to this thread.

There is no dodging this one.

Quote
Secondly, you will need to demonstrate that a flight time from Point A to Point B is a reliable indicator of the average cruising speed. If the aircraft's cruising speed was originally measured based on the distance between two points, since all instruments assume Round Earth coordinates, that cruising speed may be in error.

I have also explained that nobody who makes airplanes measures the cruising speed using a stopwatch and a long flight.   That's INSANE!   They already know the cruise range (and speed - and maximum all-up weight, etc, etc) before the plane even leaves the drawing board.    If they need a plane to cover some particular route - they DESIGN IT TO DO THAT - and because these are very smart people - the final, delivered airplane will come within about 1% of the design specifications.

We don't live in the dark ages anymore Tom.

This isn't WWII where some brave pilot would climb into the plane for the test flight - hoping it wouldn't fall out of the sky.   These days, they have computers calculating "virtual wind tunnel" data - which they compare to models placed in wind-tunnels and to parts of the airplane that fit into smaller wind tunnels.   They KNOW the speed and performance to an amazing precision before the very first piece of metal is cut.

Airlines buy airplanes for specific flight characteristics LONG before the manufacturer has even finished designing them.   They'll agree parameters like speed, fuel consumption, payload, seating plans...they'll sign up to buy the planes - and only then is the design completed and the first prototype built.

So - get your head into the modern world.   That's how things are done now.

So forget flying some known distance with a stopwatch on the plane....doesn't happen because it doesn't need to happen.

Quote
Quote
Bear in mind - we're not looking at subtle differences -  your maps (ALL OF THEM) predict flight distances that are 200% to 300% of what the airlines claim - and which would require aircraft to fly at twice to three times their maximum airspeed in order to EVER make their schedules.

There is no Flat Earth Map. We don't know where any discrepancies might show on such a map. There are monopole and bi-polar models, with a near infinite number of continental map configurations.

Right - but if you've been following along here - you'll notice that the key part of my proof is that the four edges and two diagonals of the paths between cities represents an IMPOSSIBLE two-dimensional ("flat") figure.   There is no possible flat map that can explain those six measurements.

Hence you can doodle away making flat maps from now until eternity and not ONE of them can possibly - by any means whatever - explain the time it takes to fly between those cities with those airplanes.

So you're done.   The world ISN'T flat...it's been proven to you - right here, right now.

So either retire gracefully - or continue to be a laughing stock.

Have you noticed how not one single one of your fellow flat-earthers is coming to this thread to help you out with better explanations?   I think there may be a reason for that.

Anyway - I have another similar bomb-shell lined up for you in my next big thread.

Quote
Quote
But do you truly believe that airplanes are designed - then test flown to determine how fast they'll fly?   That's not been true for at least 40 years.   The airplane is designed VERY SPECIFICALLY for a particular speed, range and endurance.   All of this is carefully calculated long before the first piece of metal is cut.   Airlines buy airplanes that meet a specific performance before the first test flight...and actually, test flights have become something of an anachronism anyway.   We know exactly how a plane as expensive as an airliner will fly long before it ever flies.

Unless they are pointing a police speedometer laser at the airplane, how do they actually know how fast it flies without some kind of reference to the ground? Since all navigational instruments assume a Round Earth, a Round Earth distance between two points will return a Round Earth result.

The plane may be built "vary specifically" for a certain speed and range, but all of that is based on the Round Earth speeds and ranges of previous planes, and therefore that is a fallacious argument.

So Tom - would you care to take a shot at why these speeds are PERFECTLY accurate for North/South flight on your map - SOMEWHAT accurate for Northern hemisphere flights - and WILDLY inaccurate for Southern hemisphere flights?

Surely if we have horribly misunderstood air speeds - they'd be wrong everywhere?

Actually, we can measure speed through the air very easily.   There is a gizmo called a "pitot" tube which directly measures the speed of the air as the plane passes through it.   Modern aircraft only use them as a very last-ditch backup - but they still work.   That device gives a direct reading of the speed of the plane.   Of course it has to be corrected for wind speed over the ground - but that's never going to be a big enough factor (we know this because the outgoing and incoming routes for Qantas only differ by maybe 10 to 15 minutes over a 13 hour flight...so the pitot tube speed reading must be within a few percent of the speed measured by other means.

Please - I'm not an idiot - I'm not going to fall for this kind of flim-flam.

I know a HELL of a lot about airplanes - and I can demolish every one of your arguments in a heartbeat.

Quote
Quote
However, this argument isn't going to get you anywhere for two very good reasons:

1) Your maps consistently produce shorter routes than are realistic in the Northern hemisphere and longer routes than are realistic in the southern hemisphere.  Since the cruise speed of an airplane is the same in the North as in the South - your conjecture that the cruise speeds are "off" by a factor of two or three doesn't hold water.

Again, there is NO flat earth map. It is UNKNOWN if the Southern Hemisphere is large, if it is large and the continents are more squished together, or if the bi-polar model or other type of model with a smaller Southern Hemisphere is correct.

And AGAIN you miss the point of this thread.

I'm well aware of how you've used the "We don't know what the map is like" argument in the past.

So this thread - rather cleverly, I thought - proves that ANY flat map you could ever come up with will have these problems.   Because you can't construct a quadrilateral with those sides and those two diagonals...no matter how you try to do it.

The is one good way though - wrap your map around a sphere - and lo and behold you can make it all work perfectly.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 11, 2017, 09:17:54 PM
Oh - and Tom...one last thought.

Suppose you're right and the planes fly faster than the airlines think they do.

Let's suppose they are (say) 50% faster.

That would mean that all the distances that "inquisitive" used to prove that the angles of the quadrilateral in question are inconsistent - would be 50% longer than he thought they were.

OK - suppose we concede that they are.

Does this change anything?

No...not a thing.  The angles still don't add up...so you STILL can't make a valid flat earth map even if the aircraft speeds are all wrong...a 747-400 has some cruising speed - and even if the airlines, pilots, ground controllers and airplane manufacturers computed the speed incorrectly - YOU STILL CAN'T DRAW A VALID FLAT EARTH MAP!

So - I guess I just defeated your last argument.

Done.

The Earth is now officially Round.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 09:42:25 PM
Oh - and Tom...one last thought.

Suppose you're right and the planes fly faster than the airlines think they do.

Let's suppose they are (say) 50% faster.

That would mean that all the distances that "inquisitive" used to prove that the angles of the quadrilateral in question are inconsistent - would be 50% longer than he thought they were.

OK - suppose we concede that they are.

Does this change anything?

No...not a thing.  The angles still don't add up...so you STILL can't make a valid flat earth map even if the aircraft speeds are all wrong...a 747-400 has some cruising speed - and even if the airlines, pilots, ground controllers and airplane manufacturers computed the speed incorrectly - YOU STILL CAN'T DRAW A VALID FLAT EARTH MAP!

So - I guess I just defeated your last argument.

Done.

The Earth is now officially Round.

How do we get this thread pinned? Should be required reading.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 10:19:49 PM
On that note, would any of these methods (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 10:21:05 PM
Quote
No Tom - please listen.

Speed of aircraft = X.   Scheduled time to complete flight = Y  (Proof that these planes are almost always meeting those times).

Distance = Y x X      (Guaranteed to be fairly accurate because plane speed is known, so is flight time).

DOES THIS MATCH THE DISTANCES QANTAS QUOTE?

Yes!  They do!

You have yet to demonstrate that they do.

Quote
So HOWEVER Qantas arrive at those distances (it really doesn't matter) - they must be fairly close to the correct, true, honest to goodness values.

For them to be as far wrong as it takes for the Earth to be flat - they'd have to be a factor of 2 or 3 "off" from the truth - which leaves you saying that EITHER:

a) Qantas have Mach 2 passenger airplanes....or...
b) Qantas are always between 13 and 26 hours late on a 13 hour flight (which they *CLEARLY* are not - because the plane doesn't carry enough fuel for that).

SO...the Qantas distances can be trusted (within some reasonable margin of error) - and it doesn't matter how they arrived at them - because I calculated them from speeds and times - and I came up with about the same answers.

Furthermore - for one of their routes (The Sydney/Dallas route) I did those calculations and found (to my surprise) that the 747-400 couldn't make it.   I searched deeper and discover that Qantas bought four "Extended-Range" versions of the 747-400 just for that route!

This is further confirmation that they simply don't have the fuel on board to fly distances more than maybe 20% beyond the distances they actually fly.

You have yet to show that there is no possible Flat Earth map which shows distances beyond what these aircraft are able to fly. There are a near infinite number of combinations of continental configurations on mono-pole and bi-polar models, and it appears that you have not conducted a thorough enough study of route configurations to say anything of what is and is not possible.


Quote
have also explained that nobody who makes airplanes measures the cruising speed using a stopwatch and a long flight.   That's INSANE!   They already know the cruise range (and speed - and maximum all-up weight, etc, etc) before the plane even leaves the drawing board.    If they need a plane to cover some particular route - they DESIGN IT TO DO THAT - and because these are very smart people - the final, delivered airplane will come within about 1% of the design specifications.

We don't live in the dark ages anymore Tom.

This isn't WWII where some brave pilot would climb into the plane for the test flight - hoping it wouldn't fall out of the sky.   These days, they have computers calculating "virtual wind tunnel" data - which they compare to models placed in wind-tunnels and to parts of the airplane that fit into smaller wind tunnels.   They KNOW the speed and performance to an amazing precision before the very first piece of metal is cut.

Airlines buy airplanes for specific flight characteristics LONG before the manufacturer has even finished designing them.   They'll agree parameters like speed, fuel consumption, payload, seating plans...they'll sign up to buy the planes - and only then is the design completed and the first prototype built.

So - get your head into the modern world.   That's how things are done now.

So forget flying some known distance with a stopwatch on the plane....doesn't happen because it doesn't need to happen.

If the engineers used any groundspeed instrument to compute a result, that means they uses a Round Earth coordinate system, since all aircraft navigational instruments operate on the assumption that coordinate points rest upon a ball.

And again, the plane would have been built in reference to the knowledgebase of previously built planes, which have been built under the presumption of a Round Earth.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 11, 2017, 10:27:29 PM
Quote
No Tom - please listen.

Speed of aircraft = X.   Scheduled time to complete flight = Y  (Proof that these planes are almost always meeting those times).

Distance = Y x X      (Guaranteed to be fairly accurate because plane speed is known, so is flight time).

DOES THIS MATCH THE DISTANCES QANTAS QUOTE?

Yes!  They do!

You have yet to demonstrate that they do.

Quote
So HOWEVER Qantas arrive at those distances (it really doesn't matter) - they must be fairly close to the correct, true, honest to goodness values.

For them to be as far wrong as it takes for the Earth to be flat - they'd have to be a factor of 2 or 3 "off" from the truth - which leaves you saying that EITHER:

a) Qantas have Mach 2 passenger airplanes....or...
b) Qantas are always between 13 and 26 hours late on a 13 hour flight (which they *CLEARLY* are not - because the plane doesn't carry enough fuel for that).

SO...the Qantas distances can be trusted (within some reasonable margin of error) - and it doesn't matter how they arrived at them - because I calculated them from speeds and times - and I came up with about the same answers.

Furthermore - for one of their routes (The Sydney/Dallas route) I did those calculations and found (to my surprise) that the 747-400 couldn't make it.   I searched deeper and discover that Qantas bought four "Extended-Range" versions of the 747-400 just for that route!

This is further confirmation that they simply don't have the fuel on board to fly distances more than maybe 20% beyond the distances they actually fly.

You have yet to show that there is no possible Flat Earth map which shows distances beyond what these aircraft are able to fly. There are a near infinite number of combinations of continental configurations on mono-pole and bi-polar models, and it appears that you have not conducted a thorough enough study of route configurations to say anything of what is and is not possible.
Yes you have yet to prove that known 3D locations of places show anything other than a round earth.  GPS gives us the location of the receiver regardless of the earth..  Is WGS 84 incorrect, if so why?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 10:30:23 PM
Yes you have yet to prove that known 3D locations of places show anything other than a round earth.  GPS gives us the location of the receiver regardless of the earth..  Is WGS 84 incorrect, if so why?

The coordinate system a GPS uses assumes that the coordinate points rest upon a sphere. The location of one coordinate point may be "accurate", but the distance between multiple coordinate points relies upon the Round Earth model, and is therefore in dispute in these conversations.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 10:45:35 PM
On that note, would any of these methods (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?

So do highway mile marker use round earth numbers?   If I drive from Austin Texas to Dallas Texas on I35 can I trust the mile markers or are they a scam too?  Would my Odometer match the mile markers, the miles to go signs and my GPS?   I can't see where you are coming from on this.

Try this one

1. I use Google maps and put Austin TX as my start and Dallas TX as my destination. 
2. The results say 195 miles. 
3. They have specific start and end points.   
4. I put those exact spots into my GPS (BWM) and also into my phone (iPhone 6s)
5. Set my trip meter to zero
6. Drive point to point


Are you saying the actual mileage is unknown?   Or is it all a scam?


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 10:48:18 PM
Yes you have yet to prove that known 3D locations of places show anything other than a round earth.  GPS gives us the location of the receiver regardless of the earth..  Is WGS 84 incorrect, if so why?

The coordinate system a GPS uses assumes that the coordinate points rest upon a sphere. The location of one coordinate point may be "accurate", but the distance between multiple coordinate points relies upon the Round Earth model, and is therefore in dispute in these conversations.


So you are saying that a GPS does not work on a  flat earth?  I get it now.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 10:52:43 PM
On that note, would any of these methods (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?

So do highway mile marker use round earth numbers?   If I drive from Austin Texas to Dallas Texas on I35 can I trust the mile markers or are they a scam too?  Would my Odometer match the mile markers, the miles to go signs and my GPS?   I can't see where you are coming from on this.

Try this one

1. I use Google maps and put Austin TX as my start and Dallas TX as my destination. 
2. The results say 195 miles. 
3. They have specific start and end points.   
4. I put those exact spots into my GPS (BWM) and also into my phone (iPhone 6s)
5. Set my trip meter to zero
6. Drive point to point


Are you saying the actual mileage is unknown?   Or is it all a scam?

You will need to show that this produces consistent results rather than expecting us to believe that it does.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 11:01:58 PM
On that note, would any of these methods (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?

So do highway mile marker use round earth numbers?   If I drive from Austin Texas to Dallas Texas on I35 can I trust the mile markers or are they a scam too?  Would my Odometer match the mile markers, the miles to go signs and my GPS?   I can't see where you are coming from on this.

Try this one

1. I use Google maps and put Austin TX as my start and Dallas TX as my destination. 
2. The results say 195 miles. 
3. They have specific start and end points.   
4. I put those exact spots into my GPS (BWM) and also into my phone (iPhone 6s)
5. Set my trip meter to zero
6. Drive point to point


Are you saying the actual mileage is unknown?   Or is it all a scam?

You will need to show that this produces consistent results rather than expecting us to believe that it does.

So you are going to tell me with a straight face that Google Maps, my GPS (all of them), and my odometer are based on a round earth and therefore can't be correct?   Do you even comprehend how silly you sound?  This either proves you are a troll or totally delusional. 


By the way, who is us?  You are the only brave enough to try to derail this thread.  Sad as that may be.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 11:04:20 PM
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

Oh yes, that was classic.  Link noted.  Delusion noted as well.

The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Merkava on August 11, 2017, 11:14:32 PM
On that note, would any of these methods (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?

So do highway mile marker use round earth numbers?   If I drive from Austin Texas to Dallas Texas on I35 can I trust the mile markers or are they a scam too?  Would my Odometer match the mile markers, the miles to go signs and my GPS?   I can't see where you are coming from on this.

Try this one

1. I use Google maps and put Austin TX as my start and Dallas TX as my destination. 
2. The results say 195 miles. 
3. They have specific start and end points.   
4. I put those exact spots into my GPS (BWM) and also into my phone (iPhone 6s)
5. Set my trip meter to zero
6. Drive point to point


Are you saying the actual mileage is unknown?   Or is it all a scam?

You will need to show that this produces consistent results rather than expecting us to believe that it does.

I would pay money to watch you attempt a job interview at my work or any aviation company.  You literally have no idea what the hell you are even saying, it's awesome.  What do you do for a living?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Merkava on August 11, 2017, 11:18:40 PM
By the way, who is us?  You are the only brave enough to try to derail this thread.  Sad as that may be.

Are there any others?  He's the only one I've seen in weeks reply to anything.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 11:23:12 PM
On that note, would any of these methods (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?

So do highway mile marker use round earth numbers?   If I drive from Austin Texas to Dallas Texas on I35 can I trust the mile markers or are they a scam too?  Would my Odometer match the mile markers, the miles to go signs and my GPS?   I can't see where you are coming from on this.

Try this one

1. I use Google maps and put Austin TX as my start and Dallas TX as my destination. 
2. The results say 195 miles. 
3. They have specific start and end points.   
4. I put those exact spots into my GPS (BWM) and also into my phone (iPhone 6s)
5. Set my trip meter to zero
6. Drive point to point


Are you saying the actual mileage is unknown?   Or is it all a scam?

You will need to show that this produces consistent results rather than expecting us to believe that it does.

I would pay money to watch you attempt a job interview at my work or any aviation company.  You literally have no idea what the hell you are even saying, it's awesome.  What do you do for a living?

How about for Uber, UPS, Pizza delivery or as a truck driver?  That would be funny.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 11:27:08 PM
So you are going to tell me with a straight face that Google Maps, my GPS (all of them), and my odometer are based on a round earth and therefore can't be correct?   Do you even comprehend how silly you sound?  This either proves you are a troll or totally delusional. 

By the way, who is us?  You are the only brave enough to try to derail this thread.  Sad as that may be.

Google Maps and GPS use a Round Earth coordinate system. I said nothing about your odometer.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 11, 2017, 11:30:43 PM
So you are going to tell me with a straight face that Google Maps, my GPS (all of them), and my odometer are based on a round earth and therefore can't be correct?   Do you even comprehend how silly you sound?  This either proves you are a troll or totally delusional. 

By the way, who is us?  You are the only brave enough to try to derail this thread.  Sad as that may be.

Google Maps and GPS use a Round Earth coordinate system. I said nothing about your odometer.

Since you never answered my question... would the numbers line up.  Odometer, GPS and Google Maps?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 11:36:43 PM
Since you never answered my question... would the numbers line up.  Odometer, GPS and Google Maps?

The experiment will need to be performed before the results can be determined.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 11, 2017, 11:52:19 PM
On that note, would any of these methods (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?

So do highway mile marker use round earth numbers?   If I drive from Austin Texas to Dallas Texas on I35 can I trust the mile markers or are they a scam too?  Would my Odometer match the mile markers, the miles to go signs and my GPS?   I can't see where you are coming from on this.

Try this one

1. I use Google maps and put Austin TX as my start and Dallas TX as my destination. 
2. The results say 195 miles. 
3. They have specific start and end points.   
4. I put those exact spots into my GPS (BWM) and also into my phone (iPhone 6s)
5. Set my trip meter to zero
6. Drive point to point


Are you saying the actual mileage is unknown?   Or is it all a scam?

You will need to show that this produces consistent results rather than expecting us to believe that it does.

I have done the same thing on trips from Dallas to Los Angeles. I use exact street addresses as start and finish points.
Checks were made at various points on the trips , mainly on I-40 crossing Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and  California.

The results were consistent with gps, odometer readings and road maps.
I have also checked the odometer with Mile Markers and the speedometer by timing between Mile Markers.On level stretches of the highway.
(Checks at Cruise Control set on 60 MPH. Exactly 1 Minute/60 Seconds between Mile  Markers using Stop Watch for timing.)

Just did the same on President George Bush Turnpike (Texas State Highway 161) from Irving to Rockwall and back.
Same consistent results.

I will concede the "Average Miles Per Gallon" computer on my 2014 Toyota Corolla is a bit optimistic on the high side . LOL.... At 60 MPH = 45 MPG......At 65 MPH= 44 MPG...These are just on the road (PGBT)  at a constant speed . I' m inclined to doubt them....about 1 to 2 MPG too high.

All this is just testimony that GPS, odometers and speedometers are reasonably accurate.

Also in my work in the Navy (4 years/ET2) and FAA (38 years/EMT) I am inclined to trust their facts and figures rather than FES.

Does anyone remember those old "GCT" (General Classification Tests) ? They used to give them in Navy Boot Camp.
I think Tom Bishop would have flunked out ???
He would have had a hard time on Civil Service and Civilian Employment Entrance Exams, too.....IMHO.
Good act,  Mr. Bishop !!! ..You're really much smarter than what you write on this website.....At least I should hope so.

 
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 12, 2017, 12:01:22 AM
I have done the same thing on trips from Dallas to Los Angeles.
Checks were made at various points on the trips , mainly on I-40 crossing Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and  California.
The results were consistent with gps, odometer readings and road maps.
I have also checked the odometer with Mile Markers and the speedometer by timing between Mile Markers.On level stretches of the highway.
(Checks at Cruise Control set on 60 MPH. Exactly 1 Minute/60 Seconds between Mile  Markers using Stop Watch for timing.)
Just did the same on President George Bush Turnpike (Texas State Highway 161) from Irving to Rockwall and back.
Same consistent results.
I will concede the "Average Miles Per Gallon" computer on my 2014 Toyota Corolla is a bit optimistic on the high side . LOL.... At 60 MPH = 45 MPG......At 65 MPH= 44 MPG...These are just on the road at a constant speed . I' m inclined to doubt them....about 1 to 2 MPG too high.
All this is just testimony that GPS, odometers and speedometers are reasonably accurate.
Also in my work in the Navy (4 years) and FAA (38 years) I am inclined to trust their facts and figures rather than FES.

There are numerous complaints online that GPS gives inaccurate distances. Look at this link: https://pmags.com/gps-mileage-discrepancies

Multiple examples are given, including the following quote:

Quote
And in the racing world, professionally surveyed half-marathon routes of 13.1 miles are called too short by people wearing GPS enabled devices.  Some people less politely and less friendly, but still firmly, write the race directors and complain that the race course is 13.9 miles or even 14.2 miles. Some racers even are LESS polite. :O  Why? Because their GPS enabled devices report higher mileage than what is on the race course.

USATF Certified tracks are measured with wheeled devices, and this distance differs when compared to GPS.

This author claims that GPS devices are inaccurate for finding distance, and that this inaccuracy grows with greater distance traveled (which is curious under the Round Earth model since GPS is just finding your coordinate and computing the distance to another coordinate).

Another quote from that link:

Quote
Your GPS-enabled watch, a GPS unit such as one bought at outdoor stores or an increasingly frequently used mobile devices are all Recreational Grade GPS units. They are good for knowing, more or less,  where you are in a general location.  You will not get pinpoint accuracy for location or distance.  The effects of this inaccuracy is more noticeable the longer or more varied a jaunt.

See the bolded. If the Round Earth model is true, this is confusing, since GPS devices are just based on finding your coordinate and mapping how far away coordinate B should be. It should not matter how far away you map coordinate B. It should not increase in error. The coordinates and the distance between them on a Round Earth should be known.

A comment at the bottom of that article showing that this is illogical:

Quote
It surprises me how much inaccuracy there seems to be. If my GPS knows my position within fifteen feet, there shouldn’t be a half mile discrepancy over fifteen miles.

The author of the article further asserts that "professional GPS equipment" is necessary, but does not suggest that he has ever used it, or show information that it is any more accurate for distances. Such equipment may be more accurate for showing current coordinate with higher resolution, beyond the accuracy of consumer GPS (which measures in 3 to 7 meters, not on the range of miles), but it does not follow that such professional devices are more accurate for "measuring distances". The distance between coordinate points on a Round Earth should be known in all systems.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 12, 2017, 12:27:28 AM
One question.....Just answer in miles, please.:-)
How wide is the  (diameter from ice ring to ice ring inner part facing ocean) on the "Unipolar Model" Flat Earth Map ?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 12, 2017, 12:31:08 AM
I must have just gotten lucky and got a good one. It works OK all the time for me.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 12, 2017, 12:36:21 AM
On that note, would any of these methods (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?
No, it uses 2 known locations, and one measured distance between them. The known locations are called that to differentiate them from the following calculated points. They are 'known' because they are two points that are identified to measure the distance between them. Every other point isn't known until it's calculated using the ASA triangle method. They don't pick points on a coordinate grid, they pick two points to use (these are located within predefined flat areas) physically measure the distance between them (as mentioned, prior to the 50's they used rods of precisely known lengths) then use a theodolite to find an angle from each known point and calculate the distance to the next point. They proceed there and expand the triangle grid outwards using ASA from each new point.

One question.....Just answer in miles, please.:-)
How wide is the  (diameter from ice ring to ice ring inner part facing ocean) on the "Unipolar Model" Flat Earth Map ?
He's mentioned elsewhere he doesn't know, and can't say if anyone has ever posited the number.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 12, 2017, 01:00:32 AM
I have also used my my GPS on trains (TRE and DART) .
It also showed me exactly where I was (stations, cross streets, etc.) and kept a running report of speed.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 12, 2017, 01:08:11 AM
On that note, would any of these methods (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?
No, it uses 2 known locations, and one measured distance between them. The known locations are called that to differentiate them from the following calculated points. They are 'known' because they are two points that are identified to measure the distance between them. Every other point isn't known until it's calculated using the ASA triangle method. They don't pick points on a coordinate grid, they pick two points to use (these are located within predefined flat areas) physically measure the distance between them (as mentioned, prior to the 50's they used rods of precisely known lengths) then use a theodolite to find an angle from each known point and calculate the distance to the next point. They proceed there and expand the triangle grid outwards using ASA from each new point.

One question.....Just answer in miles, please.:-)
How wide is the  (diameter from ice ring to ice ring inner part facing ocean) on the "Unipolar Model" Flat Earth Map ?
He's mentioned elsewhere he doesn't know, and can't say if anyone has ever posited the number.
But Tom is supposed to be the flat earth authority ?.
If he doesn't know, who does ?
I'm just guessing ???. The diameter is 25,000 miles ??? The circumference of the ice wall is 78,000 miles. ???
How many NASA guards ???)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 12, 2017, 02:04:01 AM
Quote
Quote
Quote
One question.....Just answer in miles, please.:-)
How wide is the  (diameter from ice ring to ice ring inner part facing ocean) on the "Unipolar Model" Flat Earth Map ?
He's mentioned elsewhere he doesn't know, and can't say if anyone has ever posited the number.
But Tom is supposed to be the flat earth authority ?.
If he doesn't know, who does ?
I'm just guessing ???. The diameter is 25,000 miles ??? The circumference of the ice wall is 78,000 miles. ???
How many NASA guards ???)

Tom definitely claims that he has no idea what the map of the flat earth is - or how large it is.

This is a clever effort to deflect our previous efforts to complain about how far planes have to fly to get from A to B.

OK - but we're smarter than that.   So now, we have a proof that the Earth isn't flat that works REGARDLESS of how you lay out the map - OR how large or small you make it.   It's a subtle proof - but it's rock solid.

Hooray!  No longer do we have to care what Tom Bishop does or doesn't know about the map.   The one fact he DOES cling to is that it's flat.   Well, now we have a solid proof that even that simple fact cannot possibly be true.

So - in order to deflect this - he must somehow throw doubt on our distance measurements.

It would be simple enough to simply claim that the airlines have the distances incorrect...but I foresaw this complaint and in the first post to this thread I demonstrated that these distances are 100% consistent with the flight times posted by the airlines and the cruise speed of the aircraft they use.

So if the distances are wrong (which Tom **DESPERATELY** need to to be true) then EITHER the flight times are wrong - or the speeds of the aircraft are wrong.

OK - but the flight times have been experienced by MILLIONS of people - and if they were wildly incorrect, we'd all know for 100% sure...no conspiracy can be  as large as the entire flying public of the world.

So his ONLY remaining straw to clutch at - his lifeline - is that the speeds that are claimed for these aircraft are wildly incorrect.

BUT - the coup-de-grace is this:  If the speed for the 747 is wildly different than the manufacturers (pilots, control towers, airlines) claim - then IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!   If all of the 747's are 50% faster - then all of the distances we have are incorrect by the same ratio.   AND THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE INTERNAL ANGLES OF THE QUADRILATERALS DON'T ADD UP.

Yes, we've just pulled the last remaining plank from beneath Mr Bishops' feet.   He has literally nowhere else to go.   The argument is rock-solid.

It's over.

The Earth is ROUND.   (You probably knew that already).

He may flim-flam about it for a bit longer - but I have another knockout blow coming soon...check out my new thread.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Jackson Junglist on August 12, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
Really? Because mine is pretty spot on within 1 MPH usually. As long as I'm not changing speeds faster than it's refresh rate. It also does a pretty damn good job at giving arrival times, which means it needs to be fairly accurate for speed, distance, and current location.

The reason for your 1 MPH discrepancy is because you are assuming that your wheels are round.  Change your calculations from circumference to length, and you will be spot on.  This proves our flat wheel theory.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 13, 2017, 01:57:25 PM
My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
Really? Because mine is pretty spot on within 1 MPH usually. As long as I'm not changing speeds faster than it's refresh rate. It also does a pretty damn good job at giving arrival times, which means it needs to be fairly accurate for speed, distance, and current location.

The reason for your 1 MPH discrepancy is because you are assuming that your wheels are round.  Change your calculations from circumference to length, and you will be spot on.  This proves our flat wheel theory.

Car speedometers are NOT ACCURATE.  They are DESIGNED to be inaccurate!  Because car companies don't want to be sued if you get a speeding ticket, but claim that the speedometer said you were within the speed limit, they deliberately make them report a slightly higher speed than the car is really moving.   The precise amounts of this deliberate error are not widely reported by car companies...but evidence is that the error is usually around 2.5%.

Other sources of speedometer error are that your tire pressures are never 100% correct (which slightly reduces or increases the radius) - that people put "skinny tires" on the car to make it lower to the ground - that the speedometer feed typically comes from just one wheel - and when you got around a curve, the outside wheels are rotating faster than the inner wheels.  Other cars take a feed from the drive shaft and are producing a compromise speed between the drive wheels.

So don't rely on the speedometer (or the odometer) to be precise.

GPS is also not precise - a modern GPS unit is accurate only to about 10 feet and older ones are worse.  Also, on cloudy days or when it's raining heavily, or if you're under heavy tree cover after it's been raining - the GPS may only be able to pick up three satellites rather than the usual four...and that makes increases the error to as much as 100 feet.

But - a positional error will average out over time - to the SPEEDS reported by GPS can be very accurate indeed.

There is also an issue that GPS-calculated speeds in units designed for cars may have the same deliberately overly-high speeds that your speedometer has because the manufacturers don't want people complaining about the mis-match between the GPS speed and the speedometer speed.

So - speeds in cars are untrustworthy.

Distances in cars are better - the odometer should be much more accurate - it's illegal for them to be made to be deliberately inaccurate.  So providing you don't do something weird like taking more right turns than left (UPS delivery drivers do this!) or putting skinny tires onto the car - then odometer readings are good providing you have the right tire pressures.

But I don't see what this brings to the table here.    It really doesn't matter what car speedometers read - it doesn't change any of the answers here.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 13, 2017, 03:01:22 PM
My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.
Really? Because mine is pretty spot on within 1 MPH usually. As long as I'm not changing speeds faster than it's refresh rate. It also does a pretty damn good job at giving arrival times, which means it needs to be fairly accurate for speed, distance, and current location.

The reason for your 1 MPH discrepancy is because you are assuming that your wheels are round.  Change your calculations from circumference to length, and you will be spot on.  This proves our flat wheel theory.

Car speedometers are NOT ACCURATE.  They are DESIGNED to be inaccurate!  Because car companies don't want to be sued if you get a speeding ticket, but claim that the speedometer said you were within the speed limit, they deliberately make them report a slightly higher speed than the car is really moving.   The precise amounts of this deliberate error are not widely reported by car companies...but evidence is that the error is usually around 2.5%.

Other sources of speedometer error are that your tire pressures are never 100% correct (which slightly reduces or increases the radius) - that people put "skinny tires" on the car to make it lower to the ground - that the speedometer feed typically comes from just one wheel - and when you got around a curve, the outside wheels are rotating faster than the inner wheels.  Other cars take a feed from the drive shaft and are producing a compromise speed between the drive wheels.

So don't rely on the speedometer (or the odometer) to be precise.

GPS is also not precise - a modern GPS unit is accurate only to about 10 feet and older ones are worse.  Also, on cloudy days or when it's raining heavily, or if you're under heavy tree cover after it's been raining - the GPS may only be able to pick up three satellites rather than the usual four...and that makes increases the error to as much as 100 feet.

But - a positional error will average out over time - to the SPEEDS reported by GPS can be very accurate indeed.

There is also an issue that GPS-calculated speeds in units designed for cars may have the same deliberately overly-high speeds that your speedometer has because the manufacturers don't want people complaining about the mis-match between the GPS speed and the speedometer speed.

So - speeds in cars are untrustworthy.

Distances in cars are better - the odometer should be much more accurate - it's illegal for them to be made to be deliberately inaccurate.  So providing you don't do something weird like taking more right turns than left (UPS delivery drivers do this!) or putting skinny tires onto the car - then odometer readings are good providing you have the right tire pressures.

But I don't see what this brings to the table here.    It really doesn't matter what car speedometers read - it doesn't change any of the answers here.

3D Greek-
I would have to disagreee agreeably.........LOL....... But as I mentioned previously , I have checked my car's odometer and spedometer and my GPS and found them all to be accurate.
9
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 13, 2017, 03:51:05 PM
3D Greek-
I would have to disagreee agreeably.........LOL....... But as I mentioned previously , I have checked my car's odometer and spedometer and my GPS and found them all to be accurate.

The ODOMETER is legally required to be reasonably accurate - but the SPEEDOMETER isn't.

Check out:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer#Error

Also, the LEGAL rules in various countries:

European law (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 39) says it's illegal to ship cars with speedometers that read even 0.0000001% low.  They can however read HIGH by up to 10%+4mph!!

It's no accident that BMW speedometers read 2.5% high plus between 2 and 3 mph.

Many "car nut" web sites run on for multiple pages of people trying to figure out how fast they can drive without exceeding the speed limit (but not much below it) by knowing the error built into their car speedometers.

A few years ago, for a while, the Ford Explorer had a software bug that showed the "true" speed on the LCD display while the analog display showed their deliberately "faked" speed. There was a recall to fix it (by making the LCD display have the same deliberate error as the analog display):

(http://i39.tinypic.com/blzsm.jpg)

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Frank 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 (https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-plane/triangle-theorems.php) 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.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Frank 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.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2017, 01:31:49 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.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 14, 2017, 01:50:38 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.
Just, correct me if I'm wrong here. What you appear to be implying is that it his information doesn't matter because it relies on Lat/Long, which only works on RE. But, it works. Consistently. 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.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2017, 02:12:33 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 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441). The GPS systems carried by athletes gave different distances when compared to the USATF certified track distances which were measured with a wheeled device.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 14, 2017, 02:14:37 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.


Here is some light reading Tom

zeal·ot
ˈzelət/Submit
noun
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
synonyms:   fanatic, enthusiast, extremist, radical, young Turk, diehard, true believer, activist, militant; More

fa·nat·ic
fəˈnadik/Submit
noun
noun: fanatic; plural noun: fanatics
1.
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.
synonyms:   zealot, extremist, militant, dogmatist, devotee, adherent; More
informal
a person with an obsessive interest in and enthusiasm for something, especially an activity.


Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 14, 2017, 02:18:18 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 is contention. Please refer to my previous post about GPS distances not being valid (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441). The GPS systems carried by athletes gave different distances when compared to the USATF certified track distances which were measured with a wheeled device.

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.




Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2017, 02:21:43 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?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 14, 2017, 02:34:41 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 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441). The GPS systems carried by athletes gave different distances when compared to the USATF certified track distances which were measured with a wheeled device.
Did you read your own article? The higher end GPS devices are extremely accurate according to that article. Which can almost be guaranteed to be what's in use in a plane. The one's specifically being called out as inaccurate are the consumer grade devices because of the more limited software, less frequent checking in, and just generally less attention to detail. Going by that article, accuracy cannot be what is under contention unless you are also postulating that aircraft are using consumer/recreational grade GPS units and software.

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?
How is Lat/Long inaccurate?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 14, 2017, 02:37:40 PM
Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
(http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg)

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
(http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg)

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
(http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg)


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
(http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2017, 02:40:20 PM
Did you read your own article? The higher end GPS devices are extremely accurate according to that article. Which can almost be guaranteed to be what's in use in a plane. The one's specifically being called out as inaccurate are the consumer grade devices because of the more limited software, less frequent checking in, and just generally less attention to detail. Going by that article, accuracy cannot be what is under contention unless you are also postulating that aircraft are using consumer/recreational grade GPS units and software.

As previously mentioned, the only thing a GPS unit is doing is giving you your own coordinates. The accuracy of a consumer GPS system is about 15 feet, more or less, and the professional ones have even greater resolution. The distance between the coordinates should be already known in the software.

The argument that a "professional" GPS system is more accurate with distances doesn't really work. If I know my latitude and longitude, it should be known how far away it is from every other latitude and longitude coordinate under the Round Earth model. The need for "professional" devices with greater location accuracy than 15 feet is an invalid argument, merely used to distract from the fact that GPS does not work for measuring distances and the distances are inaccurate as a whole.

Quote
How is Lat/Long inaccurate?

They are based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 14, 2017, 02:44:32 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.


As commented by "you" you mean.  That is exactly how "The Earth is not a Globe" works, make some wild claim and reference it later as fact.  Sorry Tom, logic is prevailing in this thread.


Quote
Or, are you arguing that an airplane can get to a very distant location without knowing the coordinates of itself or its destination?


It's absolutely possible to fly long distances without knowing one's position.  Highly impractical but possible.  One could take off from Jacksonville Fl and fly westerly by following I-10 all the way to the Santa Monica CA.  Coast to Coast.   That is how navigation was done in the very early days of flight. 

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2017, 02:46:33 PM
Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg

That is not the accepted map of the earth.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 14, 2017, 02:51:22 PM
Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg

That is not the accepted map of the earth.

You mean there is no accepted map.  I can only assume the poster used that one to show how ridiculous the concept was.  The scale of the map and the need to fly over the western USA to get from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 14, 2017, 02:56:28 PM
Yes, whether you accept the map as accurate or not, the distances needed to fly from points in the southern hemisphere as compared to distances in the northern hemisphere is ludicrous.  Place the continents in any formation you choose and the distances are still so completely non-sensical as to be laughable.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 14, 2017, 03:00:49 PM
Yes, whether you accept the map as accurate or not, the distances needed to fly from points in the southern hemisphere as compared to distances in the northern hemisphere is ludicrous.  Place the continents in any formation you choose and the distances are still so completely non-sensical as to be laughable.

Exactly the point of this thread.  To see if cities could be placed in any configuration other than a globe and get the same distances.  Obviously not possible.

But as Tom Bishop says.  We are all wrong because of.... reasons.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 14, 2017, 03:01:47 PM
Did you read your own article? The higher end GPS devices are extremely accurate according to that article. Which can almost be guaranteed to be what's in use in a plane. The one's specifically being called out as inaccurate are the consumer grade devices because of the more limited software, less frequent checking in, and just generally less attention to detail. Going by that article, accuracy cannot be what is under contention unless you are also postulating that aircraft are using consumer/recreational grade GPS units and software.

As previously mentioned, the only thing a GPS unit is doing is giving you your own coordinates. The accuracy of a consumer GPS system is about 15 feet, more or less, and the professional ones have even greater resolution. The distance between the coordinates should be already known in the software.

The argument that a "professional" GPS system is more accurate with distances doesn't really work. If I know my latitude and longitude, it should be known how far away it is from every other latitude and longitude coordinate under the Round Earth model. The need for "professional" devices with greater location accuracy than 15 feet is an invalid argument, merely used to distract from the fact that GPS does not work for measuring distances and the distances are inaccurate as a whole.

Again, did you read the article? The inaccuracies of a consumer grade GPS has to do with the inaccuracies in where you are, compounding over long distances. It knows where you are within 15 feet, taking a measurement let's say every 5 seconds. Moving along a straight line, let's say the first check is -5X +0Y feet from where you actually are. The second check is +0X +2Y. The third is -7X -6Y. You've now added quite a bit of extra distance to what you've walked, simply due to the inaccuracies in your exact location. Sure, if it knows your destination it can tell you how far it is. But it can't know that, it's collecting the distance data as you walk. As such, the small inaccuracies (as shown) add up over longer distances. Higher grade devices know your position with far less inaccuracy, and as such are far more accurate for gauging distance. What about this doesn't make sense?

Quote
Quote
How is Lat/Long inaccurate?

They are based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.
Then address my earlier point on making a lat/long style system for one type of object and attempting to shift it to another. If lat/long is accurate for all measured locations (as 3DGeek is showing in another thread) how can it be accurate upon a flat plane too?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 14, 2017, 03:05:03 PM
Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg

That is not the accepted map of the earth.

You mean there is no accepted map.  I can only assume the poster used that one to show how ridiculous the concept was.  The scale of the map and the need to fly over the western USA to get from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.

Not to mention the need to fly the entire length of Africa as well as over the entire Asian continent to get form Johannesbug to Sydney.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 14, 2017, 03:06:36 PM
Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg



That is not the accepted map of the earth.

You mean there is no accepted map.  I can only assume the poster used that one to show how ridiculous the concept was.  The scale of the map and the need to fly over the western USA to get from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.

Not to mention the need to fly the entire length of Africa as well as over the entire Asian continent to get form Johannesbug to Sydney.


But they get a lovely view of Mount Everest on the way by!
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 14, 2017, 03:17:02 PM
Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg

That is not the accepted map of the earth.

But you say that you don't know the map of the Earth - right?  Pretty sure you said that more than once.

You're missing the BIG point here - which is that you now have conclusive proof that there is no possible flat map that can reproduce these known distances.  The laws of Euclidean geometry guarantee that you'll never make a flat map that works.

In all likelyhood you've tried and failed at least a few times over the past decades...and I'm completely unsurprised at that.   No matter how you move the continents around, no matter how you stretch and squash them - you can't EVER get it right.

Sorry Tom - but you really are getting hammered over these threads.   I can't imagine you're feeling very happy about that - especially since 100% of your supporters seem to have deserted you.

 We've proven you can't make a valid map.
 We've proven you can't use 'refraction'.
 I've just explained to you how perspective works and why you can't "modify" it.
 I've explained why the magnification of the sun by the atmosphere can't be true and how your pictures of lights receding into the distance is explained.

You really don't have a leg to stand on anymore.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Frank 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.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Frank 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 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441). 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.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Frank 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?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Frank 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.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Frank 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?

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Smokified on August 15, 2017, 02:28:54 AM
They are based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.

You claim that the earth is not a globe because it was written in a book and because nobody you know that says otherwise has actually been in space to observe it for themselves.

Then you go on to claim that the earth is flat (with certainty), although you yourself have not witnessed it and there are 100s of thousands, if not millions, of publications explaining that the earth is in fact a globe and how that conclusion was derived.

The globe map of earth can be tested and proven to be correct 100% of the time without deviation.  This alone destroys any hope you have of actually proving the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2017, 02:32:05 PM
although you yourself have not witnessed it

This is incorrect.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2017, 02:33:33 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.

I've already replied to that. If you would like to discuss further please go to the Flat Earth General forum, to the think tank thread, and cast your vote on which topic you would like to discuss. I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 15, 2017, 03:47:31 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.

I've already replied to that. If you would like to discuss further please go to the Flat Earth General forum, to the think tank thread, and cast your vote on which topic you would like to discuss. I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.

That's a huge fail.  This forum was created to debate and by any definition of debating I have ever seen you lost. 
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2017, 04:34:05 PM
That post was already addressed. Here was my reply:

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.

The only reply from the poster was a statement that Latitude and Longitude is correct. No evidence was provided for this statement. The only evidence in this thread are my sources showing that GPS provides incorrect distances. No sources have been provided show that any Round Earth navigational system provides correct distances. You and Frank continually refuse to provide evidence of such. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 15, 2017, 05:06:05 PM
That post was already addressed. Here was my reply:

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.

The only reply from the poster was a statement that Latitude and Longitude is correct. No evidence was provided for this statement. The only evidence in this thread are my sources showing that GPS provides incorrect distances. No sources have been provided show that any Round Earth navigational system provides correct distances. You and Frank continually refuse to provide evidence of such. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter.


There has been evidence posted as to the accuracy of GPS, both links and anecdotal (that you seem to approve and use yourself).  This link is all that needs to be said about it.  These guys built it, maintain it and document it.

Quote
For example, GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees.

High-end users boost GPS accuracy with dual-frequency receivers and/or augmentation systems. These can enable real-time positioning within a few centimeters, and long-term measurements at the millimeter level.


http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2017, 05:09:19 PM
That post was already addressed. Here was my reply:

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.

The only reply from the poster was a statement that Latitude and Longitude is correct. No evidence was provided for this statement. The only evidence in this thread are my sources showing that GPS provides incorrect distances. No sources have been provided show that any Round Earth navigational system provides correct distances. You and Frank continually refuse to provide evidence of such. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter.


There has been evidence posted as to the accuracy of GPS, both links and anecdotal (that you seem to approve and use yourself).  This link is all that needs to be said about it.  These guys built it, maintain it and document it.

Quote
For example, GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees.

High-end users boost GPS accuracy with dual-frequency receivers and/or augmentation systems. These can enable real-time positioning within a few centimeters, and long-term measurements at the millimeter level.


http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

That is about the accuracy of finding your own coordinates. It says nothing about the accuracy of the distances between the coordinates. Once you have your own coordinates, the distance between other coordinate points is in the software, and should not be in error, since the distances between the Round Earth longitudes and latitudes is supposedly a matter which is already known.

The fact that there are distance discrepancies, and the fact that the discrepancy grows with increased distance plotted, shows that GPS is not accurate.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 15, 2017, 05:18:13 PM
That post was already addressed. Here was my reply:

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.

The only reply from the poster was a statement that Latitude and Longitude is correct. No evidence was provided for this statement. The only evidence in this thread are my sources showing that GPS provides incorrect distances. No sources have been provided show that any Round Earth navigational system provides correct distances. You and Frank continually refuse to provide evidence of such. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter.


There has been evidence posted as to the accuracy of GPS, both links and anecdotal (that you seem to approve and use yourself).  This link is all that needs to be said about it.  These guys built it, maintain it and document it.

Quote
For example, GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees.

High-end users boost GPS accuracy with dual-frequency receivers and/or augmentation systems. These can enable real-time positioning within a few centimeters, and long-term measurements at the millimeter level.


http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

That is about the accuracy of finding your own coordinates. It says nothing about the accuracy of the distances between the coordinates. Once you have your own coordinates, the distance between other coordinate points is in the software, and should not be in error, since the distances between the Round Earth longitudes and latitudes is supposedly a matter which is already known.

The fact that there are distance discrepancies, and the fact that the discrepancy grows with increased distance, shows that GPS is not accurate.

Correct, that is what maps are for.  They have been in use for a while now.  Oddly enough GPS's use maps as part of their operation.  One can drive 1, 10, 50, 1000 miles and be well within an acceptable margin of error.  I drove to Fayetteville AR, via Tulsa OK a few weeks ago and hit my GPS ETA in Tulsa within a minute in 504 miles door to door.  Not too shabby.


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 15, 2017, 05:48:24 PM
I use my GPS on local trips.
For example, when I am driving across the roads on DFW Airport, when I reach the intersection of Airfield Drive and Mid-Cities Blvd., the map on the GPS shows this and "bongs" when I reach the intersection.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 15, 2017, 06:07:09 PM
That post was already addressed. Here was my reply:

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.

The only reply from the poster was a statement that Latitude and Longitude is correct. No evidence was provided for this statement. The only evidence in this thread are my sources showing that GPS provides incorrect distances. No sources have been provided show that any Round Earth navigational system provides correct distances. You and Frank continually refuse to provide evidence of such. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter.


There has been evidence posted as to the accuracy of GPS, both links and anecdotal (that you seem to approve and use yourself).  This link is all that needs to be said about it.  These guys built it, maintain it and document it.

Quote
For example, GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees.

High-end users boost GPS accuracy with dual-frequency receivers and/or augmentation systems. These can enable real-time positioning within a few centimeters, and long-term measurements at the millimeter level.


http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

That is about the accuracy of finding your own coordinates. It says nothing about the accuracy of the distances between the coordinates. Once you have your own coordinates, the distance between other coordinate points is in the software, and should not be in error, since the distances between the Round Earth longitudes and latitudes is supposedly a matter which is already known.

The fact that there are distance discrepancies, and the fact that the discrepancy grows with increased distance plotted, shows that GPS is not accurate.
Show me people having discrepancies with another source and their GPS when plotting a course. Those distances are accurate. The distances people are having issues with are the ones it reports after a walk, and showing an incorrect walked distance. That's a whole other ball game. The GPS doesn't just measure the distance from point A to point B, and give you that for how far you walked. It's constantly making calculations according to where it sees you now, and where you were at the last update. Since a GPS has a margin of error on where you are, it has a margin of error in distance traveled using these calculations. Those errors are larger in consumer grade devices. The site he linked even specifically calls out that distance traveled is accurate to the millimeter on the higher grade devices that have better location accuracy. The margin of error is also why the discrepancies become bigger in number the farther you travel. In all, higher end/grade devices are more than capable of providing accurate, reliable distance data according to everything that's been linked in this thread that talks about it.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 15, 2017, 06:10:13 PM
TB is, maybe on purpose, confusing GPS which is an accurate location system with applications that use the location data.  There is no doubt about the accuracy and repeatibility of GPS data.  Those in the US will be familiar with its original purpose.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 15, 2017, 06:35:09 PM
TB is, maybe on purpose, confusing GPS which is an accurate location system with applications that use the location data.  There is no doubt about the accuracy and repeatibility of GPS data.  Those in the US will be familiar with its original purpose.

What I hoped for here is an honest debate.  Trying to derail a debate with talking points is too much like politics, not science.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 15, 2017, 06:53:59 PM
TB is, maybe on purpose, confusing GPS which is an accurate location system with applications that use the location data.  There is no doubt about the accuracy and repeatibility of GPS data.  Those in the US will be familiar with its original purpose.

What I hoped for here is an honest debate.  Trying to derail a debate with talking points is too much like politics, not science.

I think the debate should just be on "flat earth" and not a debate on "flat earth-vs.-round earth."
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 15, 2017, 06:58:48 PM
TB is, maybe on purpose, confusing GPS which is an accurate location system with applications that use the location data.  There is no doubt about the accuracy and repeatibility of GPS data.  Those in the US will be familiar with its original purpose.

What I hoped for here is an honest debate.  Trying to derail a debate with talking points is too much like politics, not science.

I think the debate should just be on "flat earth" and not a debate on "flat earth-vs.-round earth."
There is only one earth to discuss the shape of.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 15, 2017, 08:57:22 PM
TB is, maybe on purpose, confusing GPS which is an accurate location system with applications that use the location data.  There is no doubt about the accuracy and repeatibility of GPS data.  Those in the US will be familiar with its original purpose.

What I hoped for here is an honest debate.  Trying to derail a debate with talking points is too much like politics, not science.

I think the debate should just be on "flat earth" and not a debate on "flat earth-vs.-round earth."


Very good point
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2017, 11:22:38 PM
TB is, maybe on purpose, confusing GPS which is an accurate location system with applications that use the location data.  There is no doubt about the accuracy and repeatibility of GPS data.  Those in the US will be familiar with its original purpose.

What I hoped for here is an honest debate.  Trying to derail a debate with talking points is too much like politics, not science.

I think the debate should just be on "flat earth" and not a debate on "flat earth-vs.-round earth."

Then stop bringing up things that rely on the Round Earth model being accurate or true, because we are obviously not going to accept the accuracy of the distances between points on a Round Earth coordinate system unless those distances are demonstrated to be accurate.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 16, 2017, 12:02:08 AM
TB is, maybe on purpose, confusing GPS which is an accurate location system with applications that use the location data.  There is no doubt about the accuracy and repeatibility of GPS data.  Those in the US will be familiar with its original purpose.

What I hoped for here is an honest debate.  Trying to derail a debate with talking points is too much like politics, not science.

I think the debate should just be on "flat earth" and not a debate on "flat earth-vs.-round earth."

Then stop bringing up things that rely on the Round Earth model being accurate or true, because we are obviously not going to accept the accuracy of the distances between points on a Round Earth coordinate system unless those distances are demonstrated to be accurate.
Which was done at the start of the thread, and you've been looking for how to deny that ever since, taking us frequently off track.

We showed you how the speed of an airplane is known, and that with that and flight times we can deduce the distance traveled. Then showing how those distances can't work on a flat Earth.

You took issue with how we know the speed of an airplane. 3DGeek explained how we know it's speed through rigorous math, science and testing before the plane ever leaves the ground. As well how a plane can get it's speed without measuring against the ground in any way.

You latched onto the GPS explanation for how those can't be accurate because of all the people posting online that they aren't accurate for their walks. We've shown you that there's a difference between consumer grade GPS, and the high end ones that are accurate with distances to millimeters.

You continue to say we can't trust them because of all these reports of inaccurate measurements. Claiming you don't see the parts that reference the accuracy of higher end models, and can't seem to understand how position error can result in distance error when tracking a person walking.

Then simply revert to saying we can't trust anything based on a RE coordinate grid, because it's based on a RE coordinate grid. Ignoring the fact it works, ignoring the testimony of people in the airplane industry who say their instruments couldn't work if the Earth was flat and the software was supposing a round Earth, and ignoring most offers and requests to give a method of confirming distances that you would accept.

For a supposed expert and very vocal proponent of FE, you certainly show a surprising lack of knowledge about either FE or the workings of RE. I suppose that can explain why you follow it so vehemently. You don't appear to understand how anything works in either model beyond the most basic concepts.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2017, 01:00:25 AM
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 16, 2017, 01:39:50 AM
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 01:48:07 AM
Tom Bishop.  You claim that we cannot know the speed of an aircraft.  There are about 1000 radar stations in North America that disagree.  No GPS needed.  Radar is so reliable on tracking speed that police officers use it all the time to catch speeders.  Stop fixating on GPS and get to the point.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 01:59:41 AM
although you yourself have not witnessed it

This is incorrect.

Whoa!  Tom Bishop is an astronaut!  Perhaps we should take his word on it....
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 16, 2017, 02:04:34 AM
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.

So you have no intention of having an honest debate?  GPS is proven to be accurate and you know it. 
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 16, 2017, 02:09:53 AM
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.

So you have no intention of having an honest debate?  GPS is proven to be accurate and you know it.

Flight data is also proven to be accurate and you should know that too.
In particular the distance from New York to Paris is known and proven to be accurate. (3625 Miles)

I have been retired since 1999 and technology has probably progressed since then.
But at that time the radar displays in a typical FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center showed the speed of aircraft from computers in the aircraft which sent that information back to the ARTCC's. So we definitely know the speed of aircraft.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 02:19:50 AM
Many of us seem completely willing to be drawn off topic into a debate on the easy pickings.  There are several good reasons besides GPS that allow us to know the speed of an aircraft.  Tom seems to be really good at deflecting without providing any good solutions.  His only answer seems to be "how do you know?"
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 16, 2017, 02:37:20 AM
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
If you do not understand why the proofs in this thread are proofs, then perhaps you should be asking for them to be explained instead of simply saying they are fake over and over.

No wait. Better option. If 3DGeeks information from working in the industry is incorrect, and planes are in fact traveling at a rate other than they are designed to fly. Prove it. Show us your evidence that a plane flies faster or slower than multiple different instruments show us it does. Than it's designers created it to. Than science says it does. Because that's what your left with here Tom. Denying science. In which case there is no debate to be found here and your posts are indeed the waste of time to be listened to. I already know any information you present on the dual pole model can't be trusted, seeing as you cannot answer the simplest of questions on it. Should I just extend that to everything you say and presume you to be the greatest troll for FE on this forum?

Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone. This is the corner you've painted yourself into. You've decried a single piece of each bit of evidence going deeper and deeper into the hole. Surrendering one piece means they're all correct. So let's have it. What is an accurate, allowable method for us to measure a distance?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2017, 03:26:11 AM
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.

If you are claiming that some device or method is accurate, then you are obligated to post the evidence here rather than repeat "prove me wrong".
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2017, 03:27:39 AM
Tom Bishop.  You claim that we cannot know the speed of an aircraft.  There are about 1000 radar stations in North America that disagree.  No GPS needed.  Radar is so reliable on tracking speed that police officers use it all the time to catch speeders.  Stop fixating on GPS and get to the point.

Post that evidence here and the appropriate study showing that the radar data agrees with the plane's groundspeed data. Do the necessary work before making such claims.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2017, 03:29:02 AM
Flight data is also proven to be accurate and you should know that too.

If it is "proven" then there must be some data, evidence, or study you can provide showing it to be.

Quote
In particular the distance from New York to Paris is known and proven to be accurate. (3625 Miles)

I have been retired since 1999 and technology has probably progressed since then.
But at that time the radar displays in a typical FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center showed the speed of aircraft from computers in the aircraft which sent that information back to the ARTCC's. So we definitely know the speed of aircraft.

It is your obligation to demonstrate this information, provide associated explanations, and share any relevant data.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2017, 03:38:28 AM
If you do not understand why the proofs in this thread are proofs, then perhaps you should be asking for them to be explained instead of simply saying they are fake over and over.

No wait. Better option. If 3DGeeks information from working in the industry is incorrect, and planes are in fact traveling at a rate other than they are designed to fly. Prove it. Show us your evidence that a plane flies faster or slower than multiple different instruments show us it does.

"Prove me wrong" is a argumentative fallacy. You are claiming accuracy for a certain coordinate system, and it is therefore your burden to demonstrate that.

"3DGeek" has provided no evidence, other than appeals to authority.

Quote
Than it's designers created it to. Than science says it does. Because that's what your left with here Tom. Denying science. In which case there is no debate to be found here and your posts are indeed the waste of time to be listened to.

A more accurate portrayal is that I am asking for science, and I am receiving none.

Quote
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 16, 2017, 04:15:14 AM
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here (https://nationalmap.gov/historical/) but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2017, 04:21:32 AM
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here (https://nationalmap.gov/historical/) but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)

From your link:

Quote
because the distance between the survey points is generally long (typically about 30 kilometres) the calculations also allow for the curvature of the Earth.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 04:49:54 AM
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here (https://nationalmap.gov/historical/) but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)

From your link:

Quote
because the distance between the survey points is generally long (typically about 30 kilometres) the calculations also allow for the curvature of the Earth.

So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all.  He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2017, 05:06:58 AM
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


Quote from: frodo467
Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4)

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 05:11:31 AM
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


[quote  author=frodo467]Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4)

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".
[/quote]

Yup. Confirmation bias claims another. No point arguing if he won't consider any data because he "knows "What he knows, except he doesn't know what he doesn't know and no amount of talking or evidence will change that. He has has belief entrenched and any consideration of opposing evidence simply causes a state of cognitive dissonance. Being comfortable in a lie is too damn comfortable.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 16, 2017, 05:14:13 AM
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here (https://nationalmap.gov/historical/) but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)

From your link:

Quote
because the distance between the survey points is generally long (typically about 30 kilometres) the calculations also allow for the curvature of the Earth.
How about if I can find a map that uses only trilateration or traversing? Hopefully not too difficult. Neither method mentions the curvature of the Earth (although I would note this is why I mentioned comparing to older maps, as if the Earth was flat and surveying was used maps would not come out the same every time. As such older maps should show likely significant discrepancies as they didn't have the same 'base' locations as todays maps would.)

Second option. Give us a set of points and distances between them you know are accurate. If we can present a map that can match those distances, we can build outward from there.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 05:20:46 AM
Have you ever flown on an airplane Tom?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 16, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.

If you are claiming that some device or method is accurate, then you are obligated to post the evidence here rather than repeat "prove me wrong".
What equipment would you use to determine the shape of the earth?

Why do you not look for evidence and give us the details here?  What do you define as evidence?

Is the timeanddate.com correct for your location?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 01:00:29 PM
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.

If you are claiming that some device or method is accurate, then you are obligated to post the evidence here rather than repeat "prove me wrong".
What equipment would you use to determine the shape of the earth?

Why do you not look for evidence and give us the details here?  What do you define as evidence?

Is the timeanddate.com correct for your location?

I love timeanddate.com I can confirm that it is indeed correct in every location that I have used it in. I use it weekly for the last three years to determine sundown time on Friday nights and it has never once been wrong. I have used it in Minneapolis MN, Nashville TN, Greenville SC, Colorado Springs CO, and Kansas City, MO. Each and every time it is perfect.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 16, 2017, 01:39:19 PM
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


Quote from: frodo467
Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf (https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf)

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980 (https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980)

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf (http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf)

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar (http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar)

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/ (https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/)

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4)

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".

What you are saying is you will disregard any science that doesn't go along with your superstition. 

A short list of Proofs that have been provided here

GPS accuracy
Mapping accuracy
Radar Accuracy
Flight duration accuracy

Of course, you have the luxury of hiding behind the "We don't have a map" concept.  The good news is that other than blind fanatics, anyone reading this thread will see right through the obvious fear and dishonesty you display.   Case in point,  I showed this thread to a few people and the common reaction was belly laughter.  "How can someone be so stupid?" was at the top of the list.






Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 01:54:54 PM
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


Quote from: frodo467
Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf (https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf)

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980 (https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980)

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf (http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf)

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar (http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar)

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/ (https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/)

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4)

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".

What you are saying is you will disregard any science that doesn't go along with your superstition. 

A short list of Proofs that have been provided here

GPS accuracy
Mapping accuracy
Radar Accuracy
Flight duration accuracy

Of course, you have the luxury of hiding behind the "We don't have a map" concept.  The good news is that other than blind fanatics, anyone reading this thread will see right through the obvious fear and dishonesty you display.   Case in point,  I showed this thread to a few people and the common reaction was belly laughter.  "How can someone be so stupid?" was at the top of the list.

Not to mention the absurdity of FE when compared to flight distances in the southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 16, 2017, 05:27:39 PM
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


Quote from: frodo467
Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf (https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf)

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980 (https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980)

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf (http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf)

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar (http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar)

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/ (https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/)

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4)

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".

What you are saying is you will disregard any science that doesn't go along with your superstition. 

A short list of Proofs that have been provided here

GPS accuracy
Mapping accuracy
Radar Accuracy
Flight duration accuracy

Of course, you have the luxury of hiding behind the "We don't have a map" concept.  The good news is that other than blind fanatics, anyone reading this thread will see right through the obvious fear and dishonesty you display.   Case in point,  I showed this thread to a few people and the common reaction was belly laughter.  "How can someone be so stupid?" was at the top of the list.

Not to mention the absurdity of FE when compared to flight distances in the southern hemisphere.

Not to mention also the absurdity of FE when compared to horizon and distances to the horizon.....Of the absurdity of FE....Period !
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: junker on August 16, 2017, 06:03:29 PM
Not to mention also the absurdity of FE when compared to horizon and distances to the horizon.....Of the absurdity of FE....Period !

Please try to stay on topic. Not every single thread needs you complaining about the horizon or reminding everyone you were in the navy.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Smokified on August 16, 2017, 06:51:01 PM
Not to mention also the absurdity of FE when compared to horizon and distances to the horizon.....Of the absurdity of FE....Period !

Please try to stay on topic. Not every single thread needs you complaining about the horizon or reminding everyone you were in the navy.

Stop derailing threads with your low content threats.  Not every single thread needs you complaining about how people choose to communicate.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: junker on August 16, 2017, 07:02:14 PM
Not to mention also the absurdity of FE when compared to horizon and distances to the horizon.....Of the absurdity of FE....Period !

Please try to stay on topic. Not every single thread needs you complaining about the horizon or reminding everyone you were in the navy.

Stop derailing threads with your low content threats.  Not every single thread needs you complaining about how people choose to communicate.

I really have tried to be patient with your nonsense. I am done giving you warnings. Enjoy your promised 30-day ban (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6716.msg122740#msg122740). If you decide to come back next month, you will have a final chance to stop acting like a petulant child in literally every post. Permaban after that. Take care, friend!
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 17, 2017, 05:41:49 PM
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.

If you are claiming that some device or method is accurate, then you are obligated to post the evidence here rather than repeat "prove me wrong".
What equipment would you use to determine the shape of the earth?

Why do you not look for evidence and give us the details here?  What do you define as evidence?

Is the timeanddate.com correct for your location?
Tom, please reply.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 17, 2017, 05:46:36 PM
How about if I can find a map that uses only trilateration or traversing? Hopefully not too difficult. Neither method mentions the curvature of the Earth (although I would note this is why I mentioned comparing to older maps, as if the Earth was flat and surveying was used maps would not come out the same every time. As such older maps should show likely significant discrepancies as they didn't have the same 'base' locations as todays maps would.)

Second option. Give us a set of points and distances between them you know are accurate. If we can present a map that can match those distances, we can build outward from there.
I'd take an answer to this too if you please.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 23, 2017, 11:16:01 AM
At this point, the ONLY 'exit strategy' for FET is to deny that the distances posted by the airlines is incorrect.

We know that the flight TIMES are correct - there are many, MANY organizations that track the reliability of flight times - and billions of people have flown the routes and know that airlines are overwhelmingly close to their posted "on time" times.   There is a MOUNTAIN of undeniable evidence to show that airlines keep quite closely to their stated times.

I was also able to show that for long-distance routes the claimed DISTANCES are a good match for the TIME - given the published CRUISE SPEEDS of the airplanes on those routes.

So for the DISTANCES to be incorrect, the published data on the SPEEDS of modern airliners must be severely incorrect.

If FET is true - then the published cruise speeds of airliners must be severely incorrect.


This is undeniable...if we accept the flight times then if the flight distances are wildly wrong - then the cruise speed of airliners must be badly wrong.

SO...The FET argument depends on doubt about airliner cruise speeds.

HOWEVER:

If the cruise speeds are wrong - then they must surely be equally wrong on all routes.  Nobody flies airliners at significantly other than cruise speeds - it's horribly inefficient to do so.

If that's true then all of the distances must be "off" by the same percentage...they can't be selectively wrong for some routes and not for others.

If you follow through the math at the top of this thread, you can double all of the distances - or halve all of the distances - and the quadrilateral calculations STILL don't add up.

CONSEQUENTLY:

It doesn't matter how incorrect airliner speeds are - the earth STILL cannot be flat.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 25, 2017, 02:00:26 PM
I will apologize in advance for the length of this post.

When a friend of mine told me about the flat earth society, I was curious and I came across this forum earlier today.  As I have a solid foundation in both science and mathematics, this particular thread piqued my interest enough to register and create a login.

As this is a logic model statement, I will have to state all of my assumptions before coming to my conclusion and I will support each part of my argument.  I will do my best to meet the demands of Tom Bishop and others on this forum.  In cases where the methodology of measurement assumes a globe map, I will corroborate that system of measurement’s accuracy with an alternative measurement system that does not rely on a globed earth assumption.

If there is not a significant difference in margin of error between the two systems of measurement, then we can confidently state that the methodology that assumes a globed earth is still valid for the measurements provided due to the fact that they can be corroborated using an alternative methodology.  Based on the standards and practices of physical sciences, for the purposes of this discussion, an acceptable margin of error in any two given measurements is 5%.  This stays in line with the scientific method as it applies to Chemistry, Biology and Physics which have formed the basis of peer reviewed scientific literature.

Assumption 1: time exists and is measurable.  The 24 hour daily clock is standardized by the breakdown of the cesium 133 atom as defined in 1967.  This has been the accepted standardization of time ever since.  All modern timepieces are standardized based on this assumption and it is not dependent upon a globed earth assumption.

Assumption 2: Distance exists and is measurable.  Both Imperial and Metric systems have been standardized for the purposes of measuring distance since prior to 1967 so that is still our outer bound for both of these units of measurement in peer reviewed literature.

Assumption 3: Speed is defined as Distance/time: Velocity = Meters/second for metric and Velocity = Feet/second for Imperial.

Without violating any of the rules for algebraic logic if V=M/s then M=V*s & if V=F/s then F=V*s.  As the three variables are inextricably linked, we only need only to prove the observable existence of 2 of the 3 variables and then solve for the 3rd.  In our case, we will use time and speed to solve for distance.

As time is defined by the observable physical phenomenon that does not rely upon a globed earth and corroborated by the life experiences of each person involved in this discussion, we can safely say that all commonly accepted methods of measuring time in studies are valid for the purposes of solving for distance.

This then leaves a requirement to identify a non-globed earth method for measuring speed or velocity relative to the ground that corroborates a globed earth methodology within the acceptable margin of error.

To that end:  I provide support that speed of flight can be measured relative to ground speed through the use of Doppler shift radar meets the criteria of a non-globed earth system of measuring speed.

 EVANS, T. R. AND DRICKAMER, L. C. (1994). Flight speeds of birds determined using Doppler radar. Wilson Bull. 206, 155–156

During the above referenced article, the accuracy and validity of using Doppler shift radar gun technology to measure the ground speed of birds in flight was established.  Radar units determine straight line speed of a target by measuring the Doppler shift of each successive set of the electromagnetic waves sent out from the device towards the target.  These units are calibrated for frequency using a tuning fork and calibrated for speed accuracy by using a measured track and stopwatch before being placed into service.  The researchers verified their individual units by performing the internal circuitry test and using a tuning fork to verify correct EM wave frequency.  The reported margin of error between the Doppler shift calculations of the device and the physical measurements used to calibrate them must be less than 1% for manufacturer release.  This meets our criteria for a standardized measurement of flight speed that does not rely upon an assumption of a globed earth model.

Next I provide peer reviewed literature that corroborates GPS speed measurement accuracy using radar for comparison.

Rampinini E, Alberti G, Fiorenza M, Riggio M, Sassi R, Borges TO, Coutts AJ. Accuracy of GPS devices for measuring high-intensity running in field-based team sports. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 49-53

During the above mentioned article researchers specifically tested the accuracy and validity of using GPS based equipment to measure ground speed of athletes.  The standard for comparison was a Doppler shift radar gun.  The straight line speed differences between the 2 systems of measurement did not exceed our established margin of error.  The margin of error between the 2 systems was 1.9%.

This means that within a series of a few steps, I was able to corroborate speed as measured with GPS technology to speed measured using a physically measured track and stopwatch, as well as a Doppler shift radar gun.  A measured straight line track and stopwatch are both mechanical measurements of distance and time respectively that do not assume a globed earth.  The Doppler shift radar gun does not assume a globed earth and both corroborate the speeds as measured by GPS.  There was a maximum margin of error of 2.9% (summation of maximum margins of error of both systems) which does not meet the criteria for dismissal of GPS as a speed measurement device.

Now I have provided supporting evidence that both the GPS and Radar speed measurements employed by airlines are within an acceptable margin of error to physical measurements of speed that do not rely on any globed earth assumptions.  This means that the calculated distances based on time and speed of non-stop flights between airports can be used to calculate distance using Distance = Speed * Time as stated earlier.

Conclusions:
1: Speed as measured by GPS devices falls within an acceptable margin of error to speed as measured by systems that do not rely upon a globed earth assumption (1.9%).
2: Speed as measured by Doppler shift radar instruments which does not assume a globed earth model is a viable method of determining flight speed relative to ground speed.
3: Modern aircraft employ both technologies for measuring speed and, as such, reported speeds of flights are accurate for both a globed and planar earth models.
4: Ground speed can be determined using flight speed as reported by aircraft speed measuring devices within an acceptable margin of error to actual ground speed (< 1%).
5: Airline flight times are recorded using a measurement system that remains congruent with both globed earth and flat earth models.  These flight times are corroborated independently by all passengers equipped with standardized timepieces.
6: Using the distances derived from data produced by speed measurement systems that remain consistent with or without the assumption of a globed earth, we can calculate a distance D between 2 cities using the measured flight speed S and time T in a D=S*T equation without violating any of the imposed stipulations as both S and T can be produced without globed earth assumptions.
7: The stated distances between cities for nonstop flights used in the examples provided by both 3dGeek and Inquisitive can be accepted as true distance +/- 2.9% margin of error (largest summation value of the aforementioned margin of error rates) based on corroborating evidence as obtained from flat earth congruent speed measurement systems and algebra.
8: Due to the establishment of speed, time and distance in methodologies that do not rely upon a globed earth model for accuracy, the following example remains valid:

New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries
NY - PA 8834
NY - BA 3346
NY - CT 7803
CT - PA 12844
CT - BA 6865
BA - PA 11043

NY angles are 123.6° or 100.9 + 61.5 = 162.4°

Even when accounting for a 2.9% margin of error, (the maximum summation of the 2 peer reviewed pieces of literature that I presented) a flat plane is still mathematically impossible.

Summary: Unless you desire to argue the validity of the existence of either time, distance or speed then I have met your demands specifically.  Time can be measured without assuming a globed earth model and Speed can be measured without assuming a globed earth model which allows us to solve for distance without assuming a globed earth model.  While the geometry proof provided by 3dGeek and Inquisitive does not have the ability to prove whether the earth is a convex or concave surface, the congruence of speed measurement systems that do not require a globed earth assumption and the ones that do, provide strong evidence that the earth is convex rather than concave.

Thank you.

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 03:18:11 PM
I will apologize in advance for the length of this post.

When a friend of mine told me about the flat earth society, I was curious and I came across this forum earlier today.  As I have a solid foundation in both science and mathematics, this particular thread piqued my interest enough to register and create a login.

As this is a logic model statement, I will have to state all of my assumptions before coming to my conclusion and I will support each part of my argument.  I will do my best to meet the demands of Tom Bishop and others on this forum.  In cases where the methodology of measurement assumes a globe map, I will corroborate that system of measurement’s accuracy with an alternative measurement system that does not rely on a globed earth assumption.

If there is not a significant difference in margin of error between the two systems of measurement, then we can confidently state that the methodology that assumes a globed earth is still valid for the measurements provided due to the fact that they can be corroborated using an alternative methodology.  Based on the standards and practices of physical sciences, for the purposes of this discussion, an acceptable margin of error in any two given measurements is 5%.  This stays in line with the scientific method as it applies to Chemistry, Biology and Physics which have formed the basis of peer reviewed scientific literature.

Assumption 1: time exists and is measurable.  The 24 hour daily clock is standardized by the breakdown of the cesium 133 atom as defined in 1967.  This has been the accepted standardization of time ever since.  All modern timepieces are standardized based on this assumption and it is not dependent upon a globed earth assumption.

Assumption 2: Distance exists and is measurable.  Both Imperial and Metric systems have been standardized for the purposes of measuring distance since prior to 1967 so that is still our outer bound for both of these units of measurement in peer reviewed literature.

Assumption 3: Speed is defined as Distance/time: Velocity = Meters/second for metric and Velocity = Feet/second for Imperial.

Without violating any of the rules for algebraic logic if V=M/s then M=V*s & if V=F/s then F=V*s.  As the three variables are inextricably linked, we only need only to prove the observable existence of 2 of the 3 variables and then solve for the 3rd.  In our case, we will use time and speed to solve for distance.

As time is defined by the observable physical phenomenon that does not rely upon a globed earth and corroborated by the life experiences of each person involved in this discussion, we can safely say that all commonly accepted methods of measuring time in studies are valid for the purposes of solving for distance.

This then leaves a requirement to identify a non-globed earth method for measuring speed or velocity relative to the ground that corroborates a globed earth methodology within the acceptable margin of error.

To that end:  I provide support that speed of flight can be measured relative to ground speed through the use of Doppler shift radar meets the criteria of a non-globed earth system of measuring speed.

 EVANS, T. R. AND DRICKAMER, L. C. (1994). Flight speeds of birds determined using Doppler radar. Wilson Bull. 206, 155–156

During the above referenced article, the accuracy and validity of using Doppler shift radar gun technology to measure the ground speed of birds in flight was established.  Radar units determine straight line speed of a target by measuring the Doppler shift of each successive set of the electromagnetic waves sent out from the device towards the target.  These units are calibrated for frequency using a tuning fork and calibrated for speed accuracy by using a measured track and stopwatch before being placed into service.  The researchers verified their individual units by performing the internal circuitry test and using a tuning fork to verify correct EM wave frequency.  The reported margin of error between the Doppler shift calculations of the device and the physical measurements used to calibrate them must be less than 1% for manufacturer release.  This meets our criteria for a standardized measurement of flight speed that does not rely upon an assumption of a globed earth model.

Next I provide peer reviewed literature that corroborates GPS speed measurement accuracy using radar for comparison.

Rampinini E, Alberti G, Fiorenza M, Riggio M, Sassi R, Borges TO, Coutts AJ. Accuracy of GPS devices for measuring high-intensity running in field-based team sports. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 49-53

During the above mentioned article researchers specifically tested the accuracy and validity of using GPS based equipment to measure ground speed of athletes.  The standard for comparison was a Doppler shift radar gun.  The straight line speed differences between the 2 systems of measurement did not exceed our established margin of error.  The margin of error between the 2 systems was 1.9%.

This means that within a series of a few steps, I was able to corroborate speed as measured with GPS technology to speed measured using a physically measured track and stopwatch, as well as a Doppler shift radar gun.  A measured straight line track and stopwatch are both mechanical measurements of distance and time respectively that do not assume a globed earth.  The Doppler shift radar gun does not assume a globed earth and both corroborate the speeds as measured by GPS.  There was a maximum margin of error of 2.9% (summation of maximum margins of error of both systems) which does not meet the criteria for dismissal of GPS as a speed measurement device.

Now I have provided supporting evidence that both the GPS and Radar speed measurements employed by airlines are within an acceptable margin of error to physical measurements of speed that do not rely on any globed earth assumptions.  This means that the calculated distances based on time and speed of non-stop flights between airports can be used to calculate distance using Distance = Speed * Time as stated earlier.

Conclusions:
1: Speed as measured by GPS devices falls within an acceptable margin of error to speed as measured by systems that do not rely upon a globed earth assumption (1.9%).
2: Speed as measured by Doppler shift radar instruments which does not assume a globed earth model is a viable method of determining flight speed relative to ground speed.
3: Modern aircraft employ both technologies for measuring speed and, as such, reported speeds of flights are accurate for both a globed and planar earth models.
4: Ground speed can be determined using flight speed as reported by aircraft speed measuring devices within an acceptable margin of error to actual ground speed (< 1%).
5: Airline flight times are recorded using a measurement system that remains congruent with both globed earth and flat earth models.  These flight times are corroborated independently by all passengers equipped with standardized timepieces.
6: Using the distances derived from data produced by speed measurement systems that remain consistent with or without the assumption of a globed earth, we can calculate a distance D between 2 cities using the measured flight speed S and time T in a D=S*T equation without violating any of the imposed stipulations as both S and T can be produced without globed earth assumptions.
7: The stated distances between cities for nonstop flights used in the examples provided by both 3dGeek and Inquisitive can be accepted as true distance +/- 2.9% margin of error (largest summation value of the aforementioned margin of error rates) based on corroborating evidence as obtained from flat earth congruent speed measurement systems and algebra.
8: Due to the establishment of speed, time and distance in methodologies that do not rely upon a globed earth model for accuracy, the following example remains valid:

New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries
NY - PA 8834
NY - BA 3346
NY - CT 7803
CT - PA 12844
CT - BA 6865
BA - PA 11043

NY angles are 123.6° or 100.9 + 61.5 = 162.4°

Even when accounting for a 2.9% margin of error, (the maximum summation of the 2 peer reviewed pieces of literature that I presented) a flat plane is still mathematically impossible.

Summary: Unless you desire to argue the validity of the existence of either time, distance or speed then I have met your demands specifically.  Time can be measured without assuming a globed earth model and Speed can be measured without assuming a globed earth model which allows us to solve for distance without assuming a globed earth model.  While the geometry proof provided by 3dGeek and Inquisitive does not have the ability to prove whether the earth is a convex or concave surface, the congruence of speed measurement systems that do not require a globed earth assumption and the ones that do, provide strong evidence that the earth is convex rather than concave.

Thank you.

CriticalThinker


Best post ever.  My prediction is Tom Bishop will invalidate your argument (in his head) based on 1 sentence or will just not show up. 

Otherwise this post shoud be pinned and added to the Wiki.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 25, 2017, 04:06:35 PM
Fully agree with TomInAustin, a great post! Well laid out thank you. Although since we haven't seen a word from Tom in about 10 days, and I don't know that I've ever seen Junker respond in a strongly constructive manner, I'm doubtful of too much happening. CriticalThinker, would you mind if I posted this to the old(?) site and linked to this thread? There appear to be much more FE believers over there. Or perhaps you would be up for reposting it over there as a new thread. The site is here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php) by the way. I've heard it referred to as the old site by Junker I believe, but it appears to have a bit larger population than this one from what I've been seeing perusing it recently.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 05:01:02 PM
Here is the problem: According to the Radar Vs. GPS study mentioned there was a wide range of error, between 1.9% and 23.2% difference between the various types of GPS equipment compared to the Radar Test.

(http://i.imgur.com/HhrUZeW.png)

If the Radar Test value is True, and we have various Round Earth GPS systems giving different values, then how do we know which GPS system is accurate?

If the earth is flat and a Radar Test was done on it against the runners, how do we compare that to these Round Earth coordinate devices spitting out different values? If one of the results from this wide range happens to land close to this Flat Earth Radar Test value, what does it prove or tell us?

Here is a hint: Nothing.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 05:11:08 PM
Here is the problem: According to the Radar Vs. GPS study mentioned there was a wide range of error, between 1.9% and 23.2% difference between the various types of GPS equipment compared to the Radar Test.

(http://i.imgur.com/HhrUZeW.png)

If the Radar Test value is True, and we have various Round Earth GPS systems giving different values, then how do we know which GPS system is accurate?

If the earth is flat and a Radar Test was done on it against the runners, how do we compare that to these Round Earth coordinate devices spitting out different values? If one of the results from this wide range happens to land close to this Flat Earth Radar Test value, what does it prove or tell us?

Here is a hint: Nothing.


Since we are talking time and duration for a known speed, your points are irrelevant as usual.   The poster gave you valid indisputable evidence that does not involve GPS.


Why don't you actually try and help instead of making silly points?  What are you so afraid of?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 05:40:24 PM
Since we are talking time and duration for a known speed, your points are irrelevant as usual.   The poster gave you valid indisputable evidence that does not involve GPS.


Why don't you actually try and help instead of making silly points?  What are you so afraid of?

It's not "indisputable evidence" and the points I made are not irrelevant. Part of his evidence relies on GPS being accurate, and he provided a GPS Vs. Radar study to demonstrate that it is accurate. I showed directly why his step of confirming that GPS was accurate was invalid, and you have not addressed those points.

If the earth is flat and the radar test was performed against the runners, and there are a variety of GPS devices and modes spitting out different Round Earth values with a wide range of error from each other, what does that tell us? You can't just pick out the closest GPS device that matches the Flat Earth radar value and say that it proves that GPS is accurate in its Round Earth assumptions.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 25, 2017, 05:43:57 PM
Since we are talking time and duration for a known speed, your points are irrelevant as usual.   The poster gave you valid indisputable evidence that does not involve GPS.


Why don't you actually try and help instead of making silly points?  What are you so afraid of?

It's not "indisputable evidence" and the points I made are not irrelevant. Part of his evidence relies on GPS being accurate, and he provided a GPS Vs. Radar study to demonstrate that it is accurate. I showed directly why his step of confirming that GPS was accurate was invalid, and you have not addressed those points.

If the earth is flat and the radar test was performed against the runners, and there are a variety of GPS devices and modes spitting out different Round Earth values with a wide range of error from each other, what does that tell us? You can't just pick out the closest GPS device that matches the Flat Earth radar value and say that it proves that GPS is accurate in its Round Earth assumptions.
The accuracy of a GPS receiver is known, how an application uses that data is another issue.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 06:07:56 PM
Since we are talking time and duration for a known speed, your points are irrelevant as usual.   The poster gave you valid indisputable evidence that does not involve GPS.


Why don't you actually try and help instead of making silly points?  What are you so afraid of?

It's not "indisputable evidence" and the points I made are not irrelevant. Part of his evidence relies on GPS being accurate, and he provided a GPS Vs. Radar study to demonstrate that it is accurate. I showed directly why his step of confirming that GPS was accurate was invalid, and you have not addressed those points.

If the earth is flat and the radar test was performed against the runners, and there are a variety of GPS devices and modes spitting out different Round Earth values with a wide range of error from each other, what does that tell us? You can't just pick out the closest GPS device that matches the Flat Earth radar value and say that it proves that GPS is accurate in its Round Earth assumptions.

Again irrelevant, this thread is about flight distances and times.  The mention of GPS is not a valid argument as it is known that aircraft speeds are tested using radar.   Aircraft flew known routes long before GPS was around. 

So get back to the topic.  Help us make a flat map using known cruise speeds and distances.  What are you so afraid of?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 25, 2017, 06:11:49 PM
Here is the problem: According to the Radar Vs. GPS study mentioned there was a wide range of error, between 1.9% and 23.2% difference between the various types of GPS equipment compared to the Radar Test.

(http://i.imgur.com/HhrUZeW.png)

If the Radar Test value is True, and we have various Round Earth GPS systems giving different values, then how do we know which GPS system is accurate?

If the earth is flat and a Radar Test was done on it against the runners, how do we compare that to these Round Earth coordinate devices spitting out different values? If one of the results from this wide range happens to land close to this Flat Earth Radar Test value, what does it prove or tell us?

Here is a hint: Nothing.
We are looking at the distance results here Tom, and what we are looking for beyond that is ensuring we have chosen a proper refresh rate for the distances being covered. Do you see how the error halves itself from 5 Hz to 10 Hz when looking at the VHSR line? That's the refresh rate coming into effect. 10 Hz refreshes twice as often as 5 Hz, and is thus twice as accurate as speed increases. This graph reflects exactly what's described here (http://waset.org/publications/7783/the-suitability-of-gps-receivers-update-rates-for-navigation-applications) actually. These are consumer grade devices, and as such have a somewhat limited refresh rate option. As shown in the paper I just linked, higher speed vehicles (such as aircraft and missiles) use a higher Hz for their GPS. These range to 200+ Hz for vehicles that are traveling at or over the speed of sound. 20 times the best refresh rate we have in the table. But the table still accurately reflects the information shown in that document, that as you go faster the higher refresh rates are needed to achieve proper accuracy. The TD line and even the HSR line are within our margin of error for the higher refresh rate device, as expected. I wasn't able to quite dig up the full study at present (I bet I'm just glossing over the link somehow) but I would guess these devices are ending up in line with what is required of them by their intended end users. The study was claimed to show GPS capable of tracking distances within an acceptable margin of error. It shows that.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 06:20:57 PM
We are looking at the distance results here Tom, and what we are looking for beyond that is ensuring we have chosen a proper refresh rate for the distances being covered. Do you see how the error halves itself from 5 Hz to 10 Hz when looking at the VHSR line? That's the refresh rate coming into effect. 10 Hz refreshes twice as often as 5 Hz, and is thus twice as accurate as speed increases.

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?

Quote
This graph reflects exactly what's described here (http://waset.org/publications/7783/the-suitability-of-gps-receivers-update-rates-for-navigation-applications) actually. These are consumer grade devices, and as such have a somewhat limited refresh rate option. As shown in the paper I just linked, higher speed vehicles (such as aircraft and missiles) use a higher Hz for their GPS. These range to 200+ Hz for vehicles that are traveling at or over the speed of sound. 20 times the best refresh rate we have in the table. But the table still accurately reflects the information shown in that document, that as you go faster the higher refresh rates are needed to achieve proper accuracy. The TD line and even the HSR line are within our margin of error for the higher refresh rate device, as expected. I wasn't able to quite dig up the full study at present (I bet I'm just glossing over the link somehow) but I would guess these devices are ending up in line with what is required of them by their intended end users. The study was claimed to show GPS capable of tracking distances within an acceptable margin of error. It shows that.

We still don't know which Round Earth coordinate device is the most accurate (or even how accurate) if we are comparing it to a Radar Value which may have taken place on a Flat Earth.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 06:25:02 PM
Here is the problem: According to the Radar Vs. GPS study mentioned there was a wide range of error, between 1.9% and 23.2% difference between the various types of GPS equipment compared to the Radar Test.

(http://i.imgur.com/HhrUZeW.png)

If the Radar Test value is True, and we have various Round Earth GPS systems giving different values, then how do we know which GPS system is accurate?

If the earth is flat and a Radar Test was done on it against the runners, how do we compare that to these Round Earth coordinate devices spitting out different values? If one of the results from this wide range happens to land close to this Flat Earth Radar Test value, what does it prove or tell us?

Here is a hint: Nothing.
We are looking at the distance results here Tom, and what we are looking for beyond that is ensuring we have chosen a proper refresh rate for the distances being covered. Do you see how the error halves itself from 5 Hz to 10 Hz when looking at the VHSR line? That's the refresh rate coming into effect. 10 Hz refreshes twice as often as 5 Hz, and is thus twice as accurate as speed increases. This graph reflects exactly what's described here (http://waset.org/publications/7783/the-suitability-of-gps-receivers-update-rates-for-navigation-applications) actually. These are consumer grade devices, and as such have a somewhat limited refresh rate option. As shown in the paper I just linked, higher speed vehicles (such as aircraft and missiles) use a higher Hz for their GPS. These range to 200+ Hz for vehicles that are traveling at or over the speed of sound. 20 times the best refresh rate we have in the table. But the table still accurately reflects the information shown in that document, that as you go faster the higher refresh rates are needed to achieve proper accuracy. The TD line and even the HSR line are within our margin of error for the higher refresh rate device, as expected. I wasn't able to quite dig up the full study at present (I bet I'm just glossing over the link somehow) but I would guess these devices are ending up in line with what is required of them by their intended end users. The study was claimed to show GPS capable of tracking distances within an acceptable margin of error. It shows that.

Don't even bother with GPS data.  Flight speeds and flight duration have been used for decades before GPS.  Tom thinks he can derail this discussion with his BS about GPS but we all know it's not relevant.  Stick to known durations, distances, and speeds. 

Let me head him off with this.  Yes, airlines know how far it is to Paris from New York and yes, they know how fast the planes they fly are, and how long it takes to get there.    Any dispute of that is juvenile and just ridiculous.  What are the FE'ers so afraid of?





Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 06:26:15 PM

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?



So you at least admit radar values are accurate? 
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 06:47:43 PM
Don't even bother with GPS data.  Flight speeds and flight duration have been used for decades before GPS.  Tom thinks he can derail this discussion with his BS about GPS but we all know it's not relevant.  Stick to known durations, distances, and speeds.

If you read the methods of the poster he is using GPS to determine speeds. What do you mean that GPS has nothing to do with this?'

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?

So you at least admit radar values are accurate?

I am assuming that the radar value is accurate, yes.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 25, 2017, 06:48:23 PM
Here is the problem: According to the Radar Vs. GPS study mentioned there was a wide range of error, between 1.9% and 23.2% difference between the various types of GPS equipment compared to the Radar Test.

(http://i.imgur.com/HhrUZeW.png)

If the Radar Test value is True, and we have various Round Earth GPS systems giving different values, then how do we know which GPS system is accurate?

If the earth is flat and a Radar Test was done on it against the runners, how do we compare that to these Round Earth coordinate devices spitting out different values? If one of the results from this wide range happens to land close to this Flat Earth Radar Test value, what does it prove or tell us?

Here is a hint: Nothing.
This refers to measurements over very short distances, not relevant to the discussion.  With longer distances the accuracy of the locations becomes insignificant.  As you know.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 06:53:57 PM
Don't even bother with GPS data.  Flight speeds and flight duration have been used for decades before GPS.  Tom thinks he can derail this discussion with his BS about GPS but we all know it's not relevant.  Stick to known durations, distances, and speeds.

If you read the methods of the poster he is using GPS to determine speeds. What do you mean that GPS has nothing to do with this?'

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?

So you at least admit radar values are accurate?

A am assuming that the radar value is accurate, yes.

Then we can also assume that Boeing knows how fast their planes fly in MPH and if that's true how far they fly in miles in a given time.  And we know that the mile is not round earth based.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 25, 2017, 07:34:58 PM
We are looking at the distance results here Tom, and what we are looking for beyond that is ensuring we have chosen a proper refresh rate for the distances being covered. Do you see how the error halves itself from 5 Hz to 10 Hz when looking at the VHSR line? That's the refresh rate coming into effect. 10 Hz refreshes twice as often as 5 Hz, and is thus twice as accurate as speed increases.

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?

Quote
This graph reflects exactly what's described here (http://waset.org/publications/7783/the-suitability-of-gps-receivers-update-rates-for-navigation-applications) actually. These are consumer grade devices, and as such have a somewhat limited refresh rate option. As shown in the paper I just linked, higher speed vehicles (such as aircraft and missiles) use a higher Hz for their GPS. These range to 200+ Hz for vehicles that are traveling at or over the speed of sound. 20 times the best refresh rate we have in the table. But the table still accurately reflects the information shown in that document, that as you go faster the higher refresh rates are needed to achieve proper accuracy. The TD line and even the HSR line are within our margin of error for the higher refresh rate device, as expected. I wasn't able to quite dig up the full study at present (I bet I'm just glossing over the link somehow) but I would guess these devices are ending up in line with what is required of them by their intended end users. The study was claimed to show GPS capable of tracking distances within an acceptable margin of error. It shows that.

We still don't know which Round Earth coordinate device is the most accurate (or even how accurate) if we are comparing it to a Radar Value which may have taken place on a Flat Earth.
.....what? Is a mile different on a FE? When did this happen? What does it matter? The radar says they went X distance. The GPS says they went X+/-2% distance. Unless a flat Earth mile is more than a 4% difference, the distances will be within the deviation.

Once again Tom. Give us a known distance, or an acceptable way to measure a distance. Don't just sit there and go "RE distances are different because of coordinates, so there." If a RE mile and a FE mile are within an acceptable margin of error, then there's not enough difference to matter over any length.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 07:44:09 PM
We are looking at the distance results here Tom, and what we are looking for beyond that is ensuring we have chosen a proper refresh rate for the distances being covered. Do you see how the error halves itself from 5 Hz to 10 Hz when looking at the VHSR line? That's the refresh rate coming into effect. 10 Hz refreshes twice as often as 5 Hz, and is thus twice as accurate as speed increases.

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?

Quote
This graph reflects exactly what's described here (http://waset.org/publications/7783/the-suitability-of-gps-receivers-update-rates-for-navigation-applications) actually. These are consumer grade devices, and as such have a somewhat limited refresh rate option. As shown in the paper I just linked, higher speed vehicles (such as aircraft and missiles) use a higher Hz for their GPS. These range to 200+ Hz for vehicles that are traveling at or over the speed of sound. 20 times the best refresh rate we have in the table. But the table still accurately reflects the information shown in that document, that as you go faster the higher refresh rates are needed to achieve proper accuracy. The TD line and even the HSR line are within our margin of error for the higher refresh rate device, as expected. I wasn't able to quite dig up the full study at present (I bet I'm just glossing over the link somehow) but I would guess these devices are ending up in line with what is required of them by their intended end users. The study was claimed to show GPS capable of tracking distances within an acceptable margin of error. It shows that.

We still don't know which Round Earth coordinate device is the most accurate (or even how accurate) if we are comparing it to a Radar Value which may have taken place on a Flat Earth.
.....what? Is a mile different on a FE? When did this happen? What does it matter? The radar says they went X distance. The GPS says they went X+/-2% distance. Unless a flat Earth mile is more than a 4% difference, the distances will be within the deviation.

Once again Tom. Give us a known distance, or an acceptable way to measure a distance. Don't just sit there and go "RE distances are different because of coordinates, so there." If a RE mile and a FE mile are within an acceptable margin of error, then there's not enough difference to matter over any length.

We have made progress.  Tom agrees radar is accurate and that means we can set speed in MPH. From speed and duration, we get the distance.  It is now possible(given that miles, radar, and time are not round earth) to set distance between cities in a measurement we all agree is valid.  Should this move back to the agreed upon poll thread?   Junker?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 25, 2017, 07:58:21 PM
Tom,

I supplied the Radar to GPS comparison primarily to show consistency between a flat earth compatible speed measurement system and globed earth speed measurement system.  As I am in healthcare, I would be happy to cover why the researchers in the sports medicine article saw varying degrees of accuracy.  They specifically discuss it within the article as it becomes a significant limitation with respect to what physiological data points they were trying to interpolate.  GPS monitoring devices for fitness have difficulty in accurately tracking speed outside of straight line measurements due to low refresh rates.  As most team sports require rapid changes in direction during the course of play, the speed data wasn't collected at a frequent enough interval to account for the physical exertion required by players.  It resulted in lower calculated cardiovascular efforts than were applicable.  This phenomenon can easily be witnessed in sports like football, soccer and all hockey variations where players have to stop, pivot and resume travel in a new direction frequently.  In long distance strait line travel, the refresh rate does not make a high statistical impact as was specifically quoted by researchers in the article itself.  You may find reference to it in the analysis section of the article.  Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.  In their conclusion, the stated that GPS monitoring devices were not yet accurate enough to use for calculating metabolic demands on athletes due to the rapid changes in direction experienced during the course of normal play.

As flight speeds are measured with Radar in addition to GPS, statistically significant differences in speed data would have to be reported to FAA administrators and hardware vendors because the planes would not be allowed to fly.  Radar speed measurements do not require any assumption of a globed earth, so my analysis and conclusions still stand.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 25, 2017, 08:00:09 PM
Fully agree with TomInAustin, a great post! Well laid out thank you. Although since we haven't seen a word from Tom in about 10 days, and I don't know that I've ever seen Junker respond in a strongly constructive manner, I'm doubtful of too much happening. CriticalThinker, would you mind if I posted this to the old(?) site and linked to this thread? There appear to be much more FE believers over there. Or perhaps you would be up for reposting it over there as a new thread. The site is here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php) by the way. I've heard it referred to as the old site by Junker I believe, but it appears to have a bit larger population than this one from what I've been seeing perusing it recently.

I was unaware of the old site, so please by all means link to my post.

Thank you

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 08:19:43 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 08:22:04 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.


But the radar still gives an accurate speed and that is what counts in this discussion. 
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 08:24:59 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.


But the radar still gives an accurate speed and that is what counts in this discussion.

If a mile is different under the two systems, and is dependant on how it is measured, that means mph is in error.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: StinkyOne on August 25, 2017, 08:25:29 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.

Tom, please propose an accurate measurement system that you will accept. You do nothing but call the systems being used inaccurate because they aren't flat Earther approved. The reason everything takes into account the curvature of the Earth is because it is freaking round. If the curvature amount was inaccurate, all those systems that rely on precision location data would fail.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 25, 2017, 08:26:20 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.

They were not assuming any shape of the earth during the radar controlled GPS validation.  They were testing a new method of measuring speed under specific conditions against a long established valid control.  They were specifically testing if GPS trackers were accurate enough to calculate metabolic expenditures of athletes in sports.  In the above cited article, radar was the control measurement device which we have already established does not assume a globed earth model.  Radar measures the Doppler shift effect and is <1% margin of error to a measured track and stopwatch.  Airline speed as measured by the Doppler shift effect is still a valid method of establishing air speed relative to ground speed as was established by the first article that I referenced.  That the GPS speeds and radar speeds reported by aircraft match is irrelevant to the proofs that I have supplied.  We could communally agree to ignore airline speed as measured by GPS altogether and the rest of my argument can still stand on its own because flights are also tracked by Doppler shift radar. 

At this point you can either attempt to invalidate the Doppler shift effect using physics and mathematics to prove its inaccuracy or contest one of my 3 assumptions.  I have listed out my assumptions above and none of them require a globed earth.  I can hang my hat on the accuracy of echolocation for determining the strait line speed of an object in flight relative to its speed on the ground and my final conclusions are not invalidated.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 08:28:54 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.

Tom, please propose an accurate measurement system that you will accept. You do nothing but call the systems being used inaccurate because they aren't flat Earther approved. The reason everything takes into account the curvature of the Earth is because it is freaking round. If the curvature amount was inaccurate, all those systems that rely on precision location data would fail.

The problem is that you expect us to take your Round Earth coordinate system as face value accurate truth. That would be silly of us. If we assume that Round Earth lat/lon is true then we might as well just assume that the earth is round.

My car GPS successfully takes me to a location, based on coordinates, without me needing to know how much distance I actually traveled, or if the lat/lon distance prediction was correct. I do not see why you believe that airplanes would be any different.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 25, 2017, 08:31:13 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.


But the radar still gives an accurate speed and that is what counts in this discussion.

If a mile is different under the two systems, and is dependant on how it is measured, that means mph is in error.

Am I correct in assuming that you are calling into question the existence of the variable distance or the physical measuring devices used to establish it?

In my previous post, I established that a standardized system of measuring distance on a flat plane is in existence.  The 2 systems of measurement Metric and Imperial are valid on a variety of surfaces both planar and curvilinear.  That has been a requirement for all variations on science and manufacturing for all of industrialized human history.

Thank You

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 25, 2017, 08:33:14 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.

Tom, please propose an accurate measurement system that you will accept. You do nothing but call the systems being used inaccurate because they aren't flat Earther approved. The reason everything takes into account the curvature of the Earth is because it is freaking round. If the curvature amount was inaccurate, all those systems that rely on precision location data would fail.

The problem is that you expect us to take your Round Earth coordinate system as face value accurate truth. That would be silly of us. If we assume that Round Earth lat/lon is true then we might as well just assume that the earth is round.

My car GPS successfully takes me to a location, based on coordinates, without me needing to know how much distance I actually traveled, or if the lat/lon distance prediction was correct. I do not see why you believe that airplanes would be any different.

The Radar system of speed measurement does not rely upon a latitude and longitude coordinate system and as such remains a valid method of establishing speed as per my post above.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 25, 2017, 08:33:24 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.

Tom, please propose an accurate measurement system that you will accept. You do nothing but call the systems being used inaccurate because they aren't flat Earther approved. The reason everything takes into account the curvature of the Earth is because it is freaking round. If the curvature amount was inaccurate, all those systems that rely on precision location data would fail.

The problem is that you expect us to take your Round Earth coordinate system as face value accurate truth. That would be silly of us. If we assume that Round Earth lat/lon is true then we might as well just assume that the earth is round.

My car GPS successfully takes me to a location, based on coordinates, without me needing to know how much distance I actually traveled, or if the lat/lon prediction was correct. I do not see why you believe that airplanes would be any different.
The give us the difference between a FE mile and a RE mile, a distance you personally know to be accurate, or a viable way to figure out a distance. You can't just sit there and continue to say "Your distances are wrong because I say they are." Is a mile different on FE? Yes or no. If yes, by how much? 5% or less? Then it's irrelevant. These devices are measuring speed, based on miles per hour. The ONLY way for MPH to be wrong enough to matter, is for a FE mile to be significantly longer or shorter than a RE mile. If it is, by how much, and how do you know?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: StinkyOne on August 25, 2017, 08:34:39 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.

Tom, please propose an accurate measurement system that you will accept. You do nothing but call the systems being used inaccurate because they aren't flat Earther approved. The reason everything takes into account the curvature of the Earth is because it is freaking round. If the curvature amount was inaccurate, all those systems that rely on precision location data would fail.

The problem is that you expect us to take your Round Earth coordinate system as face value accurate truth. That would be silly of us. If we assume that Round Earth lat/lon is true then we might as well just assume that the earth is round.

My car GPS successfully takes me to a location, based on coordinates, without me needing to know how much distance I actually traveled, or if the lat/lon prediction was correct. I do not see why you believe that airplanes would be any different.

What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 08:34:59 PM
Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

Since the GPS values were giving a wide range of answers we do not know which one is the most accurate, or how accurate they were, if the radar test was done on a Flat Earth.


But the radar still gives an accurate speed and that is what counts in this discussion.

If a mile is different under the two systems, and is dependant on how it is measured, that means mph is in error.

A mile is 5280 feet in any system.   But again, not relevant as the radar doesn't care at all if it is on a flat earth, a globe, in the air, pointing up or down.  All it knows it is sends out signals and gets them back to know the distance and how fast targets are moving.



Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 08:36:39 PM
What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate. We have already seen that multiple devices gave out wildly different values for the runners on a small track.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 08:38:39 PM
What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate.

Again, we agreed radar is accurate and was before GPS even came about.  Let's all just pretend GPS is invalid and go with radar speeds.  That way we can get the discussion back on track.  Deal?

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 08:41:14 PM
What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate.

Again, we agreed radar is accurate and was before GPS even came about.  Let's all just pretend GPS is invalid and go with radar speeds.  That way we can get the discussion back on track.  Deal?

I don't mind assuming that Radar is accurate.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 25, 2017, 08:42:20 PM
What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate. We have already seen that multiple devices gave out wildly different values for the runners on a small track.

As stated earlier in this thread, GPS accuracy compared to Doppler shift radar is not a requirement of my initial proofs.  All of my conclusions regarding the algebraic solutions for distance and the geometry calculations presented earlier in this thread are substantiated by the speed measurements as obtained by Doppler radar technology which has a tested margin of error of <1%.

Tom, please discuss.

Thank You

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 08:43:35 PM
As stated earlier in this thread, GPS accuracy compared to Doppler shift radar is not a requirement of my initial proofs.  All of my conclusions regarding the algebraic solutions for distance and the geometry calculations presented earlier in this thread are substantiated by the speed measurements as obtained by Doppler radar technology which has a tested margin of error of <1%.

Tom, please discuss.

Thank You

CriticalThinker

Your flight values are based on GPS being accurate.

You base the idea on GPS being accurate by that Radar vs GPS study.

The study is wrong because the devices give out a wide range of error and you are picking out the value that you like.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 25, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
As stated earlier in this thread, GPS accuracy compared to Doppler shift radar is not a requirement of my initial proofs.  All of my conclusions regarding the algebraic solutions for distance and the geometry calculations presented earlier in this thread are substantiated by the speed measurements as obtained by Doppler radar technology which has a tested margin of error of <1%.

Tom, please discuss.

Thank You

CriticalThinker

Your flight values are based on GPS being accurate.

No they are not.  Commercial airlines have both types of instrumentation.  Flight speeds are tracked using Doppler shift radar in addition to GPS, so the flight speeds remain valid under your constraints of a flat earth compatible system of measurement.

Please discuss any of the other points of my initial hypothesis, assumptions or conclusions.  The accuracy of speed data is no longer a valid dismissal as it is obtained using a flat earth compatible measurement system simultaneously with GPS.

Thank You

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 08:51:31 PM
What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate.

Again, we agreed radar is accurate and was before GPS even came about.  Let's all just pretend GPS is invalid and go with radar speeds.  That way we can get the discussion back on track.  Deal?

I don't mind assuming that Radar is accurate.

Good, that's reasonable.  Let me ask if you think it's reasonable to accept the published cruise speeds of filed flight plans?  All airline flights have publicly available flight plans with the planned cruise speeds.  Flight times can vary based on pattern traffic so some amount of error must be allowed for using published data.   What would you think an allowable error would be?  5% would seem reasonable to me over a large number of flights.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 25, 2017, 10:21:48 PM
As stated earlier in this thread, GPS accuracy compared to Doppler shift radar is not a requirement of my initial proofs.  All of my conclusions regarding the algebraic solutions for distance and the geometry calculations presented earlier in this thread are substantiated by the speed measurements as obtained by Doppler radar technology which has a tested margin of error of <1%.

Tom, please discuss.

Thank You

CriticalThinker

Your flight values are based on GPS being accurate.

You base the idea on GPS being accurate by that Radar vs GPS study.

The study is wrong because the devices give out a wide range of error and you are picking out the value that you like.
Source of the study please.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: pedant on August 25, 2017, 10:37:12 PM
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.
...
Therefore the earth is flat.

Tom, do you believe spherical objects exist on earth?  Like basketballs, for example?  If so, then take a fully inflated basketball (standard circumference 75 cm) and measure the distance from a point on top to its "equator."  Should be 18.75 cm.
Next, measure 1/4 away around along the ball's "equator."  Again should be 18.75 cm.
Finally, measure back up to the "pole" where you started.  Same thing: 18.75 cm.

Now, take those measurements and plug them into the SSS triangle calculator you mentioned earlier.

A: _____
B: _____
C: _____

What angles do you get, and do they add up to 180º?  More?  Less?  Therefore the basketball is flat?

Lastly, measure the angles on the line you traced out on the basketball.  Do they equal the angles quoted from that website?  Are they each ~90º?  Does 3 * 90 = 180?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 05:56:45 AM
What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate. We have already seen that multiple devices gave out wildly different values for the runners on a small track.

Modern commercial GPS units are limited (deliberately, in fact) to about 10' of precision.   On something as small as a running track, an error of 10 feet is a hell of a lot.  On something like a long haul airline flight, an error of 10 feet is  negligible.

So (as usual) your complete inability to work out even the most basic concepts and research the background to the things you say leads you astray.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tau on August 26, 2017, 06:03:02 AM
What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate. We have already seen that multiple devices gave out wildly different values for the runners on a small track.

Modern commercial GPS units are limited (deliberately, in fact) to about 10' of precision.   On something as small as a running track, an error of 10 feet is a hell of a lot.  On something like a long haul airline flight, an error of 10 feet is  negligible.

So (as usual) your complete inability to work out even the most basic concepts and research the background to the things you say leads you astray.

You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 08:08:51 AM
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 08:21:21 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.
...
Therefore the earth is flat.
...
Now, take those measurements and plug them into the SSS triangle calculator you mentioned earlier

Tom is confused (or highly disingenuous) - ANY three distances that form a connected triangle can have angles that add to 180 degrees on a flat surface or to some other values on a curved surface...DUH!   So you can't prove anything using distances and triangles.  Tom (presumably) knows this - and hopes we're not smart enough to realize it.

The point I'm making in this thread is to use QUADRILATERALS.

You can form any four distances into a quadrilateral too - BUT when you can't do it if you measure the two diagonals.   Given six distances between four points you can tell for 100% sure whether the quadrilteral is flat or not.   So by taking distances between four suitably distant points we can PROVE that they cannot possibly lie on a plane.   Hence the world is not flat.

So Tom can't rely on his hokey geometry ideas to allow his flat earth to exist.

His only resort is to dispute the distances we've looked up from airline websites.

When I point out that those distances are a perfect fit for the flight times and airplane cruise speeds, he disputes both.

When I point out that millions of passengers would complain if their "13 hour" flight took 28 hours every single time...we can deduce that the airline flight times are pretty good.

So his only remaining straw is to dispute the published cruise speeds of airplanes.

Since he doesn't actually know how those are calculated, he naively presumes that the airplane manufacturers use  test pilot and a stop watch...or GPS.   Neither of these things are true...but that was his last straw...so now we know he's wrong.

(And then he accused my daughter of being an "untrustworthy murderer"...so...we may judge how desperate he's becoming).

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 26, 2017, 02:23:55 PM
This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tau on August 26, 2017, 03:03:10 PM
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.

Hasn't been my experience. Maybe the people who wrote those documents are trying to sell you something?

This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

You people are obsessed
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 26, 2017, 03:33:11 PM


You people are obsessed



Not really.  What this place provides is a landscape full of thought exercises.   It lets people dust off skills that in many cases are long unused, geometry is an example of that in my case.   It also keeps you thinking about ways to get around the silly roadblocks that are thrown up. 

The distance threads are the best, most easily proven (math does not lie) and why most FE'ers have stayed away.  The really silly NASA conspiracies, bible quotes, ships and the horizon, etc. are barely worth reading but are much easier for the FE'ers to argue.

Bottom line is no one is going to change anybody's mind here but in my opinion, fanatical minds are a fascinating study.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tau on August 26, 2017, 03:41:08 PM


You people are obsessed



Not really.  What this place provides is a landscape full of thought exercises.   It lets people dust off skills that in many cases are long unused, geometry is an example of that in my case.   It also keeps you thinking about ways to get around the silly roadblocks that are thrown up. 

The distance threads are the best, most easily proven (math does not lie) and why most FE'ers have stayed away.  The really silly NASA conspiracies, bible quotes, ships and the horizon, etc. are barely worth reading but are much easier for the FE'ers to argue.

Bottom line is no one is going to change anybody's mind here but in my opinion, fanatical minds are a fascinating study.

When you've been here longer, you'll start to realize that every question has been asked before. It's very uncommon for someone to start a thread in the upper fora that we can't at least predict the first couple pages of. You learn to pick your battles. I try to avoid conspiracy threads- I find them tedious. I'd imagine Tom feels similarly about geometry threads (and I can't blame him).

As for no one changing anyone's mind, it's not like we were all raised as FE'ers. People get converted sometimes. I was converted. It's what we live for on these fora.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 26, 2017, 03:48:09 PM
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.

Hasn't been my experience. Maybe the people who wrote those documents are trying to sell you something?

This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

You people are obsessed

I am obsessed with following the rules of the scientific method and adhering to polite standards of logical debate, thank you for noticing.

I believe that we keep bringing back up the point of geometry because it proves that the surface of the earth can't be planar through mathematics.  Tom has attempted to steer the attention away from this by using GPS accuracy as a red herring and so far refuses to debate on the rest of the proofs provided.

To briefly summarize my first post.

I established that:

1. That airline flight times are measured accurately with standardized timepieces that do not assume a globed or flat earth.
2. That flight speed can be measured accurately relative to ground speed using Doppler shift radar which also does not assume a globed or flat earth.
3. That speed is defined as Distance/Time and therefore using flight times and speeds we could algebraically solve for distance in under a 5% margin of error without assuming a flat or globed earth.
4. That the distances between the 4 cities used in the initial geometry proof are valid as aircraft speeds are tracked by both GPS and Radar which fits the initial stipulation that all data points had to be valid without the assumption of latitude and longitude accuracy.

Doppler shift radar is accurate within 1% margin of error in measuring flight speed over both short and long distance.

At this point, unless there is a way to disprove the existence of time, distance or speed then we have met all of Tom Bishop's demands and would like him to address it fully.  It is geometrically impossible for the earth to be flat.  It must be either concave or convex and based on my casual observance, it's not concave.

GPS accuracy, quite frankly, doesn't matter in this proof.  It doesn't invalidate the other device used to track flight speed.

Tom, Tsunami and any other flat earth believers are welcomed and encouraged to engage me in any portion of my hypothesis and research other than GPS accuracy.  I have politely and faithfully met all of the other demands placed upon this proof.  It is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tau on August 26, 2017, 04:06:51 PM
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.

Hasn't been my experience. Maybe the people who wrote those documents are trying to sell you something?

This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

You people are obsessed

I am obsessed with following the rules of the scientific method and adhering to polite standards of logical debate, thank you for noticing.

I believe that we keep bringing back up the point of geometry because it proves that the surface of the earth can't be planar through mathematics.  Tom has attempted to steer the attention away from this by using GPS accuracy as a red herring and so far refuses to debate on the rest of the proofs provided.

To briefly summarize my first post.

I established that:

1. That airline flight times are measured accurately with standardized timepieces that do not assume a globed or flat earth.
2. That flight speed can be measured accurately relative to ground speed using Doppler shift radar which also does not assume a globed or flat earth.
3. That speed is defined as Distance/Time and therefore using flight times and speeds we could algebraically solve for distance in under a 5% margin of error without assuming a flat or globed earth.
4. That the distances between the 4 cities used in the initial geometry proof are valid as aircraft speeds are tracked by both GPS and Radar which fits the initial stipulation that all data points had to be valid without the assumption of latitude and longitude accuracy.

Doppler shift radar is accurate within 1% margin of error in measuring flight speed over both short and long distance.

At this point, unless there is a way to disprove the existence of time, distance or speed then we have met all of Tom Bishop's demands and would like him to address it fully.  It is geometrically impossible for the earth to be flat.  It must be either concave or convex and based on my casual observance, it's not concave.

GPS accuracy, quite frankly, doesn't matter in this proof.  It doesn't invalidate the other device used to track flight speed.

Tom, Tsunami and any other flat earth believers are welcomed and encouraged to engage me in any portion of my hypothesis and research other than GPS accuracy.  I have politely and faithfully met all of the other demands placed upon this proof.  It is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Dear CriticalThinker,

Thank you for your kind response. I'd be happy to address your initial points if you'd like.

Imagine, if you will, a great whirlpool. This whirlpool has a diameter the same as, or perhaps even larger than, that of the our Plane. Within this whirlpool float the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Planets (alongside other cosmic phenomena). Now, such a large whirlpool does not work as simply as the one in your sink. You can think of it more like the storms and layers of Jupiter. At various places along its width, it can be faster or slower and even change direction. All of this stems from the unique properties of aether and the fact that the Earth is spinning relative to the whirlwind.

Now, imagine (for the sake of analogy) that you are a scuba diver deep beneath Charybdis. You would feel the pulling and pushing of the monstrous whirlpool above you, no matter how deep you went, correct? Similarly, on Earth we feel a shadow of the aethric whirlpool. In effect this works similarly to the theorized jet stream of RET, except that depending on one's position it can provide acceleration in either direction. This is what you fail to account for in your calculations.

Sincerely,
Tau
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 26, 2017, 04:18:16 PM


You people are obsessed



Not really.  What this place provides is a landscape full of thought exercises.   It lets people dust off skills that in many cases are long unused, geometry is an example of that in my case.   It also keeps you thinking about ways to get around the silly roadblocks that are thrown up. 

The distance threads are the best, most easily proven (math does not lie) and why most FE'ers have stayed away.  The really silly NASA conspiracies, bible quotes, ships and the horizon, etc. are barely worth reading but are much easier for the FE'ers to argue.

Bottom line is no one is going to change anybody's mind here but in my opinion, fanatical minds are a fascinating study.

When you've been here longer, you'll start to realize that every question has been asked before. It's very uncommon for someone to start a thread in the upper fora that we can't at least predict the first couple pages of. You learn to pick your battles. I try to avoid conspiracy threads- I find them tedious. I'd imagine Tom feels similarly about geometry threads (and I can't blame him).

As for no one changing anyone's mind, it's not like we were all raised as FE'ers. People get converted sometimes. I was converted. It's what we live for on these fora.

I agree the same questions have been asked over and over.  But there are questions that are indeed asked many times but never answered.   For example, I have never seen a credible answer to the problem with southern hemisphere flight times and distances.  A few weak stabs like jet streams, people don't know distances, the speeds are not valid, fake and canceled flights,  etc.   But bottom line is that it's a huge problem if you believe the world is flat.

You seem like a reasonable person.  Why is there no official map?   A rough draft could be sketched out using known distances.   Do you wonder what it would look like?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 26, 2017, 04:22:15 PM
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.

Hasn't been my experience. Maybe the people who wrote those documents are trying to sell you something?

This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

You people are obsessed

I am obsessed with following the rules of the scientific method and adhering to polite standards of logical debate, thank you for noticing.

I believe that we keep bringing back up the point of geometry because it proves that the surface of the earth can't be planar through mathematics.  Tom has attempted to steer the attention away from this by using GPS accuracy as a red herring and so far refuses to debate on the rest of the proofs provided.

To briefly summarize my first post.

I established that:

1. That airline flight times are measured accurately with standardized timepieces that do not assume a globed or flat earth.
2. That flight speed can be measured accurately relative to ground speed using Doppler shift radar which also does not assume a globed or flat earth.
3. That speed is defined as Distance/Time and therefore using flight times and speeds we could algebraically solve for distance in under a 5% margin of error without assuming a flat or globed earth.
4. That the distances between the 4 cities used in the initial geometry proof are valid as aircraft speeds are tracked by both GPS and Radar which fits the initial stipulation that all data points had to be valid without the assumption of latitude and longitude accuracy.

Doppler shift radar is accurate within 1% margin of error in measuring flight speed over both short and long distance.

At this point, unless there is a way to disprove the existence of time, distance or speed then we have met all of Tom Bishop's demands and would like him to address it fully.  It is geometrically impossible for the earth to be flat.  It must be either concave or convex and based on my casual observance, it's not concave.

GPS accuracy, quite frankly, doesn't matter in this proof.  It doesn't invalidate the other device used to track flight speed.

Tom, Tsunami and any other flat earth believers are welcomed and encouraged to engage me in any portion of my hypothesis and research other than GPS accuracy.  I have politely and faithfully met all of the other demands placed upon this proof.  It is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Dear CriticalThinker,

Thank you for your kind response. I'd be happy to address your initial points if you'd like.

Imagine, if you will, a great whirlpool. This whirlpool has a diameter the same as, or perhaps even larger than, that of the our Plane. Within this whirlpool float the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Planets (alongside other cosmic phenomena). Now, such a large whirlpool does not work as simply as the one in your sink. You can think of it more like the storms and layers of Jupiter. At various places along its width, it can be faster or slower and even change direction. All of this stems from the unique properties of aether and the fact that the Earth is spinning relative to the whirlwind.

Now, imagine (for the sake of analogy) that you are a scuba diver deep beneath Charybdis. You would feel the pulling and pushing of the monstrous whirlpool above you, no matter how deep you went, correct? Similarly, on Earth we feel a shadow of the aethric whirlpool. In effect this works similarly to the theorized jet stream of RET, except that depending on one's position it can provide acceleration in either direction. This is what you fail to account for in your calculations.

Sincerely,
Tau

Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tau on August 26, 2017, 04:31:35 PM
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 26, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tau on August 26, 2017, 04:43:17 PM
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

I am saying that it is not simply to calculate distance based on flight times, because actual speeds are dramatically altered by the Shadow of the Aethric Wind
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 26, 2017, 04:49:42 PM


Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Am I to understand then that no such instrument currently exists to prove the existence or effect of Aether on the physical world?  If so, I find that highly convenient to you and it leaves me at a distinct disadvantage.  I was required to prove the existence of devices that accurately measured the variables in question.  You're claiming the existence of another variable that I haven't taken into consideration, however, if it can't be measured, how can you provide evidence of its existence?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?

I am sorry for any confusion or miscommunication.  I will separate my question into smaller more well defined questions.
1. Is the Aether a constant or variable force?  (Like gravity vs wind)
2. Does Aether uniformly affect the world like your whirlpool example would affect my whole body and everything else in at the same time?
3. Using your whirlpool example as a size analogy, would there be a significant difference on the effects of aether between two very close points relative to the whole pool?  (If my body is representative of a flat earth, would the water in the whirlpool have a significantly different impact on two different fingers on the same hand?)

Thank you,

CriticalThinker


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 26, 2017, 05:09:22 PM
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

I am saying that it is not simply to calculate distance based on flight times, because actual speeds are dramatically altered by the Shadow of the Aethric Wind
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 26, 2017, 05:15:41 PM
Tau,

Furthermore, would the effects of Aether be mathematically reducible to 0 in the event that fight times and speeds were repeatable on different dates within the aforementioned margins of error?  As an example, if Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- acceleration due to Aether (A) we could postulate that the distance is a known value within a confidence interval provided that speeds and times were repeated. 

On shorter distance flights within a single continent, distance is a known value measured by physical measuring devices that do not rely on a globed earth assumption so we could take 2 different non stop flights between cities within say Australia on different dates and solve for the variable Aether as such: +/- A = (Speed*Time)/Distance.  This would create both an upper and lower bound for margin of error due to the variable Aetherial Wind.

Would this be an acceptable methodology of accounting for the missing variable in my first series of equations?

Thank You

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tau on August 26, 2017, 05:26:24 PM
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

I am saying that it is not simply to calculate distance based on flight times, because actual speeds are dramatically altered by the Shadow of the Aethric Wind
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tau on August 26, 2017, 05:29:24 PM
Tau,

Furthermore, would the effects of Aether be mathematically reducible to 0 in the event that fight times and speeds were repeatable on different dates within the aforementioned margins of error?  As an example, if Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- acceleration due to Aether (A) we could postulate that the distance is a known value within a confidence interval provided that speeds and times were repeated. 

On shorter distance flights within a single continent, distance is a known value measured by physical measuring devices that do not rely on a globed earth assumption so we could take 2 different non stop flights between cities within say Australia on different dates and solve for the variable Aether as such: +/- A = (Speed*Time)/Distance.  This would create both an upper and lower bound for margin of error due to the variable Aetherial Wind.

Would this be an acceptable methodology of accounting for the missing variable in my first series of equations?

Thank You

CriticalThinker

I would caution you against assuming that measuring devices like sonar and radar don't take the Earth's shape into account. These devices need to be calibrated, after all. If one calibrates them with the assumption that the Earth is round, but using data from a flat Earth, then one has effectively created a device which converts flat Earth data into round Earth data.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Rounder on August 26, 2017, 05:41:21 PM
They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.
TL;DR: there's no such thing as a "flat earth mile" vs a "round earth mile".  The mile is the distance covered by light traveling in a vacuum in the time span of 49,347.828 "ticks" of the atomic clock.

Long version: The mile was standardised at exactly 1,609.344 metres by international agreement in 1959.

So what is a meter?  Is it defined by a round earth feature?  Well, it used to be: originally the meter was one ten-millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator.  Several refinements later, the meter is now defined in terms of the second and the speed of light: the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. 

So what is a second?  Maybe it is defined by a round earth feature?  No, but it briefly was, between periods before and after where it was not.  From antiquity, time was measured against the day/night cycle, which is observational rather than theoretical.  (By which I mean that no matter what shape you think the earth is, we can all agree on the observed timing of the exact moment the sun is/appears to be at its zenith.)  The second became measurable with the advent of mechanical timekeeping (clocks) accurate enough to keep good time, and in the 1670s the spread of the grandfather clock effectively defined the second as 1/60th of the minute.  In 1862 the second was formally defined as 1/86,400 of the mean solar day, which was carried into the metric system when it was adopted.  Then, for nine brief years beginning in 1956, the second became tied to the round earth when it was defined as the fraction  1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.  I say "tied to the round earth" because nobody had measured the length of that year, it was calculated from heliocentric theory and the observed length of the contemporary year.  By this point, however, it was well known that the earth's rotation is not a constant over time, and is thus a poor standard against which to measure time.  So the atomic clock was born, and in 1967 the second was defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 26, 2017, 05:43:14 PM
Tau,

Furthermore, would the effects of Aether be mathematically reducible to 0 in the event that fight times and speeds were repeatable on different dates within the aforementioned margins of error?  As an example, if Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- acceleration due to Aether (A) we could postulate that the distance is a known value within a confidence interval provided that speeds and times were repeated. 

On shorter distance flights within a single continent, distance is a known value measured by physical measuring devices that do not rely on a globed earth assumption so we could take 2 different non stop flights between cities within say Australia on different dates and solve for the variable Aether as such: +/- A = (Speed*Time)/Distance.  This would create both an upper and lower bound for margin of error due to the variable Aetherial Wind.

Would this be an acceptable methodology of accounting for the missing variable in my first series of equations?

Thank You

CriticalThinker

I would caution you against assuming that measuring devices like sonar and radar don't take the Earth's shape into account. These devices need to be calibrated, after all. If one calibrates them with the assumption that the Earth is round, but using data from a flat Earth, then one has effectively created a device which converts flat Earth data into round Earth data.

Tau,

You are very correct in your caution.  Doppler shift radar was specifically chosen because it does not assume a globed earth.  Electromagnetic waves at a known frequency are sent straight forwards from the device and some of them will be bounced back by the target.  The time difference between the echo of each successive wave is compared to the previous one which provides the variable distance traveled which is then divided by the constant time intervals created by the frequency of the wave.  Distance divided by time provides us with the data point speed.  They are calibrated using a metered track and stopwatch.  Before being employed by police and researchers, their accuracy/repeatability on a flat plane is measured against these flat earth compatible systems of measurement and only units capable of staying within a 1% margin of error are used.

This was covered in my very first post on this thread, along with a peer reviewed article that substantiates its accuracy and validity in measuring flight speed relative to ground speed.

I still have many unanswered questions re: Aether, that I hope you will find the time and inclination to answer.  In order for me to fully understand your philosophical world view, these are details which are very important.

Thank you,

Critical Thinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 26, 2017, 05:52:02 PM
They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.
TL;DR: there's no such thing as a "flat earth mile" vs a "round earth mile".  The mile is the distance covered by light traveling in a vacuum in the time span of 49,347.828 "ticks" of the atomic clock.

Long version: The mile was standardised at exactly 1,609.344 metres by international agreement in 1959.

So what is a meter?  Is it defined by a round earth feature?  Well, it used to be: originally the meter was one ten-millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator.  Several refinements later, the meter is now defined in terms of the second and the speed of light: the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. 

So what is a second?  Maybe it is defined by a round earth feature?  No, but it briefly was, between periods before and after where it was not.  From antiquity, time was measured against the day/night cycle, which is observational rather than theoretical.  (By which I mean that no matter what shape you think the earth is, we can all agree on the observed timing of the exact moment the sun is/appears to be at its zenith.)  The second became measurable with the advent of mechanical timekeeping (clocks) accurate enough to keep good time, and in the 1670s the spread of the grandfather clock effectively defined the second as 1/60th of the minute.  In 1862 the second was formally defined as 1/86,400 of the mean solar day, which was carried into the metric system when it was adopted.  Then, for nine brief years beginning in 1956, the second became tied to the round earth when it was defined as the fraction  1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.  I say "tied to the round earth" because nobody had measured the length of that year, it was calculated from heliocentric theory and the observed length of the contemporary year.  By this point, however, it was well known that the earth's rotation is not a constant over time, and is thus a poor standard against which to measure time.  So the atomic clock was born, and in 1967 the second was defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom

Thank you for the well placed backup to this discussion.  As both time and distance are currently variables that do not require a globed earth assumption, devices calibrated to measure speed after these two variables were standardized would fit the initial requirements set forth by Tom Bishop.  Tom was initially unhappy about the reported variability of modern GPS accuracy and challenged its face value as a methodology of measuring speed due to its basis on latitude and longitude.  The Doppler shift effect was chosen as a flat earth compatible system of measuring speed so that the speed and time data supplied by airlines would meet all of Tom's criteria for acceptance.  Since then, Tom has been suspiciously absent and has systematically ignored the majority of my responses or questions.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 26, 2017, 05:57:48 PM
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.
I'm sorry, what? Could you tl;dr that for me or something? I've never, ever heard speculation that we don't know whether the jet stream is real or not. Color me curious.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 26, 2017, 06:06:30 PM
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.
I'm sorry, what? Could you tl;dr that for me or something? I've never, ever heard speculation that we don't know whether the jet stream is real or not. Color me curious.

A few pages back 3dGeek, Inquisitor and myself used geometry as a proof that the Earth couldn't be a flat plane.  Airline flight time, speed and distance for nonstop flights was used as the data for the geometry calculations.  Tom Bishop called into question the variables distance and speed because he felt that GPS was too inaccurate and that Lat/Long was not valid on a flat Earth.  In response I provided evidence that speed of flight could be accurately calculated using Doppler Radar and that using algebra, you could solve for distance which backed up the original geometry proof.

Tau then claimed that the Aetherial wind was another variable that I had failed to take into account for my calculations along the lines of Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- Aether.

The claim is that Aether is a celestial force that affects all planets, stars etc but is somehow immeasurable.

That's the abridged version.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 06:28:48 PM
That's the abridged version.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Thanks for the summary - after 14 pages of posts, it's about time for that!

The Jet/Aetheric stream cannot be doing the magical things the FE'ers are guessing it does (they must be guessing because for 100% sure they didn't measure anything...so much for the "Zetetic method"!).

Why?  Because the flight time from Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile is only 10 minutes different from the flight time from Santiago Chile to Sydney Australia...since that's a 13 hour flight - the typical effects of these "streams" are of the order of 1% or so of the airplane's speed along that route.

It's greater on some other routes - but still nowhere close to enough to account for the inconsistencies we see in FE distance/flight times.

This was carefully explained at the top of this thread - so FE'ers with short memories need to go back and re-read that stuff.

Our resident airline pilot also chimed in on that one, explaining that the there-and-back flight times don't vary that much.

Bear in mind that we're not looking at small errors here.   We're looking at VERY large discrepancies between the reported flight times (and therefore distances) and what you'd expect if you used FE maps.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 26, 2017, 06:57:37 PM
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.
I'm sorry, what? Could you tl;dr that for me or something? I've never, ever heard speculation that we don't know whether the jet stream is real or not. Color me curious.

A few pages back 3dGeek, Inquisitor and myself used geometry as a proof that the Earth couldn't be a flat plane.  Airline flight time, speed and distance for nonstop flights was used as the data for the geometry calculations.  Tom Bishop called into question the variables distance and speed because he felt that GPS was too inaccurate and that Lat/Long was not valid on a flat Earth.  In response I provided evidence that speed of flight could be accurately calculated using Doppler Radar and that using algebra, you could solve for distance which backed up the original geometry proof.

Tau then claimed that the Aetherial wind was another variable that I had failed to take into account for my calculations along the lines of Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- Aether.

The claim is that Aether is a celestial force that affects all planets, stars etc but is somehow immeasurable.

That's the abridged version.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Sorry, should have been more clear on what I was asking of him. Been reading and contributing since the start, but I was really curious about his comment that "Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real" and how he could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 07:14:04 PM
Sorry, should have been more clear on what I was asking of him. Been reading and contributing since the start, but I was really curious about his comment that "Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real" and how he could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.

Yeah - that's weird.  According to Wikipedia, the Jet stream has been actively used by airlines since 1952.   They are very aware of where it is, what altitude it's at and the speed it's going at any given time.

The speed difference is typically about 50 to 60 mph...and it only blows west-to-east.

This can't possibly explain the discrepancies in the FE models.  On the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, the FE maps that I've seen demand airplane speeds in excess of Mach 2....IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.   So not possible.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 28, 2017, 01:29:22 PM
Sorry, should have been more clear on what I was asking of him. Been reading and contributing since the start, but I was really curious about his comment that "Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real" and how he could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.

Yeah - that's weird.  According to Wikipedia, the Jet stream has been actively used by airlines since 1952.   They are very aware of where it is, what altitude it's at and the speed it's going at any given time.

The speed difference is typically about 50 to 60 mph...and it only blows west-to-east.

This can't possibly explain the discrepancies in the FE models.  On the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, the FE maps that I've seen demand airplane speeds in excess of Mach 2....IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.   So not possible.

It appears that this thread is being abandoned by the flat earth community members.  Only a couple of members engaged in the conversation and it's not their job to do it.  I would hope that others would join in to support their cause by evaluating the evidence.  Perhaps Zeteticism isn't widely practiced within the FE community.

Thank you

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: StinkyOne on August 28, 2017, 01:53:06 PM
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

I am saying that it is not simply to calculate distance based on flight times, because actual speeds are dramatically altered by the Shadow of the Aethric Wind
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.

Is there any evidence of this Aetheric Whirlpool? I know that science has toyed around with the idea of an Aether since Newton, but the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there was no Aetheric wind. Numerous other experiments have been performed which also failed to find any evidence of an Aether.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 29, 2017, 11:55:15 AM
Is there any evidence of this Aetheric Whirlpool? I know that science has toyed around with the idea of an Aether since Newton, but the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there was no Aetheric wind. Numerous other experiments have been performed which also failed to find any evidence of an Aether.

I agree - but even if such a thing existed, to account for the mach 2.1 flight speed of the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, it would have to be MONUMENTALLY important to the airline community - and you could be assured that it would have been mapped and understood long ago...just as the Jet Stream was.

The other problem with "natural phenomena" like this in FET is that somehow they ALWAYS wind up changing things so that the Flat Earth looks PERFECTLY like a Round Earth to every possible experiment!

So why would it be that this "Aetheric Wind" would blow in ways to precisely alter airline flight speeds to match what they'd have to be if the Earth was round?!?

Wouldn't that be the most astounding of coincidences?

Add that to how sun, moon, 'shadow object', stars, planets, etc seem to drift around with a complex choreography that just HAPPENS to match the way they'd look if the Earth was round - and you'd have to come to the conclusion that the laws of physics are conspiring (just like NASA) to fake the otherwise overwhelming experience of a round Earth.

No matter how clever the FE explanations become - no matter whether they did manage to paper over all of the cracks that are reported here - ultimately, their laws of physics would be so insanely complex as to be a demonstration in themselves that the world must be round because laws of nature are NEVER that complicated.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 29, 2017, 03:07:45 PM
Is there any evidence of this Aetheric Whirlpool? I know that science has toyed around with the idea of an Aether since Newton, but the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there was no Aetheric wind. Numerous other experiments have been performed which also failed to find any evidence of an Aether.

I agree - but even if such a thing existed, to account for the mach 2.1 flight speed of the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, it would have to be MONUMENTALLY important to the airline community - and you could be assured that it would have been mapped and understood long ago...just as the Jet Stream was.

The other problem with "natural phenomena" like this in FET is that somehow they ALWAYS wind up changing things so that the Flat Earth looks PERFECTLY like a Round Earth to every possible experiment!

So why would it be that this "Aetheric Wind" would blow in ways to precisely alter airline flight speeds to match what they'd have to be if the Earth was round?!?

Wouldn't that be the most astounding of coincidences?

Add that to how sun, moon, 'shadow object', stars, planets, etc seem to drift around with a complex choreography that just HAPPENS to match the way they'd look if the Earth was round - and you'd have to come to the conclusion that the laws of physics are conspiring (just like NASA) to fake the otherwise overwhelming experience of a round Earth.

No matter how clever the FE explanations become - no matter whether they did manage to paper over all of the cracks that are reported here - ultimately, their laws of physics would be so insanely complex as to be a demonstration in themselves that the world must be round because laws of nature are NEVER that complicated.


And even more bizarre is the whirlpool seems to act in both directions at once.  There are  2 planes in the air right now that are going between SANTIAGO, CHILE and AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND going opposite directions.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2017, 03:12:18 PM
Is there any evidence of this Aetheric Whirlpool? I know that science has toyed around with the idea of an Aether since Newton, but the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there was no Aetheric wind. Numerous other experiments have been performed which also failed to find any evidence of an Aether.

I agree - but even if such a thing existed, to account for the mach 2.1 flight speed of the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, it would have to be MONUMENTALLY important to the airline community - and you could be assured that it would have been mapped and understood long ago...just as the Jet Stream was.

The other problem with "natural phenomena" like this in FET is that somehow they ALWAYS wind up changing things so that the Flat Earth looks PERFECTLY like a Round Earth to every possible experiment!

So why would it be that this "Aetheric Wind" would blow in ways to precisely alter airline flight speeds to match what they'd have to be if the Earth was round?!?

Wouldn't that be the most astounding of coincidences?

Add that to how sun, moon, 'shadow object', stars, planets, etc seem to drift around with a complex choreography that just HAPPENS to match the way they'd look if the Earth was round - and you'd have to come to the conclusion that the laws of physics are conspiring (just like NASA) to fake the otherwise overwhelming experience of a round Earth.

No matter how clever the FE explanations become - no matter whether they did manage to paper over all of the cracks that are reported here - ultimately, their laws of physics would be so insanely complex as to be a demonstration in themselves that the world must be round because laws of nature are NEVER that complicated.


And even more bizarre is the whirlpool seems to act in both directions at once.  There are  2 planes in the air right now that are going between SANTIAGO, CHILE and AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND going opposite directions.

Why are you trying to combat a map that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has put work into creating?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Rounder on August 29, 2017, 03:26:13 PM
Why are you trying to combat a map that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has put work into creating?
Because it's all your team has provided us.  It should be super easy to produce a flat map of the flat earth.  Somebody should get on that.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 29, 2017, 03:43:11 PM
Is there any evidence of this Aetheric Whirlpool? I know that science has toyed around with the idea of an Aether since Newton, but the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there was no Aetheric wind. Numerous other experiments have been performed which also failed to find any evidence of an Aether.

I agree - but even if such a thing existed, to account for the mach 2.1 flight speed of the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, it would have to be MONUMENTALLY important to the airline community - and you could be assured that it would have been mapped and understood long ago...just as the Jet Stream was.

The other problem with "natural phenomena" like this in FET is that somehow they ALWAYS wind up changing things so that the Flat Earth looks PERFECTLY like a Round Earth to every possible experiment!

So why would it be that this "Aetheric Wind" would blow in ways to precisely alter airline flight speeds to match what they'd have to be if the Earth was round?!?

Wouldn't that be the most astounding of coincidences?

Add that to how sun, moon, 'shadow object', stars, planets, etc seem to drift around with a complex choreography that just HAPPENS to match the way they'd look if the Earth was round - and you'd have to come to the conclusion that the laws of physics are conspiring (just like NASA) to fake the otherwise overwhelming experience of a round Earth.

No matter how clever the FE explanations become - no matter whether they did manage to paper over all of the cracks that are reported here - ultimately, their laws of physics would be so insanely complex as to be a demonstration in themselves that the world must be round because laws of nature are NEVER that complicated.


And even more bizarre is the whirlpool seems to act in both directions at once.  There are  2 planes in the air right now that are going between SANTIAGO, CHILE and AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND going opposite directions.

Why are you trying to combat a map that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has put work into creating?

Because it's the only one we have to work with. I need an accurate FE map so that I can see the edge myself. You claim it's there but have thus far provided me evidence to back your claim.

Thank You,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 29, 2017, 04:16:53 PM
Why are you trying to combat a map that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has put work into creating?
Because it's all your team has provided us.  It should be super easy to produce a flat map of the flat earth.  Somebody should get on that.

I am on that.   It's really pretty simple using distances that Tom agrees are valid.  Speed * duration = distance.  Aircraft speeds are determined by radar so there should be no problem.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2017, 05:02:33 PM
Aircraft speeds are determined by radar

Evidence?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 29, 2017, 05:28:21 PM
Aircraft speeds are determined by radar

Evidence?

Here are some 787 Flight Test radar data results.

http://www.airinformatics.com/787za005.html

A few more here

https://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+787+test+flight+radar+data&ei=DaClWYuRCIu2jwSw2p_oDw&start=10&sa=N&biw=1920&bih=950


Funny thing about companies spending billions on airplanes is that they don't just take the word of Boeing, but they rely on FAA radar data.  Note that it even says that there are gaps in the data due to flight plans.


On top of that, air traffic control monitors the speed and altitude of all airliners (as well as GA).   You can listen to them live if you like.  They routinely tell pilots to climb or descend, maintain a heading, an altitude, and a get this, a speed!  Imagine that, they can see in real time how fast a plane is moving.  This is not a mystery.   Aircraft speeds are very well known.   


You can see live radar data here.  Click on a plane and be amazed.  Note the ground speeds.

https://www.flightradar24.com


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 29, 2017, 05:57:01 PM
Aircraft speeds are determined by radar

Evidence?
Maybe you could explain how you would calculate aircraft speeds, plus determine the shape and size of the earth.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 29, 2017, 06:04:01 PM
Evidence ? :

I am an FAA retiree (radio, radar and computer technician) so I have been out of it for about it for 17 years now so technology may have advanced a bit since then. LOL

But back at the Fort Worth, Texas Air Route Traffic Control Center, each Air Traffic Controller controlled a small "Sector" of the air space and his radar display showed him the aircraft identifier, its altitude, speed, course and othper information.Radio communication was on frequencies in the 108 to 137 MHZ range , at that time I believe.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: StinkyOne on August 29, 2017, 06:07:44 PM
Aircraft speeds are determined by radar

Evidence?

Here are some 787 Flight Test radar data results.

http://www.airinformatics.com/787za005.html

A few more here

https://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+787+test+flight+radar+data&ei=DaClWYuRCIu2jwSw2p_oDw&start=10&sa=N&biw=1920&bih=950


Funny thing about companies spending billions on airplanes is that they don't just take the word of Boeing, but they rely on FAA radar data.  Note that it even says that there are gaps in the data due to flight plans.


On top of that, air traffic control monitors the speed and altitude of all airliners (as well as GA).   You can listen to them live if you like.  They routinely tell pilots to climb or descend, maintain a heading, an altitude, and a get this, a speed!  Imagine that, they can see in real time how fast a plane is moving.  This is not a mystery.   Aircraft speeds are very well known.   


You can see live radar data here.  Click on a plane and be amazed.  Note the ground speeds.

https://www.flightradar24.com

I'm into aviation and there is a semi-funny story about ground speed checks and the SR-71. A Cessna asks ground control for a speed check, which is kind of a no-no. I mean, it's a Cessna... 90 knots across the ground. Shortly after that, a Navy F-18 asks for his ground speed, showing the Cessna up. 620 knots. An SR-71 in the region heard this and the radio operator decided to troll the F-18 and asked for his ground speed. 1843 knots across the ground.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 29, 2017, 06:21:17 PM
I am an FAA retiree (radio, radar and computer technician) so I have been out of it for about it for 17 years now so technology may have advanced a bit since then. LOL

But back at the Fort Worth, Texas Air Route Traffic Control Center, each Air Traffic Controller controlled a small "Sector" of the air space and his radar display showed him the aircraft identifier, its altitude, speed, course and other information.Radio communication was on frequencies in the 108 to 137 MHZ range , at that time I believe.

It always amazes me how much talent and knowledge the people that come on here have.    I have always been an aviation buff and got my fix via jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.  I made just over 950 jumps over 6 years in the 90's and 00's.  I am now in a study to go ahead and quit screwing around and learn to fly for real.  I am just hoping Tom Bishop will be around to help me calculate the real speed. Maybe a 150 will actually go fast enough to do some transcontinental flights if I catch that whirlpool just right.

Look at me, I was so high up you could see the curvature of the wing!

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 29, 2017, 10:06:52 PM
I am an FAA retiree (radio, radar and computer technician) so I have been out of it for about it for 17 years now so technology may have advanced a bit since then. LOL

But back at the Fort Worth, Texas Air Route Traffic Control Center, each Air Traffic Controller controlled a small "Sector" of the air space and his radar display showed him the aircraft identifier, its altitude, speed, course and other information.Radio communication was on frequencies in the 108 to 137 MHZ range , at that time I believe.

There are a LOT of ways to calculate airspeed and groundspeed.

Groundspeed is measurable by radar for sure - by time between stations - by doppler with radio flight beacons - by navigating waypoints that are visible on the ground - by GPS - by Loran...I'm pretty sure there are some dedicated aviation satellites who measure it that way too (I saw this on the documentary about that airliner that was mysteriously lost over the pacific).  Airspeed is measurable by pitot tubes and with known wind conditions, you can figure out ground speed from that too.

Sure - Tom can argue that one or other of these are incorrect - but for ALL of them to agree so well, they ALL have to be incorrect *AND* they all have to be incorrect by the same amounts over the same distances.

But actually - the cruising speed of an airliner is known LONG before the first one ever flies.   Before they even finish cutting and riveting metal.   Before the design of the airplane is even 50% complete.

The process of designing an airplane starts by asking the airlines who are planning to buy it what routes they plan to fly it on - what passenger/freight loads they need to carry - whether flight speed is more or less important than fuel efficiency - what the maintenance intervals for the engines must be - whether they are legally allowed to fly certain routes with just two engines.

ALL of that stuff gets put into massively complicated software - and out pops the rough form of the design.   Then they calculate drag coefficients, known engine data, etc.

Before the interior layout of the plane is even considered - all the issues of wing loading and engine mounting is finalized.

They know the performance of that airplane to the n'th degree at least two years before they finish the design - and three years before the plane goes into service.

There is absolutely ZERO possibility that they might "accidentally" have built a plane with a design cruise speed of 600 knots that actually flies at Mach 2.1 without anyone knowing about it.

This is a STUPID argument.

But Tom is desperate to win it because it's his last hope.

* We know flight times - and can easily prove they are correct.
* If we know flight speeds - then we can multiply them by the flight times and get RELIABLE flight distances.
* If we know distances - then we can demonstrate that the current FE maps are definitely incorrect...and not by a small margin.  AT LEAST 3:1 in some places.
* Furthermore we can apply my "quadrilateral cities" test to many, many sets of cities and prove - beyond all doubt that the world cannot possibly be flat NO MATTER WHAT MAP YOU CARE TO MAKE.

The only place where Tom believes he can defeat this robust chain of reasoning is the airplane flight speeds.

So he's currently trying every trick he knows (ha ha ha ha!) in a desperate effort to figure out why we're right and he's wrong.

Well...guess what?   Ain't happening.

But it gets even better than that:

Suppose Tom proves that all airplanes fly twice as fast as the manufacturers claim - or that GPS is in error by 20% all the time.

This doesn't help him one iota because the quadrilateral test still works even if all of the distances are half what they should be or twice what they should be.   Doesn't matter.

For Tom's flat earth to work, not only must the speeds of all aircraft be consistently mis-estimated by ALL of the available methods - they have to be mis-estimated by larger amounts in the southern hemisphere than the north, more on North/South routes than on East/West routes, much MUCH more over oceans than over land - and vastly more over the continents that he distorts the most to make things fit.

This is an utterly untenable position.

Tom is WRONG.

The world cannot possibly be flat - and unless he's a lot more stupid than I'm giving him credit for - he REALLY ought to have realized that by now.

So - this argument is won.  Clearly - comprehensively - and using only evidence that the FE'ers can't deny.

Sadly, the argument is a little drawn-out and complex - and simpler proofs would be nice to find.   I think "compass directions versus pole-star direction versus southern-cross direction" is a really nice one because it imposes a firm constraint on FE maps that prevents all of the existing maps from being correct AND (if you think about it carefully enough) it demonstrates (again) that no POSSIBLE FE map can be drawn that will solve these problems.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2017, 04:00:26 AM
There are a LOT of ways to calculate airspeed and groundspeed.

Groundspeed is measurable by radar for sure - by time between stations - by doppler with radio flight beacons - by navigating waypoints that are visible on the ground - by GPS - by Loran...I'm pretty sure there are some dedicated aviation satellites who measure it that way too (I saw this on the documentary about that airliner that was mysteriously lost over the pacific).  Airspeed is measurable by pitot tubes and with known wind conditions, you can figure out ground speed from that too.

Airspeed is unreliable and not used in navigation.

Ground speed is based on an external reference point, and is based on Round Earth coordinates.

Quote
Sure - Tom can argue that one or other of these are incorrect - but for ALL of them to agree so well, they ALL have to be incorrect *AND* they all have to be incorrect by the same amounts over the same distances.

No evidence has been presented that they "ALL agree so well".

Quote
But actually - the cruising speed of an airliner is known LONG before the first one ever flies.   Before they even finish cutting and riveting metal.   Before the design of the airplane is even 50% complete.

The process of designing an airplane starts by asking the airlines who are planning to buy it what routes they plan to fly it on - what passenger/freight loads they need to carry - whether flight speed is more or less important than fuel efficiency - what the maintenance intervals for the engines must be - whether they are legally allowed to fly certain routes with just two engines.

ALL of that stuff gets put into massively complicated software - and out pops the rough form of the design.   Then they calculate drag coefficients, known engine data, etc.

Before the interior layout of the plane is even considered - all the issues of wing loading and engine mounting is finalized.

They know the performance of that airplane to the n'th degree at least two years before they finish the design - and three years before the plane goes into service.

Since they are calculating based on Round Earth speeds of previous aircraft designs, what makes you think that they wouldn't estimate a Round Earth result?

Quote
There is absolutely ZERO possibility that they might "accidentally" have built a plane with a design cruise speed of 600 knots that actually flies at Mach 2.1 without anyone knowing about it.

This is a STUPID argument.

That is your argument that you seem to have made in your imagination. I agree.

Quote
* We know flight times - and can easily prove they are correct.
* If we know flight speeds - then we can multiply them by the flight times and get RELIABLE flight distances.
* If we know distances - then we can demonstrate that the current FE maps are definitely incorrect...and not by a small margin.  AT LEAST 3:1 in some places.
* Furthermore we can apply my "quadrilateral cities" test to many, many sets of cities and prove - beyond all doubt that the world cannot possibly be flat NO MATTER WHAT MAP YOU CARE TO MAKE.

The only place where Tom believes he can defeat this robust chain of reasoning is the airplane flight speeds.

So he's currently trying every trick he knows (ha ha ha ha!) in a desperate effort to figure out why we're right and he's wrong.

Well...guess what?   Ain't happening.

But it gets even better than that:

Suppose Tom proves that all airplanes fly twice as fast as the manufacturers claim - or that GPS is in error by 20% all the time.

This doesn't help him one iota because the quadrilateral test still works even if all of the distances are half what they should be or twice what they should be.   Doesn't matter.

For Tom's flat earth to work, not only must the speeds of all aircraft be consistently mis-estimated by ALL of the available methods - they have to be mis-estimated by larger amounts in the southern hemisphere than the north, more on North/South routes than on East/West routes, much MUCH more over oceans than over land - and vastly more over the continents that he distorts the most to make things fit.

This is an utterly untenable position.

What are you talking about, Southern Hemisphere? Why are you trying to argue on basis of a map and model used for visualization purposes only and which no one put work into creating? How do you know that there are not two poles?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 31, 2017, 04:20:05 AM
Evidence ? :

I am an FAA retiree (radio, radar and computer technician) so I have been out of it for about it for 17 years now so technology may have advanced a bit since then. LOL

But back at the Fort Worth, Texas Air Route Traffic Control Center, each Air Traffic Controller controlled a small "Sector" of the air space and his radar display showed him the aircraft identifier, its altitude, speed, course and other information.Radio communication was on frequencies in the 108 to 137 MHZ range , at that time I believe.

All of this information was received from the aircraft's transponder, entered into a computer and processed for display on the air traffic controller's display screen at his operating position. The system was accurate and all the data was known to be accurate and had been proven in 24/7 usage.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 31, 2017, 04:32:46 AM
There are a LOT of ways to calculate airspeed and groundspeed.

Groundspeed is measurable by radar for sure - by time between stations - by doppler with radio flight beacons - by navigating waypoints that are visible on the ground - by GPS - by Loran...I'm pretty sure there are some dedicated aviation satellites who measure it that way too (I saw this on the documentary about that airliner that was mysteriously lost over the pacific).  Airspeed is measurable by pitot tubes and with known wind conditions, you can figure out ground speed from that too.

Airspeed is unreliable and not used in navigation.

Ground speed is based on an external reference point, and it based on Round Earth coordinates.
Still waiting on how RE coordinates/distances can be vastly different than those same distances if measured using a FE approved method. The difference in 1 mile flat and 1 mile on Earth's curve and pulled to be flat is FAR under 5%, which would still make the quadrilateral impossible. Until you show this your coordinate argument has zero merit.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on August 31, 2017, 06:01:10 AM
There is only one set of còrdinates for the earth, they work, are accurate and repeatable.  To say otherwise is just to attekpt to confuse the discussion.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 31, 2017, 12:33:19 PM
There are a LOT of ways to calculate airspeed and groundspeed.

Groundspeed is measurable by radar for sure - by time between stations - by doppler with radio flight beacons - by navigating waypoints that are visible on the ground - by GPS - by Loran...I'm pretty sure there are some dedicated aviation satellites who measure it that way too (I saw this on the documentary about that airliner that was mysteriously lost over the pacific).  Airspeed is measurable by pitot tubes and with known wind conditions, you can figure out ground speed from that too.

Airspeed is unreliable and not used in navigation.
[\quote]
It's certainly not as useful as ground speeds.  I merely add it to the list of ways that airplane speeds may be determined.
Quote
Ground speed is based on an external reference point, and is based on Round Earth coordinates.
[\quote]

No - ground speed is in knots (or mph or kph) - it has nothing to do with "coordinates".  Some (BUT NOT ALL) of the ways to calculate it use Lat/Long coordinates - but those calculations agree with things like doppler radar as used in airport control towers that have nothing to do with Lat/Long.

When an airplane is being tracked in the control tower, radar signals are bounced off of the planes - the reflected signal is shifted slightly in frequency/wavelength according to the speed of the aircraft.  That speed reading is compared to the speed reported by the aircraft's own "transponder" - and the two must agree or for 100% sure many people would have noticed.   If a Mach 2 747-400 were heading towards Sydney International control tower, you can be quite sure we'd know about that!

So no - your argument is false.

There are other means for determining ground speed - and those also DO NOT EVER report supersonic airliners (well - except for Concorde).

It is not enough for your to say "Speed measurement technique X is wrong" - you have to demonstrate that ALL speed measurement techniques are wrong  - and wrong by roughly the same amount...AND (hardest of all) consistently wrong over some airline routes to a vastly different degree than others...AND (definitely straining credibility here) that whatever mechanism causes ALL speed measurements to be wrong just happens to perfectly fit the Round Earth model.

That's not just a stretch - it's impossible.

Quote
Quote
Sure - Tom can argue that one or other of these are incorrect - but for ALL of them to agree so well, they ALL have to be incorrect *AND* they all have to be incorrect by the same amounts over the same distances.

No evidence has been presented that they "ALL agree so well".
[\quote]

This is a case where "absence of evidence" is what is needed.  If there were these huge discrepancies (210% errors in some cases) why are they not being reported?   Why wouldn't the engineers who worked on (say) GPS not be concerned that some other mechanisms for measuring speed were producing such drastically different results?

The fact that NOBODY is writing papers about why these seemingly reasonable speed measurement devices are so badly wrong - is the proof you need.

The fact is that the ONLY piece of evidence you have that there is error (the athletics speed measurement issues) only produces a 20% error - and you need a 210% error to make the unipolar map work and a 300% error to make the bipolar map meet real world flight times.  (And actually - because the distances involved in that paper are so small compared to intercontinental airline trip lengths - even that evidence is trivially eliminated).

This is a case where YOU need to prove that things are not as the rest of the world sees them.

YOU need to explain how come doppler radar and GPS and LORAN and all of those other things agree so well when in your world they shouldn't.

Quote
Quote
But actually - the cruising speed of an airliner is known LONG before the first one ever flies.   Before they even finish cutting and riveting metal.   Before the design of the airplane is even 50% complete.

The process of designing an airplane starts by asking the airlines who are planning to buy it what routes they plan to fly it on - what passenger/freight loads they need to carry - whether flight speed is more or less important than fuel efficiency - what the maintenance intervals for the engines must be - whether they are legally allowed to fly certain routes with just two engines.

ALL of that stuff gets put into massively complicated software - and out pops the rough form of the design.   Then they calculate drag coefficients, known engine data, etc.

Before the interior layout of the plane is even considered - all the issues of wing loading and engine mounting is finalized.

They know the performance of that airplane to the n'th degree at least two years before they finish the design - and three years before the plane goes into service.

Since they are calculating based on Round Earth speeds of previous aircraft designs, what makes you think that they wouldn't estimate a Round Earth result?

Because they don't do it like that.

They put a model of the plane into a wind tunnel - they measure the drag on the airframe.  They also take smaller pieces of the full-sized design into large wind tunnels and measure the drag on each piece individually to ensure that the small-scale wind tunnel is producing good results.   Then they ALSO use a "virtual wind tunnel" which uses finite element mesh techniques (deep math) to calculate and confirm those numbers.

They also do ground testing on the engines at various throttle settings and air/fuel mixtures - this gives numbers for the thrust of each engine.

When you know the thrust over speed and drag over speed numbers - you can calculate the speed that the plane will fly.

None of this depends on flying real things around the world...none of it is subject to the kinds of error you so naively imagine.

Did you know that the 787 airplane had a full-up flight simulator built to train pilots on flying it YEARS before the actual airplane flew?  (Some of my software was used for that - so I know this).

The airline manufacturers are a million times smarter than you give them credit for...honestly, do you REALLY have to judge everyone else's intelligence by your own ability to guess how they do things?

Designing an airliner is a fantastically important process - they know to amazing degrees of certainty exactly how the airplane will fly - how it'll react to sudden down-drafts, how much fuel it'll need, every single microscopic detail is planned out YEARS before the first metal is cut for the prototype.

Your naivety in this matter is absolutely stunning.

There have been several TV documentaries made about the making of airliners - you should go watch one.

Quote
Quote
There is absolutely ZERO possibility that they might "accidentally" have built a plane with a design cruise speed of 600 knots that actually flies at Mach 2.1 without anyone knowing about it.

This is a STUPID argument.

That is your argument that you seem to have made in your imagination. I agree.

So you truly believe that Boeing and Airbus both accidentally made planes that fly at Mach 2.1 without knowing it?

If not - you don't have a leg to stand on.   If airplane speeds are as-advertised then you have lost the FE/RE debate BIG TIME.

Quote
Quote
* We know flight times - and can easily prove they are correct.
* If we know flight speeds - then we can multiply them by the flight times and get RELIABLE flight distances.
* If we know distances - then we can demonstrate that the current FE maps are definitely incorrect...and not by a small margin.  AT LEAST 3:1 in some places.
* Furthermore we can apply my "quadrilateral cities" test to many, many sets of cities and prove - beyond all doubt that the world cannot possibly be flat NO MATTER WHAT MAP YOU CARE TO MAKE.

The only place where Tom believes he can defeat this robust chain of reasoning is the airplane flight speeds.

So he's currently trying every trick he knows (ha ha ha ha!) in a desperate effort to figure out why we're right and he's wrong.

Well...guess what?   Ain't happening.

But it gets even better than that:

Suppose Tom proves that all airplanes fly twice as fast as the manufacturers claim - or that GPS is in error by 20% all the time.

This doesn't help him one iota because the quadrilateral test still works even if all of the distances are half what they should be or twice what they should be.   Doesn't matter.

For Tom's flat earth to work, not only must the speeds of all aircraft be consistently mis-estimated by ALL of the available methods - they have to be mis-estimated by larger amounts in the southern hemisphere than the north, more on North/South routes than on East/West routes, much MUCH more over oceans than over land - and vastly more over the continents that he distorts the most to make things fit.

This is an utterly untenable position.

What are you talking about, Southern Hemisphere? Why are you trying to argue on basis of a map and model used for visualization purposes only and which no one put work into creating? How do you know that there are not two poles?

No Tom - you haven't been following the argument.

1) Take four widely spaced cities - take the distances between all of them (six distances - representing the four sides and two diagonals of a quadrilateral).

2) Draw a triangle on a flat sheet of paper using the three distances between three of those cities.  This is always possible.

3) Next, construct a quadrilateral using the distances on the remaining two sides of the quadrilateral to extend our diagram out to the fourth city.

4) Now measure the length of the remaining diagonal on your diagram.

5) When we do that (as shown in a couple of other places above) - the distance representing that second diagonal is WRONG.   It does not agree with real world flight times.

So...either:

A) The distances between those four cities cannot be represented on ANY flat earth map that you could possibly come up with...and the Earth isn't flat.

...or...

B) The distances we have between the cities is incorrect.

So - you MUST opt for (B)...distances are wrong.

Given that flight TIMES are unassailable evidence - the only thing that can be wrong is the known cruising speeds of all airliners.   Which is actually also unassailable...but you're trying to disprove that.

So - if you concede that airline manufacturers know the speeds of their airplanes - then the world is round.

And even if you don't concede that - you still have to show that airliner cruise speeds are incorrect by different amounts depending where in the world you are.   With both maps we've seen of the Flat Earth, that error is most pronounced in the Southern Hemisphere.   Certainly other maps could be made where the error was much smaller in the south - but then the error would be huge in the North.   You can come up with all sorts of funky maps - but no matter what, the "quadrilateral city" proof will destroy them.

You can't ever get this to work Tom...you're deluding yourself if you think you can.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 31, 2017, 02:02:32 PM
Thank you 3DGeek for another summary.

Tom and FE community.

Unless there is a way to demonstrate that all forms of flight speed have margins of error greater than 200% in the southern hemiplane relative to the northern hemiplane then we can proceed with the following thought experiment to come to the truth of the matter.

If time and distance can be measured by flat earth compatible systems of measurement then speed can be measured by flat earth compatible systems of measurement.  If a new system of speed measurement is calibrated using flat earth systems of measuring both time and distance then it is a flat earth compatible system of measuring speed.  At this point the speed measurement device is now verified as valid on a flat plane regardless of what units of measurement it uses as input or output.  If the newly minted flat earth compatible system of measuring speed is used on a series of flights between 4 distant cities on both hemiplanes it's data, regardless of units of measurement, can be used to solve for an unknown distance on a flat plane due to the verification of its ability to measure speed on a flat plane using known methods.  If the distances plotted on a flat piece of paper do not result in a mathematically sound quadrilateral it is geometrically impossible for the earth to be flat.

We have provided evidence that when measured on a metered track 2 different methods of tracking flight speed were within an acceptable margin of error for any flight.  1 of the 2 methods of measuring flight speed exceeds the acceptable margin of error only during maneuvers that are physically impossible for an airliner to make.  This means that both systems of tracking flight speed are verified as accurate on a flat plane for the experiment in question.  Additionally, both systems of speed measurement produce data that is within an acceptable margin of error with respect to each other in all flight tests.

It is therefor mathematically impossible for the earth to be a continuous flat plane.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: JHelzer on August 31, 2017, 05:30:49 PM
Thank you 3DGeek for another summary.

Tom and FE community.

Unless there is a way to demonstrate that all forms of flight speed have margins of error greater than 200% in the southern hemiplane relative to the northern hemiplane then we can proceed with the following thought experiment to come to the truth of the matter.

If time and distance can be measured by flat earth compatible systems of measurement then speed can be measured by flat earth compatible systems of measurement.  If a new system of speed measurement is calibrated using flat earth systems of measuring both time and distance then it is a flat earth compatible system of measuring speed.  At this point the speed measurement device is now verified as valid on a flat plane regardless of what units of measurement it uses as input or output.  If the newly minted flat earth compatible system of measuring speed is used on a series of flights between 4 distant cities on both hemiplanes it's data, regardless of units of measurement, can be used to solve for an unknown distance on a flat plane due to the verification of its ability to measure speed on a flat plane using known methods.  If the distances plotted on a flat piece of paper do not result in a mathematically sound quadrilateral it is geometrically impossible for the earth to be flat.

We have provided evidence that when measured on a metered track 2 different methods of tracking flight speed were within an acceptable margin of error for any flight.  1 of the 2 methods of measuring flight speed exceeds the acceptable margin of error only during maneuvers that are physically impossible for an airliner to make.  This means that both systems of tracking flight speed are verified as accurate on a flat plane for the experiment in question.  Additionally, both systems of speed measurement produce data that is within an acceptable margin of error with respect to each other in all flight tests.

It is therefor mathematically impossible for the earth to be a continuous flat plane.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm still going to make my Flight Time Map.  I've been gathering data to get started and will start a new Topic for the project when I'm ready.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2017, 08:23:26 PM
Tom and FE community.

Unless there is a way to demonstrate that all forms of flight speed have margins of error greater than 200% in the southern hemiplane

Why are you basing your argument on a map and model of the earth that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has claimed to put work into creating?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 31, 2017, 08:39:01 PM
Tom and FE community.

Unless there is a way to demonstrate that all forms of flight speed have margins of error greater than 200% in the southern hemiplane

Why are you basing your argument on a map and model of the earth that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has claimed to put work into creating?
Because:
A) It's the only map that's been offered up, and Junker - a mod - has insinuated he considers it an actual map.
B) No matter how you slice the monopole map, you'll have distortions like that in either the Northern or Southern hemisplane.
C) Your wiki still appears to present that map as the dominant FE map, so when discussing a map in some form, that's the easiest to refer to.
D) The dual-pole map still has these sorts of issues.

You continue to refuse to address two relevant points. Namely, what is a FE approved way to measure distance? How large of a difference is there between a FE mile and a RE mile, and how do you know that? You can't say over and over that the RE model is wrong because it assumes sphere coordinates, and then not explain how the FE model will differ. There's plenty of us here. I'm certain if you laid out ground rules on finding distance we could figure out a way to show nearly any distance using said method(s).
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 31, 2017, 09:07:22 PM
I fail to see any logic in Tom Bishop's arguments in inaccuries.

My experience, both in the USN and the FAA was more in the technical/equipment end of things.

We had problems from time in the radio communications systems, radar systems and computer systems (which were a bit complicated beyond just the radios , radars and computers alone) . But when the systems were working correctly I don't remember ever hearing any reports of any inaccuracies in the data, especially on aircraft speeds, etc., either on the contoller's display screens or from verbal contacts with the pilots.

It seems that a lot of FE's seem to know little or nothing about a subject and just make up something out of their imaginations which make little or none truth or logic.

Some of the funniest remarks from an FE that I remember were on the old thread about amateur radio "Moonbounce" , where the distance from the earth to the moon could be determined by "bouncing" radio signals off the moon, measuring the time it took to receive the signal back on earth and then computing the distance using the speed of  radio waves.

A few choice FE remarks:
"A ham radio operator in his shack talking to truckers can't do this."
 (They didn't seem to  know the difference between an un-licensed  "CB" (Citizen's Band) talking to a trucker.....some times illegally...and a licensed amateur radio operator conducting a legal "QSO" (radio contact with other licensed hams.)

"Radio waves are inaccurate....They slow down getting to moon."
(They didn't seem to know much about radio theory. If this was true, radar would be impossible or inaccurate.)

"You would have to have an antenna the size of a football field to do this."
(They didn't seem to know anything or much about antenna theory. The size of the antenna depends on what frequency (related to wave length ) you are using......An antenna for the 10-Meter (30 MHz) band  has longer elements than those for an antenna on the 2-Meter (144 MHZ) band.) Antenna theory can get a bit complicated, too.....And I have probably forgotten a lot more than what I used to know about things like that.......LOL......

Just a few examples. ::)
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 31, 2017, 09:51:40 PM
Tom and FE community.

Unless there is a way to demonstrate that all forms of flight speed have margins of error greater than 200% in the southern hemiplane

Why are you basing your argument on a map and model of the earth that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has claimed to put work into creating?
Because:
A) It's the only map that's been offered up, and Junker - a mod - has insinuated he considers it an actual map.
B) No matter how you slice the monopole map, you'll have distortions like that in either the Northern or Southern hemisplane.
C) Your wiki still appears to present that map as the dominant FE map, so when discussing a map in some form, that's the easiest to refer to.
D) The dual-pole map still has these sorts of issues.

You continue to refuse to address two relevant points. Namely, what is a FE approved way to measure distance? How large of a difference is there between a FE mile and a RE mile, and how do you know that? You can't say over and over that the RE model is wrong because it assumes sphere coordinates, and then not explain how the FE model will differ. There's plenty of us here. I'm certain if you laid out ground rules on finding distance we could figure out a way to show nearly any distance using said method(s).

If we were to measure the distance of a mile by  using the old surveyor's chains, wouldn't we have to know whether the length of the chain was an "FE Chain" or an "RE Chain" ?

Just another "observation.":
In doing a little research on local history, it seems that when a town was even first in the proposal stage,  "the first order of business" was the drawing up of a map , showing streets and natural features, etc.
It would seem that this should be "the first order of business" for The Flat Earth Society to draw up an accurate flat earth map.
But it seems this has never been done, or even started.
Why ?
Because the earth is not flat.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 01, 2017, 02:49:04 AM
Tom and FE community.

Unless there is a way to demonstrate that all forms of flight speed have margins of error greater than 200% in the southern hemiplane

Why are you basing your argument on a map and model of the earth that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has claimed to put work into creating?

Because it's the only one you've supplied us with on this whole forum and in the wiki. Please let us know which flat earth map we're supposed to use.

You're dodging the real topic again in typical fashion and attempting to derail the discussion from the truth of the matter.

The deviations in quadrilateral must be explained either by a non flat earth or a dramatic margin of error in speed measurement for only some of the earthwhich isn't there.

That leaves us with only one logical conclusion. It is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2017, 03:55:16 AM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 01, 2017, 04:51:57 AM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?
Because you have yet to provide any evidence supporting the idea that the RE distances are inaccurate. You simply shoot them down for a reason that isn't even an actual factor. Once again Tom, the difference between a mile on FE, and a mile on the RE Lat/Long coordinates. What is it? What is a way you approve of finding distances? On that second note though, do you not know the distances of ANYWHERE you've traveled then? I mean, everything is based on RE Lat/Long apparently. So how can you possibly know the distances used in your experiment?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 01, 2017, 05:00:43 AM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?

Navigation, governance and commerce all break down if we don't actually know how far things are from each other.  It may seem trivial until you realize that international commerce relies on knowing exactly how far raw materials and finished goods have to travel before you purchase them on Amazon or at Walmart or whatever other physical/online store you use.  Your basic internet access only works because some poor schmuck dragged a specific length of fiber optic cable across the ocean to connect the land masses.  How else did you think that you could mildly irritate people in every time zone simultaneously?

In a modern world ruled by profit margin, knowing exact costs is king.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 01, 2017, 06:10:05 AM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?
I work for an international transport company. You can rest assured that we would have noticed if the timing of truck deliveries was constantly off... and if we didn't, the customers would have oh so politely let us know!
In the same vein, look at the marine traffic sites. We would have noticed ships arriving 2 weeks later than their ETA just because. If you don't like the flight time results, keep in mind that freighters can't really travel much faster or slower than expected (there are physical limitations to how fast you can drag 50.000 tons over the water), and the daily cost for these behemoths is inconceivable. They travel all around the world. Call it argument from human greed, but I assure you that shipping companies know exactly their distances  ;D

EDIT b4 "You're using RE assumptions": say I'm a shipping company with a few small tramps*. One of my agents has an inquiry to bring a decent tonnage from Sumwere port to Sumpleis Els port. I plot the route with my RE assumptions and give him a price and ETA. The client accepts.
When all is said and done, it turns out that the vessel arrived two weeks later for no apparent reason, and had to make an emergency call to Inbituin port to refuel.
Now say this happens every second or third voyage. Beside me ending up broke, don't you think I'd start having doubts on the distances?

*a tramp is a ship not assigned to a fixed route. It goes where the money brings it. Yeah, I know, sailors...
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on September 01, 2017, 08:08:32 AM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?
I have yet to see you make a positive contribution to any discussion here.  You refuse to explain how you would map the earth and now tell us there is no need.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2017, 11:15:49 AM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?
Because you have yet to provide any evidence supporting the idea that the RE distances are inaccurate. You simply shoot them down for a reason that isn't even an actual factor. Once again Tom, the difference between a mile on FE, and a mile on the RE Lat/Long coordinates. What is it?

A mile is 5280 feet on a Flat Earth. I don't know what it is on a Round Earth since Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system devices appear to be inaccurate.

Quote
What is a way you approve of finding distances?

As mentioned several times, any method not using a Round Earth lat/lon system is fine. If you expect us to accept the Round Earth lat/lon system as being accurate without question then you might as well expect us to accept the earth is round.

Quote
On that second note though, do you not know the distances of ANYWHERE you've traveled then? I mean, everything is based on RE Lat/Long apparently. So how can you possibly know the distances used in your experiment?

The experiment is built against the Round Earth theory. Why can't I use your distances to show that the curvature is wrong?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2017, 11:21:20 AM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?

Navigation, governance and commerce all break down if we don't actually know how far things are from each other.  It may seem trivial until you realize that international commerce relies on knowing exactly how far raw materials and finished goods have to travel before you purchase them on Amazon or at Walmart or whatever other physical/online store you use.  Your basic internet access only works because some poor schmuck dragged a specific length of fiber optic cable across the ocean to connect the land masses.  How else did you think that you could mildly irritate people in every time zone simultaneously?

In a modern world ruled by profit margin, knowing exact costs is king.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

All that is known is how long the transportation takes. In Round Earth coordinate devices the distance is computed based on Round Earth coordinate geometry.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 01, 2017, 12:24:31 PM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?

Navigation, governance and commerce all break down if we don't actually know how far things are from each other.  It may seem trivial until you realize that international commerce relies on knowing exactly how far raw materials and finished goods have to travel before you purchase them on Amazon or at Walmart or whatever other physical/online store you use.  Your basic internet access only works because some poor schmuck dragged a specific length of fiber optic cable across the ocean to connect the land masses.  How else did you think that you could mildly irritate people in every time zone simultaneously?

In a modern world ruled by profit margin, knowing exact costs is king.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

All that is known is how long the transportation takes. In Round Earth coordinate devices the distance is computed based on Round Earth coordinate geometry.

No Tom,

In transportation distance matters as well.  Mileage is needed to ensure you don't run out of fuel and die.  Using the round earth coordinates to traverse both halves of the world or in your model both hemiplanes has yet to cause a large number of flights or ships to suddenly run out of fuel mid trip.

The miles of cabling that run under the ocean to connect the continents and create "the internet" had to be physically made and laid.  As did all of the continental cabling that connects California to New York, Paris to Krakow etc.  These are physical lengths of cabling that had to be manufactured and placed along carefully measured routes that just so happen, in your opinion, to match up perfectly with the Lat/long coordinates.

Tom, despite you best efforts to claim otherwise length (distance) really does matter to all industries and empires.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2017, 12:27:44 PM
No Tom,

In transportation distance matters as well.  Mileage is needed to ensure you don't run out of fuel and die.  Using the round earth coordinates to traverse both halves of the world or in your model both hemiplanes has yet to cause a large number of flights or ships to suddenly run out of fuel mid trip.

The miles of cabling that run under the ocean to connect the continents and create "the internet" had to be physically made and laid.  As did all of the continental cabling that connects California to New York, Paris to Krakow etc.  These are physical lengths of cabling that had to be manufactured and placed along carefully measured routes that just so happen, in your opinion, to match up perfectly with the Lat/long coordinates.

Tom, despite you best efforts to claim otherwise length (distance) really does matter to all industries and empires.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Where is the evidence that the cables were carefully measured and they did not simply bring along massive spools?

Why are you assuming that the distance needs to be enormous? Are you assuming the monopole map and model?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 01, 2017, 12:35:05 PM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?

Navigation, governance and commerce all break down if we don't actually know how far things are from each other.  It may seem trivial until you realize that international commerce relies on knowing exactly how far raw materials and finished goods have to travel before you purchase them on Amazon or at Walmart or whatever other physical/online store you use.  Your basic internet access only works because some poor schmuck dragged a specific length of fiber optic cable across the ocean to connect the land masses.  How else did you think that you could mildly irritate people in every time zone simultaneously?

In a modern world ruled by profit margin, knowing exact costs is king.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

All that is known is how long the transportation takes. In Round Earth coordinate devices the distance is computed based on Round Earth coordinate geometry.

That is exactly the opposite of what happens... I'm not sure whether you are extremely naive or disingenuos. Have you ever travelled beyond your backyard?

How do you think that industrial haulers like me, or shipping agents, calculate their rates? Do you think we have timetables for all the planet like we were city transit companies?

I almost never get the same inquiry on the same route, I'll break it down as easily as reasonable for you:
- Client wants to take the piece from A to B
- I plot a route on a round earth. I get the distance with RE assumptions.
- With that information, I know almost exactly (barring accidents on the road / sea) how much time the truck / ship is going to need to go from point A to point B. On the basis of a RE, I calculate the rate.

If the RE distances didn't jive with reality, I would be broke. We would have means of transportation arriving at destination when the heck they want, and our telephone lines would be melting with complaints. Do you know how much a ship costs, per day? What happens if you miscalculate a distance based rate by two weeks?

Both of your "maps" would cause huge problems.
The unipolar map for everything from the equator down, and the bipolar map is even worse, for the skewed routes you need to take to avoind falling of the edge... try sailing from japan to the states.

good grief.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 01, 2017, 12:45:49 PM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?
Because you have yet to provide any evidence supporting the idea that the RE distances are inaccurate. You simply shoot them down for a reason that isn't even an actual factor. Once again Tom, the difference between a mile on FE, and a mile on the RE Lat/Long coordinates. What is it?

A mile is 5280 feet on a Flat Earth. I don't know what it is on a Round Earth since Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system is inaccurate.
Oh how handy, that's how many feet are in a mile for a RE too! Case closed guys, 1 FE mile is equal to 1 RE mile. Therefore all of our numbers for the quadrilateral above are correct, and a flat Earth is indeed impossible. Good job guys.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2017, 12:53:57 PM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?
Because you have yet to provide any evidence supporting the idea that the RE distances are inaccurate. You simply shoot them down for a reason that isn't even an actual factor. Once again Tom, the difference between a mile on FE, and a mile on the RE Lat/Long coordinates. What is it?

A mile is 5280 feet on a Flat Earth. I don't know what it is on a Round Earth since Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system is inaccurate.
Oh how handy, that's how many feet are in a mile for a RE too! Case closed guys, 1 FE mile is equal to 1 RE mile. Therefore all of our numbers for the quadrilateral above are correct, and a flat Earth is indeed impossible. Good job guys.

You have not shown that the Round Earth coordinate devices compute a mile to be exactly 5280 feet. We keep on looking at articles discussing how inaccurate GPS seems to be.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Rounder on September 01, 2017, 12:58:01 PM
The miles of cabling that run under the ocean to connect the continents and create "the internet" had to be physically made and laid.  As did all of the continental cabling that connects California to New York, Paris to Krakow etc.  These are physical lengths of cabling that had to be manufactured and placed along carefully measured routes...

Where is the evidence that the cables were carefully measured and they did not simply bring along massive spools?

This isn't like wiring a house, Tom.  You don't just bring a whole bunch of it and stop spooling it out when you make landfall, because undersea cable is very expensive.  And even if you did, undersea cables have repeaters emedded in them every so many miles to boost the signal.  The owners know how many repeaters are in the cable, which means they know how long the cable is.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2017, 01:00:19 PM
This isn't like wiring a house, Tom.  You don't just bring a whole bunch of it and stop spooling it out when you make landfall, because undersea cable is very expensive.  And even if you did, undersea cables have repeaters emedded in them every so many miles to boost the signal.  The owners know how many repeaters are in the cable, which means they know how long the cable is.

Are you an owner? Do you have access to their records for us?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 01, 2017, 01:03:17 PM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?
Because you have yet to provide any evidence supporting the idea that the RE distances are inaccurate. You simply shoot them down for a reason that isn't even an actual factor. Once again Tom, the difference between a mile on FE, and a mile on the RE Lat/Long coordinates. What is it?

A mile is 5280 feet on a Flat Earth. I don't know what it is on a Round Earth since Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system is inaccurate.
Oh how handy, that's how many feet are in a mile for a RE too! Case closed guys, 1 FE mile is equal to 1 RE mile. Therefore all of our numbers for the quadrilateral above are correct, and a flat Earth is indeed impossible. Good job guys.

You have not shown that the Round Earth coordinate devices compute a mile to be exactly 5280 feet. We keep on looking at articles discussing how inaccurate GPS seems to be.
I'm not talking about the coordinate devices one bit. I'm talking about surveyor distances, that thing all maps are based on. 1 mile = 5280 feet. This is true for every surveying method, even triangulation. The adjustment for the Earth's curve will not change the distance of a mile by an appreciable amount (talking fractions of an inch here). The coordinate system simply supplies the ability to tell locations apart, but maps are made with methods that do not use or rely on it in any way.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2017, 01:04:58 PM
I'm not talking about the coordinate devices one bit. I'm talking about surveyor distances, that thing all maps are based on. 1 mile = 5280 feet. This is true for every surveying method, even triangulation.

You will need to show that the lat/lon system matches up to 1 mile = 5280 feet in the real world, not just insist that it does.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on September 01, 2017, 01:52:54 PM
I'm not talking about the coordinate devices one bit. I'm talking about surveyor distances, that thing all maps are based on. 1 mile = 5280 feet. This is true for every surveying method, even triangulation.

You will need to show that the lat/lon system matches up to 1 mile = 5280 feet in the real world, not just insist that it does.
By definition:

1 mile = 5280 feet  3 feet = 1 yard.

The developed world now uses metres and kilometers etc.  See the definition of a meter.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on September 01, 2017, 01:55:15 PM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?
Because you have yet to provide any evidence supporting the idea that the RE distances are inaccurate. You simply shoot them down for a reason that isn't even an actual factor. Once again Tom, the difference between a mile on FE, and a mile on the RE Lat/Long coordinates. What is it?

A mile is 5280 feet on a Flat Earth. I don't know what it is on a Round Earth since Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system is inaccurate.
Oh how handy, that's how many feet are in a mile for a RE too! Case closed guys, 1 FE mile is equal to 1 RE mile. Therefore all of our numbers for the quadrilateral above are correct, and a flat Earth is indeed impossible. Good job guys.

You have not shown that the Round Earth coordinate devices compute a mile to be exactly 5280 feet. We keep on looking at articles discussing how inaccurate GPS seems to be.
Where?  We know the issue with speed over short distances.  The accuracy of GPS is fully known.  A few meters.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 01, 2017, 02:04:57 PM
Tom, given there are many industries that require accurate knowledge of distances to turn a profit, how do you justify arguing that we don't know distances? What is your proof? (I'm not looking for theories or guesses) And please don't answer this question with a question. I am looking for a statement of fact.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 01, 2017, 02:05:52 PM
No Tom,

In transportation distance matters as well.  Mileage is needed to ensure you don't run out of fuel and die.  Using the round earth coordinates to traverse both halves of the world or in your model both hemiplanes has yet to cause a large number of flights or ships to suddenly run out of fuel mid trip.

The miles of cabling that run under the ocean to connect the continents and create "the internet" had to be physically made and laid.  As did all of the continental cabling that connects California to New York, Paris to Krakow etc.  These are physical lengths of cabling that had to be manufactured and placed along carefully measured routes that just so happen, in your opinion, to match up perfectly with the Lat/long coordinates.

Tom, despite you best efforts to claim otherwise length (distance) really does matter to all industries and empires.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Where is the evidence that the cables were carefully measured and they did not simply bring along massive spools?

Why are you assuming that the distance needs to be enormous? Are you assuming the monopole map and model?

Because of the market forces subjected to manufacturing/transportation/telecommunication.  Raw materials must be procured from one party, shipped by another, manufactured by another, shipped again and installed/sold by yet another.  Every step in the supply chain has to know costs in order to generate revenue and turn a profit.  Both the unipolar and bipolar map models have wild distortions when compared to the RE model and so far those discrepancies do not show up in the supply chain.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 01, 2017, 02:31:24 PM
This isn't like wiring a house, Tom.  You don't just bring a whole bunch of it and stop spooling it out when you make landfall, because undersea cable is very expensive.  And even if you did, undersea cables have repeaters emedded in them every so many miles to boost the signal.  The owners know how many repeaters are in the cable, which means they know how long the cable is.

Are you an owner? Do you have access to their records for us?

I suspect I'm on your ignore list, but I'll try anyway...
This isn't a matter of having access to confidential data... it's common sense.
I don't know what is or was your job, but you seem not to have a clue about how things work in the real world (assuming you are not pulling our collective leg).

Just from a cursory reading in the internet, it's clear that laying underwater cables is not an easy process. It's complicated and it's extremely expensive. It requires surveys and an accurate planning of the route of the cable, to avoid underwater obstacles and compensate for the irregularities of the ocean floor. You can't have it suspended over a chasm, for instance.
Do you really think this is conducted by two guys on a fishing boat with a huge spool?

Even assuming the cable costs a dollar per meter, do you think industries would throw away 3 million dollars and produce two times the cable needed, just in case? It's not like you can sell the leftovers on a market stand...

Or do you think it's produced on demand, and when the spool is over in the middle of the ocean they just send the errand boy to fetch another one at radio shack?

These are private enterprises, they live by doing exactly what needed. They literally can't afford to eyeball it.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on September 01, 2017, 02:45:14 PM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?

Simple answer.  Anyone with any curiosity would want to map his world.  Only a very dull mind would sit back and think the world is flat but I don't care what it looks like.  Since it's possible to make a rough draft map that proves or disproves FE with an acceptable degree of accuracy people should be jumping on the idea.  Since all you do is make silly arguments it shows your real problem and that's fear.  Why are you so afraid to have a conversation about distance?  If mankind had thought like you do we would all be sitting in caves.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 01, 2017, 07:04:28 PM
You have not shown that the Round Earth coordinate devices compute a mile to be exactly 5280 feet. We keep on looking at articles discussing how inaccurate GPS seems to be.

Oh wow!  This has to be the "Tom Bishop dumb quote of the decade"!   A mile is 5280 feet by definition...that's the actual formal definition of a mile.  Nobody "computes" it - and no sane person disputes it.

You *MIGHT* be thinking of a "Nautical Mile" which was once defined as "One sixtieth of a degree of latitude"...however, with the realization that the world is not in fact a perfect sphere - that definition was dropped and the modern definition is 1,852 meters (6,076.1 ft).

If someone here were talking about nautical miles - or speeds in knots (nautical miles per hour) then maybe what you said made some kind of twisted, anachronistic sense - but since we weren't and because we're in the 21st century now - what you said is UTTERLY meaningless.




Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 01, 2017, 07:35:50 PM
I'm not talking about the coordinate devices one bit. I'm talking about surveyor distances, that thing all maps are based on. 1 mile = 5280 feet. This is true for every surveying method, even triangulation.

You will need to show that the lat/lon system matches up to 1 mile = 5280 feet in the real world, not just insist that it does.

Tom,

You don't seem to be following the history of map making very well so let me explain.  No there is too much, let me sum up.  At one point it was commonly believed that the earth was flat.  Then we started measuring things with other things like feet, inches, meters.  Then we argued about which method of measurement was superior.  Then we finally agreed to standardize measurements in general so that we all knew that we were measuring the same things the same way.  By this time, we had measured all of the measurable things on land and tried to make them fit on a flat piece of paper, sailed around the world a few times without falling off the edge or stubbing our toes on a gigantic ice wall and figured that all of the problems we were having drawing our maps on a flat piece of paper might just go away if we drew them on a round thingy instead.  At that point, measurements around the round thingy matched all those things we measured with other things earlier and we all lived happily ever after yelling at Garmin for telling us 10 times that we needed top turn eventually only to recalculate because we went under some heavy branches overhead on a cloudy day and hadn't bothered to actually look for the turn in the road we knew about 10 minutes earlier.

Does that make more sense Tom?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: rodriados on September 01, 2017, 07:48:02 PM
I think it's worth noting it's mathematically proven it's impossible for a sphere to be represented in a flat surface without any kind of distortion.

That's the reason why some projections of the real world (the quasi-spherical one obviously), such as the widely used Mercator projection, show some discrepancies to the size of landmasses located near the poles. With that said, if you only use a spherical map of the Earth to base all of your trips across the planet, you will achieve rather astonishing precision. Sorry to inform you FEers, I have already done this and asserted it myself.

The problem is, if we really live in a flat surface, this globe representation of the Earth must be distorted somehow (in shape or area) somewhere. And we were not able to find such distortion neither by sea nor air.

What's the reason we cannot verify it then? And why does my GPS apparatus work so well, even when I'm in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 02, 2017, 04:05:45 PM
The interesting thing about the FE'er's assertions that GPS is broken is that it was developed by the US military - primarily to allow cruise missiles and other long range/high-precision weapons to achieve ~2 foot precision on targets anywhere in the world.

The developers of the system initially encrypted the signal to prevent civilian (and enemy) use - then later changed the system to only encrypt the last few binary digits of the signal in order to allow civilian use - and have since removed even that level of encryption as other systems have come along with similar capabilities and the benefits of preventing unauthorized use has vanished.

But the point is that the US military would have been very well aware if the Earth was flat - and designed the system to work accurately within that premise.

So if there were discrepancies - they would result in the earth seeming to be flat in GPS coordinates and distance - not to make it look round as it appears to do.

History doesn't support both the idea that GPS is 'rigged' and that the US Military knows that the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 02, 2017, 04:12:50 PM
This isn't like wiring a house, Tom.  You don't just bring a whole bunch of it and stop spooling it out when you make landfall, because undersea cable is very expensive.  And even if you did, undersea cables have repeaters emedded in them every so many miles to boost the signal.  The owners know how many repeaters are in the cable, which means they know how long the cable is.

Are you an owner? Do you have access to their records for us?

As usual, we have the passive-aggressive effort to sow confusion and doubt rather than draw back the curtains and open the window to allow enlightenment and debate.

The point here is that the people who lay undersea cables - and the people who pay for them to be laid - and the people who run the system by remotely querying those regularly space repeaters would all have to be bundled up into your increasing spiral of conspiracy.

So now, the big undersea cable companies are a part of the same conspiracy as NASA, SpaceX, GPS and cellphone providers, the Russian, Chinese, Indian, French, South African and (now) North Korean governments?

Is there anyone besides Tom Bishop who is NOT a part of this coverup?

Isn't this just the teensiest bit paranoid?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2017, 04:48:24 PM
No Tom,

In transportation distance matters as well.  Mileage is needed to ensure you don't run out of fuel and die.  Using the round earth coordinates to traverse both halves of the world or in your model both hemiplanes has yet to cause a large number of flights or ships to suddenly run out of fuel mid trip.

They would have known from previous trips and assessments of the Round Earth lat/lon readings how much fuel they would need to bring for xxx Round Earth miles.

If you travel 300 miles on a road trip, according to your GPS, and your tank is half empty you have an idea on how much fuel you need.

Quote
The miles of cabling that run under the ocean to connect the continents and create "the internet" had to be physically made and laid.  As did all of the continental cabling that connects California to New York, Paris to Krakow etc.  These are physical lengths of cabling that had to be manufactured and placed along carefully measured routes that just so happen, in your opinion, to match up perfectly with the Lat/long coordinates.

How do you know their methodology?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2017, 04:52:12 PM
The interesting thing about the FE'er's assertions that GPS is broken is that it was developed by the US military - primarily to allow cruise missiles and other long range/high-precision weapons to achieve ~2 foot precision on targets anywhere in the world.

The coordinates take you to real places if you attempt to follow them. The distance between the coordinates are based on a globe.

This isn't like wiring a house, Tom.  You don't just bring a whole bunch of it and stop spooling it out when you make landfall, because undersea cable is very expensive.  And even if you did, undersea cables have repeaters emedded in them every so many miles to boost the signal.  The owners know how many repeaters are in the cable, which means they know how long the cable is.

Are you an owner? Do you have access to their records for us?

As usual, we have the passive-aggressive effort to sow confusion and doubt rather than draw back the curtains and open the window to allow enlightenment and debate.

The point here is that the people who lay undersea cables - and the people who pay for them to be laid - and the people who run the system by remotely querying those regularly space repeaters would all have to be bundled up into your increasing spiral of conspiracy.

So now, the big undersea cable companies are a part of the same conspiracy as NASA, SpaceX, GPS and cellphone providers, the Russian, Chinese, Indian, French, South African and (now) North Korean governments?

Is there anyone besides Tom Bishop who is NOT a part of this coverup?

Isn't this just the teensiest bit paranoid?


Where did I say anything about a conspiracy? You are making a lot of assumptions on how submarine cable layers operate and I am asking for further information to demonstrate what was claimed is true. How do we know that they didn't run out of cable at one point and learned that they needed to bring more cable for these things?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 02, 2017, 05:12:02 PM

They would have known from previous trips and assessments of the Round Earth lat/lon readings how much fuel they would need to bring for xxx Round Earth miles.

If you travel 300 miles on a road trip, according to your GPS, and your tank is half empty you have an idea on how much fuel you need.
That's not how it works. I explained you already, but feel free to ignore it. As you always do with everything that you can't answer...
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 02, 2017, 05:17:30 PM
The interesting thing about the FE'er's assertions that GPS is broken is that it was developed by the US military - primarily to allow cruise missiles and other long range/high-precision weapons to achieve ~2 foot precision on targets anywhere in the world.

The coordinates take you to real places if you attempt to follow them. The distance between the coordinates are based on a globe.

This isn't like wiring a house, Tom.  You don't just bring a whole bunch of it and stop spooling it out when you make landfall, because undersea cable is very expensive.  And even if you did, undersea cables have repeaters emedded in them every so many miles to boost the signal.  The owners know how many repeaters are in the cable, which means they know how long the cable is.

Are you an owner? Do you have access to their records for us?

As usual, we have the passive-aggressive effort to sow confusion and doubt rather than draw back the curtains and open the window to allow enlightenment and debate.

The point here is that the people who lay undersea cables - and the people who pay for them to be laid - and the people who run the system by remotely querying those regularly space repeaters would all have to be bundled up into your increasing spiral of conspiracy.

So now, the big undersea cable companies are a part of the same conspiracy as NASA, SpaceX, GPS and cellphone providers, the Russian, Chinese, Indian, French, South African and (now) North Korean governments?

Is there anyone besides Tom Bishop who is NOT a part of this coverup?

Isn't this just the teensiest bit paranoid?


Where did I say anything about a conspiracy? You are making a lot of assumptions on how submarine cable layers operate and I am asking for further information to demonstrate what was claimed is true. How do we know that they didn't run out of cable at one point and learned that they needed to bring more cable for these things?

So you're saying (with a straight face) that when they lay a cable and it takes THREE TIMES as much as they thought it would - they just order more cable?

These guys would know immediately if the Earth was flat...from the first cables pulled in the 1850's until today - NOBODY thought to mention that they needed three times as much cable as they thought - and so there must be some ungodly huge problem with navigation maps.

Please - let's stay within bounds of credibility here!

Either they are "in" on the conspiracy or the world is round.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 02, 2017, 05:24:16 PM
Either they are "in" on the conspiracy or the world is round.
Or your insistence on the distanced being three times as long as they actually ate stems from an irrational obsession with assuming Cartesian geometries in inappropriate situations.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: rodriados on September 02, 2017, 05:49:44 PM
Either they are "in" on the conspiracy or the world is round.
Or your insistence on the distanced being three times as long as they actually ate stems from an irrational obsession with assuming Cartesian geometries in inappropriate situations.

By reading this message, what comes to my mind is that FEers tend to think like: "The Earth is definitely Flat. We don't know why. We don't how it looks. We can't prove it is flat, we can't map it, nor explain how things work in it. We can't even have consensus between our society's members. But any evidence anyone brings to me about a round Earth, is based on assumptions I decided to be false."

So, you claim the Earth is flat, but you can't give a single resource to base your belief.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 02, 2017, 06:47:58 PM
Either they are "in" on the conspiracy or the world is round.
Or your insistence on the distanced being three times as long as they actually ate stems from an irrational obsession with assuming Cartesian geometries in inappropriate situations.

Light still travels in straight lines and at the speed it does...I don't care what coordinate systems you choose to use for your map - the underlying shape reveals itself from the flight times and directions of photons.

If you push too far in the direction you're going, you'll end up in a world that is in every regards spherical - except that you've chosen to use a funky coordinate system so you can *call* it "Flat" despite being spherical in every possible way.

That would be a highly amusing position to take!  :-)

Should I make popcorn while you explain it?  I'm sure it'll be entertaining.


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: ibn on September 02, 2017, 07:24:33 PM
They would have known from previous trips and assessments of the Round Earth lat/lon readings how much fuel they would need to bring for xxx Round Earth miles.

If you travel 300 miles on a road trip, according to your GPS, and your tank is half empty you have an idea on how much fuel you need.

If people can get "an idea" on how much fuel they need for x Round Earth miles, that means there is a set amount of fuel (within a margin of error, of course) a given vehicle needs for a certain amount of RE miles. You also seem to assume they can extrapolate from the amount of fuel they need for x RE miles to the amount of fuel needed for, say, 3*x RE miles (i.e. three times the amount). All this leads to the assumption that, while a RE mile may not the same distance as a "real" mile, it still describes a constant distance and therefore is proportional to a "real" mile (i.e. there is a constant c such that x RE miles are c*x "real" miles).

Under this assumption, the approach presented by 3DGeek still works.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 02, 2017, 07:55:03 PM
They would have known from previous trips and assessments of the Round Earth lat/lon readings how much fuel they would need to bring for xxx Round Earth miles.

If you travel 300 miles on a road trip, according to your GPS, and your tank is half empty you have an idea on how much fuel you need.

Again Tom, you naively assume that airplane designers work by a process of trial and error.  They don't.   They know how much thrust a certain engine produces at a certain speed and altitude LONG before the airplane is off the drawing board.    They know how much drag the airplane design creates - again, from LONG before it's off the drawing board.   They also know the fuel demands of the engine (depending on altitude, airspeed and thrust) long before the engine is bolted onto an airplane.

Knowing thrust and drag as a function of speed - they can tell you to within a fraction of a percent how much fuel a plane will need over a particular flight - including takeoff, climb-out, cruise, descent and landing.

Your ideas of how airplanes are designed is something out of the 1930's - airplanes haven't been designed and built that way since World War Two.

That they'd fly some route and decide that the airplane needs three times as much fuel as they thought is laughable...especially because the 747-400ER's tanks are totally full for a flight of the airlines' predicted distance.   There isn't physically room in the tanks for three times as much.

Also, don't you think they'd wonder why their planes need 100% or 200% additional fuel for flights along some routes than others that they believe are the same distance and duration?  Airlines live and die by the amount of fuel they burn...it's around 40% of the ticket price for most routes:

(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2b03e66072eb6d582af7136d00a99e20)

If those routes that are stretched out by the FE map were true - then Qantas would be paying 120% of the ticket price for fuel compared to airlines who fly similar distances where the FE map doesn't stretch the distances so much.   They'd have gone out of business decades ago!

Don't you imagine that if this was true that they'd be shouting from the rooftops to find science to explain this bizarre phenomenon?   They really don't seem to be doing that.

You need to come up with a better argument - this one is an utter joke.

Hmmm - now here is an interesting thought:  Knowing that 40% of the ticket price is fuel cost - I wonder what would happen if we graphed flight distance against air fare?   If the world is round and the flight distance that the airlines claim is correct - I bet we'd see a graph which is a nice curve.  If the world is flat then there should be a wide spread between fuel cost (and therefore ticket price) between overland and overwater routes - because overwater routes are the ones with the largest distortions compared to the airlines claimed distances.

Oh - wait...here's that graph:

(https://i0.wp.com/www.rome2rio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/distancegraph-scaled1000.png)

Seems that the cost per mile is pretty linear.   With the discrepency between FET an airline-provided distances getting larger for longer routes - you'd expect a very non-linear curve here.

Honestly Tom...you really imagine you can win this debate?   I don't think so.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: geckothegeek on September 03, 2017, 12:24:53 AM
The most recent "worst post" I have seen from Tom Bishop is this one:
Quote : "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."
Even Charles Lindbergh knew the distance in 1927.

And that's not the only one !
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on September 03, 2017, 09:00:03 AM
The most recent "worst post" I have seen from Tom Bishop is this one:
Quote : "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."
Even Charles Lindbergh knew the distance in 1927.

And that's not the only one !
Followed by cable layers having to order some more when they are half way across the Atlantic!
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 03, 2017, 09:45:04 AM
Either they are "in" on the conspiracy or the world is round.
Or your insistence on the distanced being three times as long as they actually ate stems from an irrational obsession with assuming Cartesian geometries in inappropriate situations.
What does that mean? Are you suggesting that different areas of the FE use different geometries? This is new to me. Please explain
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 03, 2017, 02:11:10 PM
Either they are "in" on the conspiracy or the world is round.
Or your insistence on the distanced being three times as long as they actually ate stems from an irrational obsession with assuming Cartesian geometries in inappropriate situations.
What does that mean? Are you suggesting that different areas of the FE use different geometries? This is new to me. Please explain

I know what Pete means - I completely understand his premise.

There are mathematical concepts called "Non-euclidean geometries" where one or more rules of Euclidean geometry are deliberately broken.   You can produce weird - but self-consistent geometries using such techniques...and doing so to make flat maps of spherical planets is one of their uses.   In fact, the "standard" unipolar map of the FE on the Wiki is something *close* to a non-Euclidean map of a spherical Earth (except it doesn't distort the continents as much as a true non-Euclidean version would - and it distorts the oceans by a lot more).

What Pete is suggesting is that by using non-Euclidean geometry, we can make a flat earth map with no "distance errors" because it would violate the normal Euclidean methods for measuring distances (eg, comparing a uniformly marked ruler with points on the map).

This is a clever argument because he effectively gets FE maps that "work" because they are really round earth maps.   Sadly, reality clearly isn't non-Euclidean...so although he'd have a map that worked - the "reality" of it would be a spherical earth because that's the only way his non-Euclidean map would compare to reality.

So what he's saying (in effect) is that we could pick up (say) a Mercator projection map of the RE - and just proclaim that this is the One True FE map and that to measure distances across it, you have to use the non-Euclidean geometry of polar coordinates.   That's fine - but it would require people's bodies to stretch and bloat as they walked around in Australia!   Light would not travel in straight lines (which would handily fix the "sunset" problem!)

This is a very weird view of the world...but if the world really were like that then the it would be round in every single measurable, testable way...except there would be these odd places where there were edges you couldn't see past or move across.

Pete's flat earth would be "round" in all but name...and the only differences to RET reality would be the annoying edges of the map.   If that's his belief system - then fine - but he should understand that by saying that, he's proclaimed himself to be a round-earther.

It's an odd point of view...and not one that other FE'ers are likely to sign up to.

At any rate - his remarks do not apply to the perfectly normal cartesian universe that both RE'ers and FE'ers occupy.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 03, 2017, 09:33:21 PM
I know what Pete means - I completely understand his premise. [...]
TBH what you described is what I think he was getting at, but I wanted to hear it from him, because there are possible nuances. I'd love for the FE proponents to be a bit less cryptic and a bit more exhaustive in their answers, instead of leaving to us to try and nail jello to the wall. I bet it's a funny show though.

There was another user here (supersentient or something) with views similar but not the same. He disappeared without answering to my follow up questions.

What you wrote is the description of a word game. It's round for all intents and purposes, but I'm calling it flat. The guy is obviously not an idiot, so I have no reason to think that that's precisely what he means. Pete?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 03, 2017, 11:28:13 PM
I know what Pete means - I completely understand his premise. [...]
TBH what you described is what I think he was getting at, but I wanted to hear it from him, because there are possible nuances. I'd love for the FE proponents to be a bit less cryptic and a bit more exhaustive in their answers, instead of leaving to us to try and nail jello to the wall. I bet it's a funny show though.

There was another user here (supersentient or something) with views similar but not the same. He disappeared without answering to my follow up questions.

What you wrote is the description of a word game. It's round for all intents and purposes, but I'm calling it flat. The guy is obviously not an idiot, so I have no reason to think that that's precisely what he means. Pete?
There's another over on the other forums that has espoused something similar to this, and even go so far as to allow space travel because Earth is 'non-Euclideon' flat, and thus to an outside observer does in fact appear round. I don't personally understand why he then insists the world is still flat, when the idea appears to make it round on all but a (potentially untestable) technicality. But it DOES get around a large number of the issues having to do with space and the conspiracy if the conspiracy doesn't have to exist.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 04, 2017, 02:15:41 AM
I know what Pete means - I completely understand his premise. [...]
TBH what you described is what I think he was getting at, but I wanted to hear it from him, because there are possible nuances. I'd love for the FE proponents to be a bit less cryptic and a bit more exhaustive in their answers, instead of leaving to us to try and nail jello to the wall. I bet it's a funny show though.

There was another user here (supersentient or something) with views similar but not the same. He disappeared without answering to my follow up questions.

What you wrote is the description of a word game. It's round for all intents and purposes, but I'm calling it flat. The guy is obviously not an idiot, so I have no reason to think that that's precisely what he means. Pete?
There's another over on the other forums that has espoused something similar to this, and even go so far as to allow space travel because Earth is 'non-Euclideon' flat, and thus to an outside observer does in fact appear round. I don't personally understand why he then insists the world is still flat, when the idea appears to make it round on all but a (potentially untestable) technicality. But it DOES get around a large number of the issues having to do with space and the conspiracy if the conspiracy doesn't have to exist.

Yes...saying it's a flat earth that has as it's fundamental version of space-time a structure that uses a non-euclidean (spherical) coordinate system...is just using a bunch of long words to say that the world is round.

At that point, it is indeed just a word-game.

Well - unless he's going to insist that the world still has "edges" - in which case we'd be in the odd situation of having a spherical world with a seam in it that was uncrossable - and over which even light could not cross.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Horhang on September 04, 2017, 04:13:21 AM
That post was already addressed. Here was my reply:

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.

The only reply from the poster was a statement that Latitude and Longitude is correct. No evidence was provided for this statement. The only evidence in this thread are my sources showing that GPS provides incorrect distances. No sources have been provided show that any Round Earth navigational system provides correct distances. You and Frank continually refuse to provide evidence of such. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter.

Granted this is early in the discussion, but there is a very simple reason runners gps does not match course Distance. Course Distance is measured on the ideal line. Unless you are an elite runner at the front of the race free to choose exactly where you run, you do not run the ideal line. You take longer routes through corners, you can't run the straight line through an s curve in the road......
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2009/03/racing-line-understanding-how-courses.html


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 04, 2017, 02:54:18 PM
That post was already addressed. Here was my reply:

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.

The only reply from the poster was a statement that Latitude and Longitude is correct. No evidence was provided for this statement. The only evidence in this thread are my sources showing that GPS provides incorrect distances. No sources have been provided show that any Round Earth navigational system provides correct distances. You and Frank continually refuse to provide evidence of such. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter.

Granted this is early in the discussion, but there is a very simple reason runners gps does not match course Distance. Course Distance is measured on the ideal line. Unless you are an elite runner at the front of the race free to choose exactly where you run, you do not run the ideal line. You take longer routes through corners, you can't run the straight line through an s curve in the road......
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2009/03/racing-line-understanding-how-courses.html

That might matter a little - but much more likely is that known GPS errors are absolute distances (10 feet is commonly quoted).

Over a 200 foot race track - you'd get (perhaps) as much as a 10 foot error at the start line and another 10 foot error in the opposite direction at the finish - so the total distance (as measured by GPS) could easily be wrong by 10%.

But over a 3,000 mile airplane flight - you still only get a 10 foot error at start and end - so the percentage error is incredibly small.

Hence we can trust GPS measurements over long distances - but not so much over very short ones.

If you wish to use GPS for sporting events, you should use "Differential GPS" - which adds a special "Ground station" gizmo that acts as an additional "satellite" (in effect).  The GPS electronics can then measure positions accurately down to fractions of an inch RELATIVE TO that ground station.  You don't have any better precision over the entire world by doing that - but for sporting events, it produces the result you need.

But Tom's insistence on using this one scientific paper is indicative of desperation.   The content of the paper is utterly inapplicable to long distance measurements that we are discussing here.   We understand why standard GPS is hopelessly poor for things like sporting events - and can easily explain why those errors don't matter for airline flights...which is what we're actually talking about here.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 04, 2017, 04:38:30 PM
That would be a highly amusing position to take!  :-)

Should I make popcorn while you explain it?  I'm sure it'll be entertaining.
Have you considered the radical possibility that people will be more willing to co-operate with you if you don't attack them from the get-go? Why would I make the effort of explaining the world that surrounds you if:

There are plenty of people who are interested in serious conversation with me - why would I shift my busy schedule away from them and towards the likes of you?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: rodriados on September 04, 2017, 04:54:06 PM
That would be a highly amusing position to take!  :-)

Should I make popcorn while you explain it?  I'm sure it'll be entertaining.
Have you considered the radical possibility that people will be more willing to co-operate with you if you don't attack them from the get-go? Why would I waste my time explaining the world that surrounds you if:
  • You're 100% sure you've already got it figured out (it would be wasting your time)
  • You're completely disinterested in what I might have to say (it would be wasting my time)

There are plenty of people who are interested in serious conversation with me - why would I shift my busy schedule away from them and towards the likes of you?

As this is a public forum, I think it'd be really worthwhile. There are many people out there in doubt about how the world looks like.

Besides that, since I registered to this forum, I haven't seen a single FE argument that made me think: "that's a really good point."
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on September 04, 2017, 05:30:35 PM
To be clear, GPS does not measure distances, it provides location data of known accuracy.  Applications will use that data to determine a distance using further data on the size and shape of the earth.

Note satnavs use details of individual roads to determine a route, duration and distance.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 04, 2017, 06:45:25 PM
That would be a highly amusing position to take!  :-)

Should I make popcorn while you explain it?  I'm sure it'll be entertaining.
Have you considered the radical possibility that people will be more willing to co-operate with you if you don't attack them from the get-go? Why would I make the effort of explaining the world that surrounds you if:
  • You're 100% sure you've already got it figured out (it would be wasting your time)
  • You're completely disinterested in what I might have to say (it would be wasting my time)

There are plenty of people who are interested in serious conversation with me - why would I shift my busy schedule away from them and towards the likes of you?
Actually I asked with no malice. And I doubled down by saying that you are clearly not an idiot ;D
So maybe you could like copy/ paste something or point me in the general direction of your views, thus avoiding misrepresentations by those eeevil roundies ;D
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2017, 09:23:35 PM
But over a 3,000 mile airplane flight - you still only get a 10 foot error at start and end - so the percentage error is incredibly small.

Where has this been demonstrated?

Quote
But Tom's insistence on using this one scientific paper is indicative of desperation.   The content of the paper is utterly inapplicable to long distance measurements that we are discussing here.   We understand why standard GPS is hopelessly poor for things like sporting events - and can easily explain why those errors don't matter for airline flights...which is what we're actually talking about here.

I didn't bring up that paper as evidence, you guys did.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on September 04, 2017, 09:48:29 PM
But over a 3,000 mile airplane flight - you still only get a 10 foot error at start and end - so the percentage error is incredibly small.

Where has this been demonstrated?

Quote
But Tom's insistence on using this one scientific paper is indicative of desperation.   The content of the paper is utterly inapplicable to long distance measurements that we are discussing here.   We understand why standard GPS is hopelessly poor for things like sporting events - and can easily explain why those errors don't matter for airline flights...which is what we're actually talking about here.

I didn't bring up that paper as evidence, you guys did.
Here is your opportunity.

Is timeanddate.com correct for you and what equipment are you needing to derermine the shape of the earth?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 1qtpropwash4me on September 07, 2017, 09:46:36 PM
Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?

Navigation, governance and commerce all break down if we don't actually know how far things are from each other.  It may seem trivial until you realize that international commerce relies on knowing exactly how far raw materials and finished goods have to travel before you purchase them on Amazon or at Walmart or whatever other physical/online store you use.  Your basic internet access only works because some poor schmuck dragged a specific length of fiber optic cable across the ocean to connect the land masses.  How else did you think that you could mildly irritate people in every time zone simultaneously?

In a modern world ruled by profit margin, knowing exact costs is king.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

All that is known is how long the transportation takes. In Round Earth coordinate devices the distance is computed based on Round Earth coordinate geometry.
Well it seems I'm a few days late to this discussion, but wow this is fascinating! Up until today I honestly didn't realize some people still believe in a flat earth.

This particular thread fascinated me because my background is in avionics, and I'm also a pilot. So to me this whole flight time calculation exercise is a little silly, as it disregards how airspace systems work, how different navigation systems integrate in-flight to calculate flight times, air density... airspeed vs groundspeed etc..... and the speedometer vs gps thing was also interesting, ummm that one is quite easy to explain, if you've ever gotten out of a speeding ticket by getting your speedometer replaced you know what I mean 😉

So really I see flight times as a horrible way to prove or disprove um the shape of our planet.  Just curious, why so adamant about the shape of our planet being flat? Im honestly just a really curious person, which is why i sometimes end up in random corners of the internet, such as this, im not trying to disprove your theories, even though i recognize your argument to be faulty in this particular case.


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 07, 2017, 10:53:48 PM
Well it seems I'm a few days late to this discussion, but wow this is fascinating! Up until today I honestly didn't realize some people still believe in a flat earth.

This particular thread fascinated me because my background is in avionics, and I'm also a pilot. So to me this whole flight time calculation exercise is a little silly, as it disregards how airspace systems work, how different navigation systems integrate in-flight to calculate flight times, air density... airspeed vs groundspeed etc..... and the speedometer vs gps thing was also interesting, ummm that one is quite easy to explain, if you've ever gotten out of a speeding ticket by getting your speedometer replaced you know what I mean 😉

So really I see flight times as a horrible way to prove or disprove um the shape of our planet.  Just curious, why so adamant about the shape of our planet being flat? Im honestly just a really curious person, which is why i sometimes end up in random corners of the internet, such as this, im not trying to disprove your theories, even though i recognize your argument to be faulty in this particular case.

Perhaps a brief summary of the argument so far.

1) If you look at either of the two "common" FE maps ("unipolar" and "bipolar") they both predict that the distance from (say) Sydney Australia to (say) Santiago Chile is between 2.1 and 3.4 times LARGER than it's known to be in the Round Earth world.    I point out that Qantas airlines have regular 747-400 flights between those two cities and it takes around 13 hours to fly those routes.   Since 747-400's cannot fly at Mach 2...these two maps must both be WILDLY incorrect.

2) There is some argument about "jet stream winds" - I point out that these winds can only speed up flights in one direction and Qantas flights times are only about 15 minutes different each way...this argument goes away (as it should!).

3) Tom Bishop asserts (rather bravely, I thought) that the FE'ers actually have NO IDEA what the map of the Earth looks like - the maps we see are just possible examples.

Wow!  That's a clever debate tactic.   By saying this, he believes that we can no longer use the "airline route distance/time" argument to defeat the flat earth.

Sadly, I'm quite a bit smarter than him...so I come up with this cunning argument:

4) Suppose we assume that the world *IS* flat - and we don't know the layout of the continents or anything.   If we know the distances between four cities that are widely spread - we can build a quadrilateral using the four distances along the sides.  Knowing the lengths of four sides and one diagonal (5 distances) - we can figure out the internal angles and basically know everything about that quadrilateral.

5)  If we now draw in the second diagonal, then it's length SHOULD match the sixth piece of distance data between the those cities...right?   Basic euclidean geometry.

6) HOWEVER: I look up the flight distances on the Qantas and British Airways web sited - we work through the math for couple of examples - and there is NO POSSIBLE flat quadrilateral that has those lengths those six distances simply do not form a quadrilateral with the given diagonals.   The error isn't small - if you pick the right sets of cities, the error is outrageous.

7) I would say that this is because our assumption that this is a PLANAR quadrilateral is incorrect (because the Earth is ROUND)..and if it's not planar then the distances we have are PROOF that the Earth cannot possibly be flat.   It might be concave or convex or some other shape - but it absolutely cannot be FLAT.

8) Notice that this is true no matter how the FE'ers draw their maps.   They simply cannot make maps that fit the airline flight data.

At this point - I'd claim victory...but the FE'ers aren't quite done yet.

9) Of course, the FE'ers first reaction to this is "Well how do we know that the airlines got those distances right?" - I demonstrate that various other web sites that calculate such distances...Google maps...all agree very well with the airline distances - but the FE'ers claim that ALL of our sources are simply using the same (in their view, incorrect) math.

10) In defense of the airlines flight distances - I point out that the flight times of these long routes are very well known - and the cruise speed of every airliner is well documented - and if we multiply flight time by cruise speed - we get very good agreement with the distances that the airlines claim.  This backs up my distances...if the flight times are correct and the speed an airplane can fly are correct then I've proved that the world isn't flat.

11) Now things start to get silly:  Tom Bishop (FE'er-in-chief) steps up and basically claims that the airlines AND the airplane manufacturers don't know how fast they can fly - so they fly a route with a stopwatch and set the time that way.   Does this argument sound kinda *desperate* to you?   It certainly does to me!

12) This is patent nonsense - the airplane manufacturers know how fast the plane will fly from data they collect from engine thrust curves, the drag on the airframe that's calculated from CAD data and double-checked in a wind-tunnel.   They cannot *POSSIBLY* think their planes have a top speed of 650 mph - when they are actually flying at Mach 2 on a daily basis!!

So, again, I say we have a win for the round earthers.

Then we get into the mire as Tom attempts to fling mud at things like GPS...when we know that airplane speeds are checked by the ATC radar, by LORAN, by all manner of other means.

Personally - I say this debate is won...the Flat Earthers no longer have a leg to stand on, and they should have the guts to admit it.

But they don't - and that's ALWAYS the case.   I've put up at least a half dozen SOLID arguments over the past month - and most of the time, they just stop posting to the thread when they no longer have a good come-back.

The world *IS* Round...it's not really debatable.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Horhang on September 07, 2017, 11:30:26 PM
3dGeek,
A thought occurred to me. To avoid all the fighting about calculated distance, simple use time as a proxy for Distance. Use hours as a base unit, and convert minutes to a decimal of the hour. Then use that as your distance between the cities. Should still get the same result I would think and it takes a hiding place, the distances are wrong, away because we know the times are correct.
Occurred to me because a lab I just did with my eight graders used measuring mass as a proxy for magnetic field strength with magnets on an electronic balance. Why not do the same thing here, use time as a proxy for distance?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 08, 2017, 01:53:07 AM
3dGeek,
A thought occurred to me. To avoid all the fighting about calculated distance, simple use time as a proxy for Distance. Use hours as a base unit, and convert minutes to a decimal of the hour. Then use that as your distance between the cities. Should still get the same result I would think and it takes a hiding place, the distances are wrong, away because we know the times are correct.
Occurred to me because a lab I just did with my eight graders used measuring mass as a proxy for magnetic field strength with magnets on an electronic balance. Why not do the same thing here, use time as a proxy for distance?

Yes, I essentially said that.  Not only must the airlines and plane makers be blissfully unaware of the actual speeds their planes are flying...but they must also be flying at different speeds on different routes...AND somehow "knowing" what speeds to fly at to make it APPEAR that the Earth is round instead of flat.

Not really plausible is it?

So the idea that the Earth is flat is clearly disproven...but do you think the flat earthers will admit defeat?  I'm betting not.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 09, 2017, 03:31:41 PM
No Tom,

In transportation distance matters as well.  Mileage is needed to ensure you don't run out of fuel and die.  Using the round earth coordinates to traverse both halves of the world or in your model both hemiplanes has yet to cause a large number of flights or ships to suddenly run out of fuel mid trip.

They would have known from previous trips and assessments of the Round Earth lat/lon readings how much fuel they would need to bring for xxx Round Earth miles.

If you travel 300 miles on a road trip, according to your GPS, and your tank is half empty you have an idea on how much fuel you need.

Quote
The miles of cabling that run under the ocean to connect the continents and create "the internet" had to be physically made and laid.  As did all of the continental cabling that connects California to New York, Paris to Krakow etc.  These are physical lengths of cabling that had to be manufactured and placed along carefully measured routes that just so happen, in your opinion, to match up perfectly with the Lat/long coordinates.

How do you know their methodology?

To answer your second question, because they had to apply for permits in all municipalities in order to establish the cabling lines in the first place.  When installing public infrastructure along roadways, each local government requires zoning approval in the form of schematics, materials properties, engineering assessments, environmental assessments etc which are all kept on public record.  When crossing national borders, the permitting process becomes even more complicated.  Ever wonder why road crews spend a lot of time with surveying equipment prior to a major road overhaul?  It's because in the event that they hit the buried cabling, water lines or gas lines bad things happen.  They have to accurately measure the roads and compare their measurements to the building permits on file to ensure that they don't blow up a city block or create a 2 foot high geyser or you know get any of their employees killed.  Almost all of the time, they're successful at this endeavor, so...

To address your first rebuttal.  Eh, no.  That's not how long distance air travel works.  When a new airplane design is created, they don't just load it up with people, launch it and hope no one dies along their maiden voyage so that they can track how much fuel they used for future flights.  It's not like running out of gas in a car where you can pull off the side of the road and wait for AAA to come by with a gas can.  An airplane would crash, people would die and most likely that company would be sued for wrongful deaths by family members of every passenger probably leading to bankruptcy.  Being as how this doesn't happen routinely, it's safe to conclude that they take distances based on the RE coordinate system, projected fuel performance as established during the design and modeling process and reasonable margins of error to ensure that they don't run out of fuel half way there.

You sound like you're getting desperate Tom.  Your arguments don't even make any sense anymore and you're purposefully avoiding discussing the real points of the argument.

Distance is measured, time is measured, speed is defined by those 2 measurements and can be measured as well.  When you know 2, you can solve for the 3rd.  Round earth model coordinate systems have routinely delivered people to their destinations for a long time.  The FE model doesn't even have an accurate measurable map to test navigation with. 

If the earth were truly flat, it would be simple to create a flat map with no distortion that accurately measures all of the continents and oceans.  This map doesn't exist, therefor reductio ad absurdum the earth can't possibly be flat.  Done.

Thank you,

Critical Thinker
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 09, 2017, 03:54:56 PM
You sound like you're getting desperate Tom.  Your arguments don't even make any sense anymore and you're purposefully avoiding discussing the real points of the argument.

That is Tom's modus operandii.

You'll notice that if you start a thread about seeing things over the horizon where there are large stretches of water...then Tom will be on that thread, fighting every step of the way - quoting the idiot Rowbotham - citing 150 year old books...he's all over it.

When you start asking DIFFICULT questions, you'll get one or two very weak responses - then he'll go silent once the going gets tough.  He simply cannot grasp the inconsistencies in his claim that "light travels in straight lines" and his "alternative" theory of perspective...as if these are entirely separate matters rather than one being a consequence of the other.

In all serious debate - we rapidly run into the limits of his ability to understand the arguments being presented.

A man who was both intelligent and honest would be admitting that he was wrong at this point...but this is a guy who believes that you can easily cure cancer with "garlic and peppers" and that all people who served in the Navy are "murderers", that "Ebola can be  easily cured via Vitamin C injections.", "The treatment for HIV is Vitamin C"
 and that "There is a conspiracy in medicine."...just like NASA, I assume.

A couple of people here have said that he's the smartest defender of FET they have...that's a very sad statement.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on September 09, 2017, 11:12:37 PM
You sound like you're getting desperate Tom.  Your arguments don't even make any sense anymore and you're purposefully avoiding discussing the real points of the argument.

That is Tom's modus operandii.

You'll notice that if you start a thread about seeing things over the horizon where there are large stretches of water...then Tom will be on that thread, fighting every step of the way - quoting the idiot Rowbotham - citing 150 year old books...he's all over it.

When you start asking DIFFICULT questions, you'll get one or two very weak responses - then he'll go silent once the going gets tough.  He simply cannot grasp the inconsistencies in his claim that "light travels in straight lines" and his "alternative" theory of perspective...as if these are entirely separate matters rather than one being a consequence of the other.

In all serious debate - we rapidly run into the limits of his ability to understand the arguments being presented.

A man who was both intelligent and honest would be admitting that he was wrong at this point...but this is a guy who believes that you can easily cure cancer with "garlic and peppers" and that all people who served in the Navy are "murderers", that "Ebola can be  easily cured via Vitamin C injections.", "The treatment for HIV is Vitamin C"
 and that "There is a conspiracy in medicine."...just like NASA, I assume.

A couple of people here have said that he's the smartest defender of FET they have...that's a very sad statement.


If you can't argue the math, attack the variables.   

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: rb on September 11, 2017, 08:20:45 PM
The interesting thing about the FE'er's assertions that GPS is broken is that it was developed by the US military - primarily to allow cruise missiles and other long range/high-precision weapons to achieve ~2 foot precision on targets anywhere in the world.

The coordinates take you to real places if you attempt to follow them. The distance between the coordinates are based on a globe.

This isn't like wiring a house, Tom.  You don't just bring a whole bunch of it and stop spooling it out when you make landfall, because undersea cable is very expensive.  And even if you did, undersea cables have repeaters emedded in them every so many miles to boost the signal.  The owners know how many repeaters are in the cable, which means they know how long the cable is.

Are you an owner? Do you have access to their records for us?

As usual, we have the passive-aggressive effort to sow confusion and doubt rather than draw back the curtains and open the window to allow enlightenment and debate.

The point here is that the people who lay undersea cables - and the people who pay for them to be laid - and the people who run the system by remotely querying those regularly space repeaters would all have to be bundled up into your increasing spiral of conspiracy.

So now, the big undersea cable companies are a part of the same conspiracy as NASA, SpaceX, GPS and cellphone providers, the Russian, Chinese, Indian, French, South African and (now) North Korean governments?

Is there anyone besides Tom Bishop who is NOT a part of this coverup?

Isn't this just the teensiest bit paranoid?


Where did I say anything about a conspiracy? You are making a lot of assumptions on how submarine cable layers operate and I am asking for further information to demonstrate what was claimed is true. How do we know that they didn't run out of cable at one point and learned that they needed to bring more cable for these things?

This is an interesting Website :D. Not sure how I wound up here, and not sure how i ended up reading this thread.

Anyway. Tom, cable laying ships are extremely precise. I did a brief stint (9 days) aboard one such vessel, MV Wave Venture (http://www.cablesm.fr/Wave%20Venture.pdf). at the time I was working as an engineering intern for a company which contracted this vessel to do some work. I spent a lot of time in the operations room as well as on the cable deck and learned about the cable laying process.

The supplies aboard the ship are precisely measured and inventoried. This is necessary as the ship is enormously expensive to operate and running out of cable or other supplies mid-tour would be disastrous.

If you go to that PDF I linked, near the bottom are photos of the two cable handling drums. Those large drums play cable in and out. Their circumference is known and their motion precisely measured. Up in the control room, there are readouts on rate of cable pay-out, tension on the cable, amount of cable played out (easily calculated from drum diameter and # rotations of drum).

If the ship moves ahead too quickly and tension rises, the cable will snap. This would be catastrophic. To this end, tension is monitored careful and ship movement must be precisely controlled. The ship uses a dynamic positioning system, based on GPS. The accuracy is around 2 meters (the 400-something ft long ship can maintain its exact position within 2 meters and a degree or two of heading using directional "azimuth thrusters" and high performance GPS receivers positioned around the ship).

The GPS positioning system agrees closely with the cable run length, measured physically using the cable drum over long distances. This experimental "proof" of GPS accuracy is performed on every cable laying run. If the ship has moved 1 mile on GPS, but an unexpected amount of cable has been played out, this would be obvious in the ship control room (would probably indicate an unexpected underwater feature and the ship would back up/pick up cable and figure out what went wrong before re-laying).  Note that the cable laying plan also takes into account underwater topology (based on oceanic surveying, done via sonar).

-----

On another note of interest. A lot of land surveying these days is done via LIDAR. Basically an aircraft (or for smaller areas, maybe a small UAV) flies over and a lidar sensor takes millions of point distance measurements (worked based on speed of light and reflections, does not rely on any notion of round or flat anything). The end result is a dense "point cloud" or high resolution 3D map of an area.

Here's a  little clip that shows a bit of the process and what the results look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1VpTjIQQ1Q

In order for the measurements from the moving aircraft to be combined into a coherent 3D model, the precise location of the aircraft & LiDAR at each moment must be known. Otherwise, the map would be an enormous mess (jumble of points). There are two major methods of inferring the location of the lidar at each time step

- SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping)
- Sensor-based (GPS + Inertial measurements)

The slam method is much more difficult and is the subject of current research. With the slam method, in each new time step, you try "sync up" your new laser scan with the last one, finding an overlapping match and thus inferring the new position of the laser.

The sensor-based method uses a combination of GPS and an IMU (accelerometers and gyros) to log the precise position and orientation of the sensor in 3D space. By combining the long-term accuracy of GPS and short-term precision of inertial methods, and using filtering techniques, centimeter-level accuracy can be achieved.

In either of these methods, if the position of the laser cannot be accurately determined in 3D space for every moment in time (lets say GPS or IMU failure or inaccuracy), the map will look like a mess with all kinds of overlapping, incoherent points. In this event, the instrumentation will have to be repaired and data will have to be re-collected.

Now, if GPS worked consistently but with a scale offset, ie measured wrong distances, there are two issues. Firstly, the sensor fusion would fail (the inertial measurement unit would disagree with the GPS measurements). Secondly, the created map would be accurate, but at the wrong scale (distances incorrect). While the former takes some knowledge of signal processing to understand, the second can easily be analyzed empirically.

You can personally download LiDAR data sets, tagged with GPS data as well as aircraft data (altitude, position, velocity, etc). To prove to yourself that these GPS data sets are of accurate scale (since you don't seem to want to trust anyone else), you could download a dataset for somewhere local to you and look at the 3D point cloud. Measure a distance in the pointcloud between two known locations (lets say measure out the distance between two buildings). Then, in real life, go out there and confirm this data empirically using whatever equipment you like (laser range finder, radar, measuring tape, whatever).

In this manner, you will have proven the following:

A) the physically measured 3D pointclouds agree with published aerial maps (ie what you would find on google earth)
B) Aircraft are able to accurately determine their location, speed, position, orientation and altitude
C) GPS is able to accurately measure distances within a tolerance of several feet of absolute non-compounding error.

The underlying assumptions here are:

- The speed of light is ~ 3*10^8 m/s (required for lidar measurements)
- Time can be accurately measured (again required for lidar measurements)
- You are capable of personally measuring distance in the order of a few hundred feet to empirically verify the data

This is real, undisputable physical data that you can empirically verify yourself.

My credentials:

Bsc. Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
BSc. Aeronautics & Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

My graduate thesis involves navigation of autonomous vehicles and as such relies on accuracy of systems such as GPS from a small, directly measurable scale up to larger areas. We work in GPS-available and GPS-denied environments and must fuse data from inertial systems, Lidar, RADAR, GPS, cameras, etc. to have both aerial and ground vehicles navigate precisely.

Hopefully my suggested experiment gives you an avenue to prove to yourself the performance of GPS :). I prove it to myself daily in my line of work. Once this business of distances is sorted, I believe the rest of the proof is clear cut using the geometry already presented by others. I should probably get back to work now.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2017, 04:25:22 AM
The interesting thing about the FE'er's assertions that GPS is broken is that it was developed by the US military - primarily to allow cruise missiles and other long range/high-precision weapons to achieve ~2 foot precision on targets anywhere in the world.

The coordinates take you to real places if you attempt to follow them. The distance between the coordinates are based on a globe.

This isn't like wiring a house, Tom.  You don't just bring a whole bunch of it and stop spooling it out when you make landfall, because undersea cable is very expensive.  And even if you did, undersea cables have repeaters emedded in them every so many miles to boost the signal.  The owners know how many repeaters are in the cable, which means they know how long the cable is.

Are you an owner? Do you have access to their records for us?

As usual, we have the passive-aggressive effort to sow confusion and doubt rather than draw back the curtains and open the window to allow enlightenment and debate.

The point here is that the people who lay undersea cables - and the people who pay for them to be laid - and the people who run the system by remotely querying those regularly space repeaters would all have to be bundled up into your increasing spiral of conspiracy.

So now, the big undersea cable companies are a part of the same conspiracy as NASA, SpaceX, GPS and cellphone providers, the Russian, Chinese, Indian, French, South African and (now) North Korean governments?

Is there anyone besides Tom Bishop who is NOT a part of this coverup?

Isn't this just the teensiest bit paranoid?


Where did I say anything about a conspiracy? You are making a lot of assumptions on how submarine cable layers operate and I am asking for further information to demonstrate what was claimed is true. How do we know that they didn't run out of cable at one point and learned that they needed to bring more cable for these things?

This is an interesting Website :D. Not sure how I wound up here, and not sure how i ended up reading this thread.

Anyway. Tom, cable laying ships are extremely precise. I did a brief stint (9 days) aboard one such vessel, MV Wave Venture (http://www.cablesm.fr/Wave%20Venture.pdf). at the time I was working as an engineering intern for a company which contracted this vessel to do some work. I spent a lot of time in the operations room as well as on the cable deck and learned about the cable laying process.

The supplies aboard the ship are precisely measured and inventoried. This is necessary as the ship is enormously expensive to operate and running out of cable or other supplies mid-tour would be disastrous.

If you go to that PDF I linked, near the bottom are photos of the two cable handling drums. Those large drums play cable in and out. Their circumference is known and their motion precisely measured. Up in the control room, there are readouts on rate of cable pay-out, tension on the cable, amount of cable played out (easily calculated from drum diameter and # rotations of drum).

If the ship moves ahead too quickly and tension rises, the cable will snap. This would be catastrophic. To this end, tension is monitored careful and ship movement must be precisely controlled. The ship uses a dynamic positioning system, based on GPS. The accuracy is around 2 meters (the 400-something ft long ship can maintain its exact position within 2 meters and a degree or two of heading using directional "azimuth thrusters" and high performance GPS receivers positioned around the ship).

The GPS positioning system agrees closely with the cable run length, measured physically using the cable drum over long distances. This experimental "proof" of GPS accuracy is performed on every cable laying run. If the ship has moved 1 mile on GPS, but an unexpected amount of cable has been played out, this would be obvious in the ship control room (would probably indicate an unexpected underwater feature and the ship would back up/pick up cable and figure out what went wrong before re-laying).  Note that the cable laying plan also takes into account underwater topology (based on oceanic surveying, done via sonar).

-----

On another note of interest. A lot of land surveying these days is done via LIDAR. Basically an aircraft (or for smaller areas, maybe a small UAV) flies over and a lidar sensor takes millions of point distance measurements (worked based on speed of light and reflections, does not rely on any notion of round or flat anything). The end result is a dense "point cloud" or high resolution 3D map of an area.

Here's a  little clip that shows a bit of the process and what the results look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1VpTjIQQ1Q

In order for the measurements from the moving aircraft to be combined into a coherent 3D model, the precise location of the aircraft & LiDAR at each moment must be known. Otherwise, the map would be an enormous mess (jumble of points). There are two major methods of inferring the location of the lidar at each time step

- SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping)
- Sensor-based (GPS + Inertial measurements)

The slam method is much more difficult and is the subject of current research. With the slam method, in each new time step, you try "sync up" your new laser scan with the last one, finding an overlapping match and thus inferring the new position of the laser.

The sensor-based method uses a combination of GPS and an IMU (accelerometers and gyros) to log the precise position and orientation of the sensor in 3D space. By combining the long-term accuracy of GPS and short-term precision of inertial methods, and using filtering techniques, centimeter-level accuracy can be achieved.

In either of these methods, if the position of the laser cannot be accurately determined in 3D space for every moment in time (lets say GPS or IMU failure or inaccuracy), the map will look like a mess with all kinds of overlapping, incoherent points. In this event, the instrumentation will have to be repaired and data will have to be re-collected.

Now, if GPS worked consistently but with a scale offset, ie measured wrong distances, there are two issues. Firstly, the sensor fusion would fail (the inertial measurement unit would disagree with the GPS measurements). Secondly, the created map would be accurate, but at the wrong scale (distances incorrect). While the former takes some knowledge of signal processing to understand, the second can easily be analyzed empirically.

You can personally download LiDAR data sets, tagged with GPS data as well as aircraft data (altitude, position, velocity, etc). To prove to yourself that these GPS data sets are of accurate scale (since you don't seem to want to trust anyone else), you could download a dataset for somewhere local to you and look at the 3D point cloud. Measure a distance in the pointcloud between two known locations (lets say measure out the distance between two buildings). Then, in real life, go out there and confirm this data empirically using whatever equipment you like (laser range finder, radar, measuring tape, whatever).

In this manner, you will have proven the following:

A) the physically measured 3D pointclouds agree with published aerial maps (ie what you would find on google earth)
B) Aircraft are able to accurately determine their location, speed, position, orientation and altitude
C) GPS is able to accurately measure distances within a tolerance of several feet of absolute non-compounding error.

The underlying assumptions here are:

- The speed of light is ~ 3*10^8 m/s (required for lidar measurements)
- Time can be accurately measured (again required for lidar measurements)
- You are capable of personally measuring distance in the order of a few hundred feet to empirically verify the data

This is real, undisputable physical data that you can empirically verify yourself.

My credentials:

Bsc. Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
BSc. Aeronautics & Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

My graduate thesis involves navigation of autonomous vehicles and as such relies on accuracy of systems such as GPS from a small, directly measurable scale up to larger areas. We work in GPS-available and GPS-denied environments and must fuse data from inertial systems, Lidar, RADAR, GPS, cameras, etc. to have both aerial and ground vehicles navigate precisely.

Hopefully my suggested experiment gives you an avenue to prove to yourself the performance of GPS :). I prove it to myself daily in my line of work. Once this business of distances is sorted, I believe the rest of the proof is clear cut using the geometry already presented by others. I should probably get back to work now.

Right... so you spend 9 days on such a vessel and that makes you an expert on exactly what kind of extra cable and supplies they bring along. Are we to assume that you interrogated the captain about his extra cable?

How do we know that there is no excess cable? You are assuming that a possible Flat Earth model must cause a cable shortage, when the opposite can be true as well.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: xenotolerance on November 08, 2017, 05:56:48 AM
Why you gotta necro an 18-page thread just to derail it? And avoid the other thread in the process? Is this a purposeful distraction tactic?

Like, an ad hominem (just an intern, amirite?) plus missing the point (he references LiDAR as evidence for GPS accuracy, you challenge cable length?) = low quality post

What the hell man?

QFT:
You sound like you're getting desperate Tom.  Your arguments don't even make any sense anymore and you're purposefully avoiding discussing the real points of the argument.

Distance is measured, time is measured, speed is defined by those 2 measurements and can be measured as well.  When you know 2, you can solve for the 3rd.  Round earth model coordinate systems have routinely delivered people to their destinations for a long time.  The FE model doesn't even have an accurate measurable map to test navigation with. 

If the earth were truly flat, it would be simple to create a flat map with no distortion that accurately measures all of the continents and oceans.  This map doesn't exist, therefor reductio ad absurdum the earth can't possibly be flat.  Done.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on November 08, 2017, 08:03:24 PM

Right... so you spend 9 days on such a vessel and that makes you an expert on exactly what kind of extra cable and supplies they bring along. Are we to assume that you interrogated the captain about his extra cable?

How do we know that there is no excess cable? You are assuming that a possible Flat Earth model must cause a cable shortage, when the opposite can be true as well.

So out of all that, plus the man's qualifications and education you pluck that out? It was a good post, you should do a point by point commentary on it.  The way the ship uses GPS to stay within 2 meters is a good start.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: mtnman on November 09, 2017, 05:45:41 AM

So out of all that, plus the man's qualifications and educations you pluck that out? It was a good post, you should do a point by point commentary on it.  The way the ship uses GPS to stay within 2 meters is a good start.
Claims conflicting with FE must be debunked if possible, otherwise a plausible reason must be established for ignoring them.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 09, 2017, 08:57:53 AM
Right... so you spend 9 days on such a vessel and that makes you an expert on exactly what kind of extra cable and supplies they bring along. Are we to assume that you interrogated the captain about his extra cable?

How do we know that there is no excess cable? You are assuming that a possible Flat Earth model must cause a cable shortage, when the opposite can be true as well.
The cables are really big, they don't just have another one lying in the store cupboard, I think anyone on that ship would notice if they had an extra one.
(http://global-sei.com/products/submarine-cable/img/img_index_01.jpg)
He was working with the engineering I'm sure he would have caught on if they said they sometimes only use half, sometimes they need an extra one. Besides, they aren't the kind of cables that you just splice together on board or cut of the excess when you reach the far end.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Roger G on November 12, 2017, 12:18:02 AM
Hi All,

I had a day off today and after looking at ISS videos and info last night, came across some interesting videos and posts from FE people. Never having taken any interest whatsoever in flat earth theory I came to this website. I read some of the other threads before hitting on this one and how fascinating and entertaining it has been to read through the entire thread.

I have no particular scientific or mathematical background so some of the arguments are over my head, however, I spent many years as a gliding instructor with over 2000 instructional flights and flights of long duration and distance for personal enjoyment. As part of that, I taught students in basic navigation, meteorology and aerodynamics. I have also had a lifelong interest in all things aviation and spaceflight related and an interest in astronomy with an 8" reflector to aid my interest. In addition I have also been an amateur sailor for over 40 years with many offshore trips of varying distances both pre and post GPS.  Oh and I should also mention that I have been a professional photographer and videographer for over 30 years incorporating a camera drone in some of my work. I also have close friends and acquaintances that are currently active in commercial and private aviation. None of that makes me an expert on anything but gives me a good basic knowledge of many subject areas.

May I say that I am extremely impressed by the knowledge and qualifications of many of the contributors here and stunned by some of the absolute ignorance of many others across the forum. I hope that by joining in, I can gain an insight into both sides of the discussion about a radical flat earth theory/belief.

First impressions after only a few hours on the forum is that the vast majority of comments from the FE side are from Tom. I find that somewhat disappointing although I have come to the conclusion that Tom is an extremely intelligent man who is immensely adept at turning any carefully planned and knowledgeable questions or explanations back against the poster, by asking questions and avoiding scientifically constructed answers. The second impression is that many of the core posters are determined to keep chipping away at the FE concept with mathematically and scientifically based arguments that are doggedly repeating the same basic information that is being carefully avoided by the FEs. That leads me to suspect that Tom has set this whole thing up as an intellectual exercise in how to get other highly intelligent and scientifically knowledgeable people to beat their heads against a brick wall over and over again. I don't for one moment believe that Tom genuinely believes the world is flat, he just loves the mental sparring with others determined to disprove his FE postulations. He waits until posters have spent hours and perhaps days working out ways to debunk the FE theory, then when excellent well researched arguments are put forward he is able to put up rhetorical questions and non answers, whilst sitting back watching amused whilst everyone scurries around frustrated, to come at him from a different angle.

I have to admire him for that and wait enthralled for his next twist and turn. Almost as entertaining as reading some of the posts elsewhere from other FEs who are devoted to the master yet are unable to match him for wit and guile. Instead, for the most, they are reduced to making ridiculous unsubstantiated pronouncements, or repeating garbage picked up wholesale from ludicrous youtube conspiracy theorists.

I was quite interested in the repeated references as evidence to the website relating to GPS inaccuracies based on athletics courses. The main thrust of the argument seemed to be that the distances shown over a course by GPS was in considerable variance to the same course measured using a wheeled distance measuring instrument. This was, if I understand correctly, evidence that GPS was inaccurate and way off from the 10ft accuracy claimed. Maybe I missed a post on this, but my immediate thought was of the cross section of a hill on the course being a perfect equilateral triangle for the sake of example. If the base of the triangle was 1 mile and the two opposite points of the base were A & B, then the distance shown between A & B by the GPS would be 1 mile, however the distance shown by the wheeled instrument to the top of the hill/triangle, lets say points A to C, would also be 1 mile, with the distance between C & B being a further 1 mile. That would give a total distance over the course of 2 miles, an inaccuracy by the GPS of 50% to the true distance travelled. However GPS is a Global POSITIONING system and the GPS is correctly showing the positions of points A & B as 1 mile apart horizontally. If that same pattern was applied to a range of adjacent mountains over a 200 horizontal distance, then a foot route would  give a distance of 400 miles travelled whereas of course the GPS would show 200 miles. They are both correct but showing results for totally different parameters. To any aircraft using GPS, the route up and down the mountains would be completely irrelevant and both A & B points would be shown within about 10ft of accuracy. When I plot a course on my car GPS, the distance shown to the destination takes no account of gradient and is therefore constantly updating according to position.

Sorry if someone has already pointed that out, I could have missed it, meanwhile I'll have a look at a few more of the other threads.

Roger
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: devils advocate on November 12, 2017, 12:56:51 AM
Hi Roger

Thanks for your post. I love the idea that the simple one wheeled apparatus fails to account for the actual distances traveled and I look forwards to hearing the Flat earth explanation.

DA
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 12, 2017, 01:53:31 PM
I think the GPS confusion for FE'ers runs something like this:

* In an athletics event where the runners are running (say) a mile, they found a 10' error in the GPS readings - which (indeed) isn't good enough for athletics.

* So the FE'ers say "The error in GPS is 10 feet over a mile - so over 1000 miles, it must be 10,000 feet".

* This is a grave misunderstanding...GPS is an "absolute" measurement system, not a "relative" one.   If you were measuring distance using a wheeled cart - then indeed, you would expect that the longer the distance the greater the error.  If the cart's wheels slipped (say) an inch in every rotation - then the error would grow in direct proportion to the distance measured.

* But with an absolute measurement system, we're not measuring the distance from start to finish, we're measuring the latitude/longitude/altitude of the start line and of the finish line - then calculating the distance between them.  Both measurements could be wrong by 10 feet - so the actual error over the mile could be as much as +/- 20 feet.  The guys who tested it got lucky.

* But over a 1000 miles - the error in calculating the start and finish positions is still only 10 feet - so over 1000 miles, the distance calculation can still only be in error by +/- 20 feet.

This is something the FE'ers either can't (or more likely don't wish to) understand.   Over long distances - it's crazy-accurate as a percentage.   If you can get a signal from enough satellites - the positional error is always +/- 10 feet...and with more modern GPS's - it's usually much better than that.

Evidence of this is that Google Maps can tell whether you're on the freeway or the service road...and where I live, whether you're on the elevated section of the freeway or the ground-level road that runs beneath it.   Both of these imply a positional measurement within about 10 feet of my actual location.   It doesn't matter whether I drive the full length of the USA - the positional reading will still be within 10 feet of my true location - and the "distance travelled" indication will be within +/-20 feet...whether measured over the length of an entire continent - or over the length of my driveway.

You say Tom is very intelligent...but he seems incapable of understanding this - or MANY other simple demonstrations that I've provided - so I very much doubt it.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2017, 02:44:56 PM
* So the FE'ers say "The error in GPS is 10 feet over a mile - so over 1000 miles, it must be 10,000 feet".

Why do you persist in lying?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 12, 2017, 02:54:17 PM
* So the FE'ers say "The error in GPS is 10 feet over a mile - so over 1000 miles, it must be 10,000 feet".

Why do you persist in lying?

I certainly don't intend to lie...I didn't say *ALL* FE'ers claim this - just that some of them do.  I talk to a lot of FE'ers - and not just on this forum.

But I'd be very interested to hear what YOU think the GPS error is...clearly it's not this.

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Roger G on November 12, 2017, 03:29:25 PM

You say Tom is very intelligent...but he seems incapable of understanding this - or MANY other simple demonstrations that I've provided - so I very much doubt it.

I don't actually think he is incapable of understanding at all, in fact exactly the opposite. I think the intellectual sparring and confrontation is his raison d'etre  :D

Roger
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Mark_1984 on November 13, 2017, 05:05:09 AM
To be honest, in this day and age I didn't think anybody really believed that the earth is flat, but the movement actually seems to be gaining popularity.  To the point where there are conferences to discuss flat earth theory and beliefs.  I suspect that as the tickets are expensive, only devout believers would bother attending (a fool and their money are easily parted) so the discussions are a little one sided.  It's only on forums like this, where us interlopers can enjoy picking apart their theories and laughing at their ridiculous attempts to discredit GPS.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on November 13, 2017, 08:43:08 AM

You say Tom is very intelligent...but he seems incapable of understanding this - or MANY other simple demonstrations that I've provided - so I very much doubt it.

I don't actually think he is incapable of understanding at all, in fact exactly the opposite. I think the intellectual sparring and confrontation is his raison d'etre  :D

Roger
Hence his unique style of writing.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 13, 2017, 01:10:38 PM
To be honest, in this day and age I didn't think anybody really believed that the earth is flat, but the movement actually seems to be gaining popularity.  To the point where there are conferences to discuss flat earth theory and beliefs.  I suspect that as the tickets are expensive, only devout believers would bother attending (a fool and their money are easily parted) so the discussions are a little one sided.  It's only on forums like this, where us interlopers can enjoy picking apart their theories and laughing at their ridiculous attempts to discredit GPS.

If you watch those presentations on YouTube (many are posted there) - they appear to be addressing audiences of Religious Fundamentalists.  Those are people who will decry ANY scientific result if they possibly can because they recognize that science is slowly but surely eroding the evidence for their beliefs.   Hence, they deny global warming, they deny the moon landings, they claim that bullshit like Homeopathy and that vaccinations cause Autism.   Any scrap of anything that is out there that denies science is something they'll grab a hold of and run with.

Most of the presentations talk about the dome of the firmament and quote the handful of bible passages that kinda-sorta-maybe make it sound like the Earth is flat.  These are NOT things that TFES generally supports.

So as far as I can tell, this "rise in belief of FET" is really just a rise in religious fundamentalism.

The bible says that the Earth is fixed and immovable - and therefore the Earth doesn't rotate on it's axis.  But that doesn't fit with Universal Acceleration where the Earth is rocketing upwards at impressive speeds.   Logically, it would suggest that geocentricism is supported by the bible and helocentricism isn't.   Galileo got into a lot of trouble with the Catholics about that exact thing...but then, in 1992:

Quote
Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....

— Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) – November 4, 1992

Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on November 13, 2017, 04:06:48 PM
To be honest, in this day and age I didn't think anybody really believed that the earth is flat, but the movement actually seems to be gaining popularity.  To the point where there are conferences to discuss flat earth theory and beliefs.  I suspect that as the tickets are expensive, only devout believers would bother attending (a fool and their money are easily parted) so the discussions are a little one sided.  It's only on forums like this, where us interlopers can enjoy picking apart their theories and laughing at their ridiculous attempts to discredit GPS.

It's good to see this thread resurrected.  This one topic is the absolute proof the earth is not flat and that any flat earth map out there is wrong.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Roger G on November 13, 2017, 04:31:55 PM
To be honest, in this day and age I didn't think anybody really believed that the earth is flat, but the movement actually seems to be gaining popularity.  To the point where there are conferences to discuss flat earth theory and beliefs.  I suspect that as the tickets are expensive, only devout believers would bother attending (a fool and their money are easily parted) so the discussions are a little one sided.  It's only on forums like this, where us interlopers can enjoy picking apart their theories and laughing at their ridiculous attempts to discredit GPS.

I wonder how the FE believers who attend those conferences actually find their way to them if they don't trust GPS. RE maps or aircraft route accuracy? :o

Roger
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Mark_1984 on November 13, 2017, 04:40:15 PM
To be honest, in this day and age I didn't think anybody really believed that the earth is flat, but the movement actually seems to be gaining popularity.  To the point where there are conferences to discuss flat earth theory and beliefs.  I suspect that as the tickets are expensive, only devout believers would bother attending (a fool and their money are easily parted) so the discussions are a little one sided.  It's only on forums like this, where us interlopers can enjoy picking apart their theories and laughing at their ridiculous attempts to discredit GPS.

I wonder how the FE believers who attend those conferences actually find their way to them if they don't trust GPS. RE maps or aircraft route accuracy? :o

Roger

At the risk of earning another warning from Junkers, that’s hilarious !
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Rounder on November 13, 2017, 06:36:16 PM
I wonder how the FE believers who attend those conferences actually find their way to them if they don't trust GPS. RE maps or aircraft route accuracy? :o
I don't think it's accurate to say they don't trust GPS and aircraft routes, they just don't think those things represent a round earth.  More than once I've seen it suggested that airplanes follow the routes their GPS tell them to without knowing that a better flat-earth route exists.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 13, 2017, 08:48:23 PM
I wonder how the FE believers who attend those conferences actually find their way to them if they don't trust GPS. RE maps or aircraft route accuracy? :o
I don't think it's accurate to say they don't trust GPS and aircraft routes, they just don't think those things represent a round earth.  More than once I've seen it suggested that airplanes follow the routes their GPS tell them to without knowing that a better flat-earth route exists.
Which would be fine if the FE map route was faster!  It's often three times longer.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Rounder on November 15, 2017, 01:41:12 PM
Which would be fine if the FE map route was faster!  It's often three times longer.
We don’t know that, as nobody actually travels the flat earth routes.

Actually, I think some of the long flat earth nonstop routes accidentally mimic some multi-leg routes.  I might spend some time looking.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on November 15, 2017, 01:51:41 PM
Which would be fine if the FE map route was faster!  It's often three times longer.
We don’t know that, as nobody actually travels the flat earth routes.

Actually, I think some of the long flat earth nonstop routes accidentally mimic some multi-leg routes.  I might spend some time looking.
How can there be a flat earth route without a map?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: RJDO on November 15, 2017, 02:19:28 PM
The interesting thing about the FE'er's assertions that GPS is broken is that it was developed by the US military - primarily to allow cruise missiles and other long range/high-precision weapons to achieve ~2 foot precision on targets anywhere in the world.

The coordinates take you to real places if you attempt to follow them. The distance between the coordinates are based on a globe.

This isn't like wiring a house, Tom.  You don't just bring a whole bunch of it and stop spooling it out when you make landfall, because undersea cable is very expensive.  And even if you did, undersea cables have repeaters emedded in them every so many miles to boost the signal.  The owners know how many repeaters are in the cable, which means they know how long the cable is.

Are you an owner? Do you have access to their records for us?

As usual, we have the passive-aggressive effort to sow confusion and doubt rather than draw back the curtains and open the window to allow enlightenment and debate.

The point here is that the people who lay undersea cables - and the people who pay for them to be laid - and the people who run the system by remotely querying those regularly space repeaters would all have to be bundled up into your increasing spiral of conspiracy.

So now, the big undersea cable companies are a part of the same conspiracy as NASA, SpaceX, GPS and cellphone providers, the Russian, Chinese, Indian, French, South African and (now) North Korean governments?

Is there anyone besides Tom Bishop who is NOT a part of this coverup?

Isn't this just the teensiest bit paranoid?


Where did I say anything about a conspiracy? You are making a lot of assumptions on how submarine cable layers operate and I am asking for further information to demonstrate what was claimed is true. How do we know that they didn't run out of cable at one point and learned that they needed to bring more cable for these things?

This is an interesting Website :D. Not sure how I wound up here, and not sure how i ended up reading this thread.

Anyway. Tom, cable laying ships are extremely precise. I did a brief stint (9 days) aboard one such vessel, MV Wave Venture (http://www.cablesm.fr/Wave%20Venture.pdf). at the time I was working as an engineering intern for a company which contracted this vessel to do some work. I spent a lot of time in the operations room as well as on the cable deck and learned about the cable laying process.

The supplies aboard the ship are precisely measured and inventoried. This is necessary as the ship is enormously expensive to operate and running out of cable or other supplies mid-tour would be disastrous.

If you go to that PDF I linked, near the bottom are photos of the two cable handling drums. Those large drums play cable in and out. Their circumference is known and their motion precisely measured. Up in the control room, there are readouts on rate of cable pay-out, tension on the cable, amount of cable played out (easily calculated from drum diameter and # rotations of drum).

If the ship moves ahead too quickly and tension rises, the cable will snap. This would be catastrophic. To this end, tension is monitored careful and ship movement must be precisely controlled. The ship uses a dynamic positioning system, based on GPS. The accuracy is around 2 meters (the 400-something ft long ship can maintain its exact position within 2 meters and a degree or two of heading using directional "azimuth thrusters" and high performance GPS receivers positioned around the ship).

The GPS positioning system agrees closely with the cable run length, measured physically using the cable drum over long distances. This experimental "proof" of GPS accuracy is performed on every cable laying run. If the ship has moved 1 mile on GPS, but an unexpected amount of cable has been played out, this would be obvious in the ship control room (would probably indicate an unexpected underwater feature and the ship would back up/pick up cable and figure out what went wrong before re-laying).  Note that the cable laying plan also takes into account underwater topology (based on oceanic surveying, done via sonar).

-----

On another note of interest. A lot of land surveying these days is done via LIDAR. Basically an aircraft (or for smaller areas, maybe a small UAV) flies over and a lidar sensor takes millions of point distance measurements (worked based on speed of light and reflections, does not rely on any notion of round or flat anything). The end result is a dense "point cloud" or high resolution 3D map of an area.

Here's a  little clip that shows a bit of the process and what the results look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1VpTjIQQ1Q

In order for the measurements from the moving aircraft to be combined into a coherent 3D model, the precise location of the aircraft & LiDAR at each moment must be known. Otherwise, the map would be an enormous mess (jumble of points). There are two major methods of inferring the location of the lidar at each time step

- SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping)
- Sensor-based (GPS + Inertial measurements)

The slam method is much more difficult and is the subject of current research. With the slam method, in each new time step, you try "sync up" your new laser scan with the last one, finding an overlapping match and thus inferring the new position of the laser.

The sensor-based method uses a combination of GPS and an IMU (accelerometers and gyros) to log the precise position and orientation of the sensor in 3D space. By combining the long-term accuracy of GPS and short-term precision of inertial methods, and using filtering techniques, centimeter-level accuracy can be achieved.

In either of these methods, if the position of the laser cannot be accurately determined in 3D space for every moment in time (lets say GPS or IMU failure or inaccuracy), the map will look like a mess with all kinds of overlapping, incoherent points. In this event, the instrumentation will have to be repaired and data will have to be re-collected.

Now, if GPS worked consistently but with a scale offset, ie measured wrong distances, there are two issues. Firstly, the sensor fusion would fail (the inertial measurement unit would disagree with the GPS measurements). Secondly, the created map would be accurate, but at the wrong scale (distances incorrect). While the former takes some knowledge of signal processing to understand, the second can easily be analyzed empirically.

You can personally download LiDAR data sets, tagged with GPS data as well as aircraft data (altitude, position, velocity, etc). To prove to yourself that these GPS data sets are of accurate scale (since you don't seem to want to trust anyone else), you could download a dataset for somewhere local to you and look at the 3D point cloud. Measure a distance in the pointcloud between two known locations (lets say measure out the distance between two buildings). Then, in real life, go out there and confirm this data empirically using whatever equipment you like (laser range finder, radar, measuring tape, whatever).

In this manner, you will have proven the following:

A) the physically measured 3D pointclouds agree with published aerial maps (ie what you would find on google earth)
B) Aircraft are able to accurately determine their location, speed, position, orientation and altitude
C) GPS is able to accurately measure distances within a tolerance of several feet of absolute non-compounding error.

The underlying assumptions here are:

- The speed of light is ~ 3*10^8 m/s (required for lidar measurements)
- Time can be accurately measured (again required for lidar measurements)
- You are capable of personally measuring distance in the order of a few hundred feet to empirically verify the data

This is real, undisputable physical data that you can empirically verify yourself.

My credentials:

Bsc. Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
BSc. Aeronautics & Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

My graduate thesis involves navigation of autonomous vehicles and as such relies on accuracy of systems such as GPS from a small, directly measurable scale up to larger areas. We work in GPS-available and GPS-denied environments and must fuse data from inertial systems, Lidar, RADAR, GPS, cameras, etc. to have both aerial and ground vehicles navigate precisely.

Hopefully my suggested experiment gives you an avenue to prove to yourself the performance of GPS :). I prove it to myself daily in my line of work. Once this business of distances is sorted, I believe the rest of the proof is clear cut using the geometry already presented by others. I should probably get back to work now.

Right... so you spend 9 days on such a vessel and that makes you an expert on exactly what kind of extra cable and supplies they bring along. Are we to assume that you interrogated the captain about his extra cable?

How do we know that there is no excess cable? You are assuming that a possible Flat Earth model must cause a cable shortage, when the opposite can be true as well.

Troll level 1000.

How trolling works on the internet:

Post something for people to argue over. People post about this or that. OP comes in and says something along the lines of "prove it" etc.. More arguing from other side. Then troll is out done, so you attack the person. Then say something silly like "Are we to assume that you interrogated the captain about his extra cable?" then back to more silly statements like: "How do we know that there is no excess cable?"

Fun to read, and fun to post to, but man, really starting to believe this whole page is nothing but a huge internet troll experiment.

**EDIT**

I am sorry for not adding something to the actual debate. But, as I am very convinced, Tom does know how you can very accurately know how much cable a vessel brings aboard. You can very easily compute this. You just need to know the size of the drum and its core diameter size, and the diameter of the cable.  While I can spend my time adding the math here, I am going to ask Tom to look it up, as it is easily available to find on Google.

It frustrates me that you attack the person, and not the problem. Like I said, troll level 1000.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Rounder on November 15, 2017, 04:19:24 PM
How can there be a flat earth route without a map?
Good point.  My statement applies to those folks who hold DO believe one of the flat earth maps.  Those who have no map typically still claim that GPS is lying to us and therefore not useful as proof of anything, even while they also have no opinion on better routes.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Mark_1984 on November 15, 2017, 05:17:35 PM
You’d have thought, regardless of the topography, the earth would be reliably mapped by Now.  After all, people have been travelling all over it for hundreds of years !

By the way, are there any flat earth believers left here ?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: douglips on November 15, 2017, 05:43:50 PM
I think the GPS confusion for FE'ers runs something like this:

* In an athletics event where the runners are running (say) a mile, they found a 10' error in the GPS readings - which (indeed) isn't good enough for athletics.


One possible source of extra errors in the athletic course case is that you are using GPS to measure a twisty course, so the 10 foot error creeps in at every corner and can accumulate. On average the errors will cancel out, but there is a chance they will add up (i.e. random walk).

Your point about absolute measurement versus relative measurements still stands, especially for long straight courses.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: TomInAustin on November 15, 2017, 05:49:53 PM
You’d have thought, regardless of the topography, the earth would be reliably mapped by Now.  After all, people have been travelling all over it for hundreds of years !

By the way, are there any flat earth believers left here ?

They would have you believe a map is not important to the cause.  That's the weakest link in the FE arguments. 
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Delirious Lab on November 17, 2017, 07:05:47 PM
Hi everyone, I had to register to chime in about an important point. 

I understand some flat-earthers don’t accept claimed distances over water.  So I want to demonstrate the proof introduced in this thread with smaller distances which can be covered by land.

Take these airports at the four corners of the continental US: Boston (BOS), Seattle (SEA), Miami (MIA) and Los Angeles (LAX).  The same method as presented earlier will work even on such a small patch of land - no need to select cities as far apart as Johannesburg - Sydney, etc. - but of course the effect will be smaller.

http://www.webflyer.com/travel/mileage_calculator/ gives the following distances which can be more easily corroborated than (say) the “unknown” distance from New York to Paris since they do not cross any ocean:

SEA - MIA 2720 miles
SEA - BOS 2490 miles
BOS - MIA 1260 miles
SEA - LAX 954 miles 
BOS - LAX 2600 miles
MIA - LAX 2340 miles

From http://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html then, we have:

BOS-SEA-LAX angle (85.773°) = BOS-SEA-MIA angle (27.538°) + MIA-SEA-LAX angle (56.916°)
The sum of the two angles on the right-hand side of this "equality" is 84.454°, over 1.3 degree less than the left-hand side.

From the Boston angle:
SEA-BOS-MIA (86.443°) = SEA-BOS-LAX (21.465°) + LAX-BOS-MIA (64.002°)
The sum on the right adds up to 85.467° and we're missing almost one degree.

With Los Angeles as the pivot the discrepancy is over two degrees (left as an exercise).

So my question is, do flat-earthers dispute even these within-landmass distances?  If not... what's the rebuttal?  Curved landmass surrounded by a flat ocean, maybe?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: snowbeaver2 on November 20, 2017, 05:46:28 PM
Personally - I say this debate is won...the Flat Earthers no longer have a leg to stand on, and they should have the guts to admit it.

3DGeek,

Thank you for this thread. I read this forum occasionally mostly for entertainment, but this thread seemed to be different than a lot of others because it promises a mathematical proof of a round earth, rather than one that relies on observations and evidence that can be ignored by FE’ers. The only evidence that needs to be accepted is that flight times are not regularly wrong by 2 or 3 times the expected values, and that aircraft cruising speed is not wildly off of the expected speeds. Using these two nearly indisputable assumptions, you have given a calculation of the distances between cities on earth. Finally, you used these distances to show that no flat map can produce the correct distances.

While I do appreciate your argument, I’m not sure that it is the airtight argument you claim. It rests on one more assumption, which is that speed = distance * time is a good representation for the speeds, distances, and times at hand. For a plane, the ‘time’ variable is flight time and the ‘speed’ variable is average aircraft speed, so the ‘distance’ variable is the path length of the flight. You have made the assumption that flights travel in straight lines along their path. You must make this assumption in order to construct your mathematical proof, as your proof rests on an analogy between the sides of a quadrilateral and the paths of flights.

Instead of finding the “honest to goodness” distances between cities, I believe you have found upper bounds on the distances between cities. These cities can be separated by at most the distances you claim, assuming that flights travel in straight lines, or minimum distance paths. However, flight paths can always be devised that are longer than this minimum. Flights could circle cities for hours in order to extend flight time.

You may ask, “Why would airlines do this? This would be horribly inefficient and waste passengers’ and crews’ time.” I agree. However, this no longer constitutes an elegant mathematical proof free of assumptions, which is the reason I believe this thread is interesting.

One easy explanation that FE’ers might use is that the “Aether Wind” is blowing aircraft more significantly in the northern hemisphere, so when planes fly between these cities, they follow a nearly circular path between them, extending your expected distances by a factor of pi/2, or about 157%. Southern hemisphere flights, on the other hand, are less affected by the wind when in the southern hemisphere, and so have flight paths that are much closer to straight lines. This gets us half way to your 300% correction. The other half can be explained by the “Aether Wind” also causing altitude fluctuations of the plane in the northern hemisphere. These altitude fluctuations could cause planes to fly upward and downward sinusoidally, which would in fact not require a large amplitude to get the remaining correction that you have stated. This is just one of many examples of how planes could fly other than in straight lines that would allow for the flight times we observe on daily flights.

While I’m not trying to encourage FE’ers, I’m still curious to see an airtight mathematical proof, and I am not convinced that this qualifies.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 20, 2017, 06:05:59 PM
Personally - I say this debate is won...the Flat Earthers no longer have a leg to stand on, and they should have the guts to admit it.

While I do appreciate your argument, I’m not sure that it is the airtight argument you claim. It rests on one more assumption, which is that speed = distance * time is a good representation for the speeds, distances, and times at hand. For a plane, the ‘time’ variable is flight time and the ‘speed’ variable is average aircraft speed, so the ‘distance’ variable is the path length of the flight. You have made the assumption that flights travel in straight lines along their path. You must make this assumption in order to construct your mathematical proof, as your proof rests on an analogy between the sides of a quadrilateral and the paths of flights.

The important thing to remember here is that these flight times are only there to back up distances we can measure by other means.  So, for example, I can use things like Google Maps to calculate those same distances - and the results (over these very long distance routes) agree to within a few percent.

There are certainly cases where they DISAGREE - but when you look into them, they are things like routes that would cross hostile countries or places where there is open warfare.  In those cases, the airline routes are clearly longer - and you can understand why.

Airlines are AGGRESSIVELY price conscious because a difference of just $10 in an airfare between you and your competitors is life or death.  Since 40% of the price of an airline ticket is the cost of the fuel - if there was a shorter route or the plane could fly at a more efficient speed - they'd be doing it for 100% sure.   So a conspiracy to fly longer routes is ridiculous.

Quote
Instead of finding the “honest to goodness” distances between cities, I believe you have found upper bounds on the distances between cities. These cities can be separated by at most the distances you claim, assuming that flights travel in straight lines, or minimum distance paths. However, flight paths can always be devised that are longer than this minimum. Flights could circle cities for hours in order to extend flight time.

You may ask, “Why would airlines do this? This would be horribly inefficient and waste passengers’ and crews’ time.” I agree. However, this no longer constitutes an elegant mathematical proof free of assumptions, which is the reason I believe this thread is interesting.

Indeed - but if they were doing that - why would they ever be late in arriving?   If they had time to spare to orbit at the end of a flight - they'd never be late "due to unexpected headwinds", etc.

But the bottom line is that what we have here is a way to dismiss the crazy long routes that every FE map MUST produce as a consequence of flattening a spherical map.   The 3x longer route between Sydney Australia and Santiago Chile in the unipolar map and the even longer routes transpacific routes in the bipolar map are easily enough to dismiss any SPECIFIC map that the FE'ers can come up with.

The idea here is to find an argument that proves that NO POSSIBLE FE map can work.

Quote
One easy explanation that FE’ers might use is that the “Aether Wind” is blowing aircraft more significantly in the northern hemisphere, so when planes fly between these cities, they follow a nearly circular path between them, extending your expected distances by a factor of pi/2, or about 157%. Southern hemisphere flights, on the other hand, are less affected by the wind when in the southern hemisphere, and so have flight paths that are much closer to straight lines. This gets us half way to your 300% correction. The other half can be explained by the “Aether Wind” also causing altitude fluctuations of the plane in the northern hemisphere. These altitude fluctuations could cause planes to fly upward and downward sinusoidally, which would in fact not require a large amplitude to get the remaining correction that you have stated. This is just one of many examples of how planes could fly other than in straight lines that would allow for the flight times we observe on daily flights.

That idea - along with the "jet stream" argument fail because we can look at flight times on both the outgoing and homecoming flights on the exact same route and they only differ by a small percentage.   If these mysterious currents were capable of tripling an airplanes' speed in one direction, the return trip would never reach it's destination!

Quote
While I’m not trying to encourage FE’ers, I’m still curious to see an airtight mathematical proof, and I am not convinced that this qualifies.

Sadly, even airtight mathematical proofs ("How to photons get from the sun to the eye at sunset") don't convince the crazier FE'ers.   One of them is now reduced to claiming that mathematics don't apply to the real world in a desperate effort to weasel out of the "sunset trap" into which he's wandered!
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: RJDO on November 20, 2017, 06:11:12 PM
Great read!

Question. Since reading this, I believe according to Flat Earth Theory, we are to assume that we are unable to rely on distances between cites using travel times, due to any variable that can be introduce to the traveler. We are unable to rely on GPS for position of something on earth since is probably does not exist, or if it does, can not be trusted. And lastly, I have not been able to find a reliable map of what earth looks like, (One I can use for actual distances, location, etc...) What can be used as a constant to do any sort of reliable math problem to figure out locations?

To me it seems as though any form of an actual way to locate something on the earth cannot be done in regrading the Flat Earth Theory. How are we all not lost all the time when sailing on the water, or flying in the air. If we are unable to accurately assume anything based on a round earth, how are these flights, cruises, anything at all able to be accurately predicted with the Flat Earth Theory. Having been a sailor and vessel master myself, I can say that Great Circle sailing has been very reliable for navigation, which relies heavily on the earth being round.   
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 20, 2017, 06:37:49 PM
Great read!

Question. Since reading this, I believe according to Flat Earth Theory, we are to assume that we are unable to rely on distances between cites using travel times, due to any variable that can be introduce to the traveler. We are unable to rely on GPS for position of something on earth since is probably does not exist, or if it does, can not be trusted. And lastly, I have not been able to find a reliable map of what earth looks like, (One I can use for actual distances, location, etc...) What can be used as a constant to do any sort of reliable math problem to figure out locations?

More than one FE'er has said "We don't know what the map of the world looks like - the maps we have on the Wiki are just examples."...so we don't even have a map.

Quote
To me it seems as though any form of an actual way to locate something on the earth cannot be done in regrading the Flat Earth Theory. How are we all not lost all the time when sailing on the water, or flying in the air. If we are unable to accurately assume anything based on a round earth, how are these flights, cruises, anything at all able to be accurately predicted with the Flat Earth Theory. Having been a sailor and vessel master myself, I can say that Great Circle sailing has been very reliable for navigation, which relies heavily on the earth being round.   

Yes - we've even produced documentary PROOF that cable-laying ships only carry enough cable for a "great circle" route plus a TINY amount extra - and arrive at their destination with only a little cable to spare.   This means that a cable of known length, made and measured in a factory - exactly reaches over this distance.  Which agrees with Google Maps, which agrees with GPS, which agrees with the airlines.

The cable laying ships are giving us an amazingly exact "measurement with a ruler" approach...and even that is pooh-poohed because Tom can't believe that they never run out of cable or get more from somewhere or have a hell of a lot left over!

What we have here are a group of people who have the intelligence to know that they don't have a leg to stand on.   Seriously - there is no way to explain away the sheer MOUNTAINS of evidence we have that their Flat Earth theory is just junk.

But they are stubborn people and will go to ANY lengths (including denying that math works or claiming that aircraft manufacturers don't know how fast their airplanes can fly - or that passengers on trans-oceanic routes never comment on the fact that the entire flight happened overland).

The degree of desperation will cause these people to pile on more and more and more crazy and unprovable theories and incoherent and self-contradictory explanations.   Defeat one - and another even crazier one will pop up.

Just follow Tom Bishop's posts over the last three days to see how desperate this man is to hold on to an utterly defeated idea...but again, this is a guy who believes that high doses of vitamin C will cure Ebola and AIDS and that cancer can be avoided by eating green peppers.

Some people...


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: gizmo910 on November 21, 2017, 02:51:10 AM
One could use the real-time data provided by flightradar (https://www.flightradar24.com) to monitor certain flights as they happen.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 21, 2017, 03:29:52 PM
One could use the real-time data provided by flightradar (https://www.flightradar24.com) to monitor certain flights as they happen.

Sure - and we've suggested that too.   I forget what the countervailing argument for that one was.

I've also suggested (for long distances) that using the "ping" times over the Internet would place a lower limit on the distances between locations. An Internet "ping" can't travel faster than light - so if it takes 70 milliseconds to get a result - the distance between the two locations cannot be more than (0.007/2) x speed-of-light.  But the resident flim-flam artists don't like that one either!

I think they used to believe that they could simply say "our map isn't finalized yet - so all bets are off on disproving it"...but that simply isn't enough.  If we have ANY measurement of distances - even quite approximate ones - we can prove conclusively that there is no POSSIBLE flat map that fits the data.

Bottom line - no matter WHAT measurement of distance (or angles) you can come up with, the FE'ers *CANNOT* tolerate it's acceptance because that would be the final death-knell of their stupid theory.

We've even tried ASKING FE'ers what kinds of distance measurements they would accept...and we get <crickets>.

But as I've said - we now have "The best mind in Flat Earthism" claiming that math doesn't work.  He actually posted a link that he claimed proved that "2+2 doesn't equal 4" - which turned out to be something that said nothing of the sort...but that tells you quite a bit about the level of intellect around here!
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 21, 2017, 03:42:31 PM
One could use the real-time data provided by flightradar (https://www.flightradar24.com) to monitor certain flights as they happen.

Sure - and we've suggested that too.   I forget what the countervailing argument for that one was.

I've also suggested (for long distances) that using the "ping" times over the Internet would place a lower limit on the distances between locations. An Internet "ping" can't travel faster than light - so if it takes 70 milliseconds to get a result - the distance between the two locations cannot be more than (0.007/2) x speed-of-light.  But the resident flim-flam artists don't like that one either!

I think they used to believe that they could simply say "our map isn't finalized yet - so all bets are off on disproving it"...but that simply isn't enough.  If we have ANY measurement of distances - even quite approximate ones - we can prove conclusively that there is no POSSIBLE flat map that fits the data.

Bottom line - no matter WHAT measurement of distance (or angles) you can come up with, the FE'ers *CANNOT* tolerate it's acceptance because that would be the final death-knell of their stupid theory.

We've even tried ASKING FE'ers what kinds of distance measurements they would accept...and we get <crickets>.

But as I've said - we now have "The best mind in Flat Earthism" claiming that math doesn't work.  He actually posted a link that he claimed proved that "2+2 doesn't equal 4" - which turned out to be something that said nothing of the sort...but that tells you quite a bit about the level of intellect around here!
To be fair on the ping thing, it IS sort of important to be 100% sure the spot you're pinging is where it's supposed to be/claiming it to be. Actually on that note, couldn't a site like pingtest.net be a useful/reliable source? You can select a server to ping, so you'll know the location of the server in regards to where you are, and it shouldn't be too hard to verify the locations of the server through another means, right? Idle thought.

I do wish any of them would pipe up with what can be used to measure distance though. Not that I expect any distance gathered to be accepted considering the present apparent claim that basic math doesn't work in the real world.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 21, 2017, 03:53:34 PM
One could use the real-time data provided by flightradar (https://www.flightradar24.com) to monitor certain flights as they happen.

Sure - and we've suggested that too.   I forget what the countervailing argument for that one was.

I've also suggested (for long distances) that using the "ping" times over the Internet would place a lower limit on the distances between locations. An Internet "ping" can't travel faster than light - so if it takes 70 milliseconds to get a result - the distance between the two locations cannot be more than (0.007/2) x speed-of-light.  But the resident flim-flam artists don't like that one either!

I think they used to believe that they could simply say "our map isn't finalized yet - so all bets are off on disproving it"...but that simply isn't enough.  If we have ANY measurement of distances - even quite approximate ones - we can prove conclusively that there is no POSSIBLE flat map that fits the data.

Bottom line - no matter WHAT measurement of distance (or angles) you can come up with, the FE'ers *CANNOT* tolerate it's acceptance because that would be the final death-knell of their stupid theory.

We've even tried ASKING FE'ers what kinds of distance measurements they would accept...and we get <crickets>.

But as I've said - we now have "The best mind in Flat Earthism" claiming that math doesn't work.  He actually posted a link that he claimed proved that "2+2 doesn't equal 4" - which turned out to be something that said nothing of the sort...but that tells you quite a bit about the level of intellect around here!
To be fair on the ping thing, it IS sort of important to be 100% sure the spot you're pinging is where it's supposed to be/claiming it to be. Actually on that note, couldn't a site like pingtest.net be a useful/reliable source? You can select a server to ping, so you'll know the location of the server in regards to where you are, and it shouldn't be too hard to verify the locations of the server through another means, right? Idle thought.

I do wish any of them would pipe up with what can be used to measure distance though. Not that I expect any distance gathered to be accepted considering the present apparent claim that basic math doesn't work in the real world.

Yes - it certainly is important to know where the server is...and that's not an easy thing to prove.  It looks like Ookla have discontinued the pingtest.net site though.


Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Wintershot on December 07, 2017, 12:47:18 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

It is not a theoretical model, it is a scientific theory.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Haws on December 08, 2017, 10:06:39 PM
Guys, please take that somewhere else. Possibly even move these posts starting with Cameron's question. This is a very valuable thread with serious subject matter.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: junker on December 08, 2017, 11:52:24 PM
Guys, please take that somewhere else. Possibly even move these posts starting with Cameron's question. This is a very valuable thread with serious subject matter.

Agreed. Split/moved.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tontogary on April 15, 2018, 12:37:47 PM
I must add that this thread was utterly fascinating for a number of reasons.

The sheer willpower and effort to derail the thread, and to try to discredit every statement made to support 3Dgeeks logical approach.
The sheer audacity of some of the statements made by Tom (and also i must add the amount of times he made me crack up with laughter!)
The very reasonable and easy to follow mathematics laid out.
And the real insight  i got into the FEers arguments, and tactics to discredit logical science and rational thinking.

Part of the argument that was of particular interest to me was some of the statements made about positions, and co ordinates.

Tom asserted that Lat Long is based on a global model, and he does not recognise any data, measurements or technology that is based on the global model.
He must truly be a defence lawyer as his arguments, turning words around, and attempts to shift focus are certainly indicative of what one might encounter in a lawyer.

Anyway, there was a lot of discussion regarding GPS accuracy etc, and it got me thinking off any way to show that the distances calculated by GPS are to be relied upon.

We use GPS, differential GPS and a host of other ways to define our position, but all are global in origin, however we do have a way of measuring accurately the distance between 2 points.

We use GPS  and DGPS primarily for our positions, our position is projected onto electronic charts these days, but we have a way of measuring distances which are line of sight, and accurate and proven. RADAR.

Radar waves travel at a known speed (near the speed of light) and travel in straight lines with known values for distortion. They travel back in straight lines, and it is the time taken to be received that determines the distance of the object returning the pulse. All very flat earth i am sure you will agree.

We can overlay our radar picture onto our chart, so that we can see the shape of the land, and see that objects that are plotted with GPS co ordinates are at the expected distance away, which CONFIRMS the GPS calculated distance.

As for the ridiculous statement that the direction and range of every coordinate on earth should be tabulated and “known” from every other is clearly ridiculous. If every second of every minute of every degree of longitude was plotted (approx accuracy 30metres) it would need 216,000 data points for every degree of longitude, or 77,760,000 to plot every second around the earth, for 1 second of latitude, and then there are the 180 degrees of latitude to do the same with so you have 77.76 million times 38.8 million, which would have over 3 billion data points, each with its stored bearing and distance! It uses a lot less memory and power to calculate the bearing and distance, and people (mariners) have been doing it successfully for hundreds of years.

Lorraine was mentioned, but is no longer in use, as is Decca, and Omega, all hyperbolic navigational navigation systems, using radio waves, and not based on round earth models. You were able to accurately plot a position and and then cross reference your position on a chart which confirmed with the lat long co ordinates.

As for distances, we use logs to measure distance, basically a Doppler shift type of radar, which Tom did not dispute the accuracy of. They use Doppler shift to measure the relative speeds of 2 objects, in our case the sea bed, where it is shallow enough (less than 200M deep( and as the sea bed does not move it calculates our velocity. Twin axis Doppler are very accurate and give velocity athwartships (sideways) as well as fore and aft. They are so accurate they can determine our speed to within 0.1 knot, or 1/10th miles an hour.
We also have a GPS log that calculates our speed. Now we dont use your run of the mill $100 GPS from wallmart here, and guess what that speed coincides with our speed from our Doppler radar, so we know how fast we are moving.

We cross check and calibrate our logs against each other, so we KNOW fast we are travelling.

We also use celestial observations to cross reference our positions, and surely we must believe that astronomical position fixing is accurate? It has been so for hundreds of years. Even EnaG says it is accurate.

So all that taken we calculate, yes yes, using a global model, distances from point a to point b across oceans, but this is the clever part, our speed logs were checked and calibrated using the non moving sea bed, so it does not make a difference if the earth is flat or round for our speed logs to be accurate, they were calibrated for the shape of the earth we are on, flat or global, but this is the clever bit,

the distances we get by the time taken and speed steamed, agree with the distances calculated (using the global model of lat/long) so if they match does that not follow the distances we use are correct.

Finally i saw a classic few statements regarding the mapping of the world, that we dont know the shapes of land and sea etc in the Southern Hemisphere.

Land masses have been surveyed, driven, walked steamed by railroads, cycled and mapped extensively, so i am guessing there is not much discussion regarding them, but to fit them in the proper places, the oceans would need to be squashed, but we find that they are not squashed, they are the right size, the distances we calculate them to be.

There was also made the statement that the distances are only historical, and shipping companies just use distances they have gained before.  What a load of rubbish!
When my ship gets orders to proceed to a port we have never been before do you think my office phones other companies asking what the distance is as we have not done it before? They would die of shame and embarrassment.
What really happens is they ask me to calculate it, which i do, and then they ask me how much fuel, food i need, and how long it will take.
I can promise you, no matter how appealing i dont stop off on an island for a couple of weeks for a bit of shore leave to make it look like the journey is longer than it is in reality!
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Macarios on April 15, 2018, 06:42:27 PM
Tom asserted that Lat Long is based on a global model, and he does not recognise any data, measurements or technology that is based on the global model.
He must truly be a defence lawyer as his arguments, turning words around, and attempts to shift focus are certainly indicative of what one might encounter in a lawyer.

Lat/Long is based on measurements of Sun angles, not on any model, Flat or Curved.

All places that have solar noon at the same moment will be at the same meridian, whether the Earth was disc, cylinder, bicone, sphere...
All places that will have same culmination (angular elevation of Sun for solar noon) at the same day will be at the same latitude, regardless of the Earth's shape again.

Let me repeat: Lat/Long is based on Sun measurement, not on Earth shape.
Open ENaG, Page 21, Fig. 10 and see angles on Rowbotham's map.
Compare with the angles on Gleason's map.
Actualy, compare the whole maps.

If "Tom asserted that Lat Long is based on a global model" than he insulted the intelligence of the readers.

I didn't go back to search, I just said "IF".
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2018, 07:26:09 PM
The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Stagiri on April 15, 2018, 07:27:48 PM
The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Proof?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Devils Advocate on April 15, 2018, 08:02:42 PM
The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Or does it just prove it so?
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: inquisitive on April 15, 2018, 09:19:33 PM
The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.
What system wouod you use. If or when you give us your proposal for mapping the earth.
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tontogary on April 15, 2018, 11:23:11 PM
The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Tom argued that the LAT Long system is accurate, just the way we calculate distances between them were not.

He was using this argument too refute the OP in the distances used for the first few posts, ie that the distances used were not proven, therefore all of the argument was unproven, even though the mathematics was not in question.

Tom also was happy to accept Radar as being accurate. Big point that.

I was able to explain how we use the same technology to calibrate and measure speed, and to ensure our logs are accurate, a method which does NOT assume the earth is round, or flat. It is relative to the earth (or sea bed) so therefore gives us a speed based on whatever the shape the world actually is

our logs measure distance from point A to point B, based on the speed obtained above, therefore the speed and consequently distance, is not based on the RE, or indeed a FE, but actually measured.

Then we know the distances across the oceans, as measured by a method NOT based on the RE. So these should be accepted by Tom?

Now we are getting somewhere, as if the distances are measured, and the geometry not questioned. 3DGeek, must have proved the theory?
Comparing calculated
Title: Re: Using airline flight data.
Post by: Tontogary on April 15, 2018, 11:53:44 PM