Offline Frank

  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Navigation
« on: July 16, 2017, 11:48:12 PM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.

Re: Navigation
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2017, 09:55:57 PM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.

Travel time problems (especially in the southern hemisphere/hemiplane) are one of the most easily understood and readily demonstrable proofs that the Flat Earth theory is false.  Crazy huh?
The foundation of any Path is learning to accept the world as it is, not as you wish or even observe it to be. -Will Wight

Online 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: Navigation
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2017, 02:06:32 PM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.
We have discussed this problem here before - the FE'ers are generally reluctant to respond to these issues.

There is one response I got.

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

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

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

To my mind:

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

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

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

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

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 369
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Navigation
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2017, 09:08:11 PM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.

I agree this is the best proof of a globe.  Flight Tracker shows southern hemisphere flights every day that would not be possible on the FE maps.   Yet I have seen no FE defender step up to explain.
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

Offline Frank

  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Navigation
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2017, 12:12:47 AM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.
We have discussed this problem here before - the FE'ers are generally reluctant to respond to these issues.

There is one response I got.

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

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

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

To my mind:

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

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

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

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

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

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



Online 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: Navigation
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2017, 06:11:10 PM »

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

No - I don't think the FE'ers generally believe that their flat planet spins.   I can't guarantee that none of them believe that - because there are always multiple FE theories for everything.

If it doesn't spin - then there can be no coriollis force - and multiple observations (eg the way long range snipers take account of it when adjusting their aim point - or the reason that hurricanes don't cross the equator and spin in opposite directions either side of it) show that the coriolis effect exists.

If it does spin then the coriolis force would have the wrong magnitude - and it would operate in the wrong direction in the southern hemiplane.

So no matter whether the flat earth spins or not - the coriolis effect is a problem for them to explain away.

Re: Navigation
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2017, 04:10:22 AM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.

You are obviously part of The Grand Conspiracy.  ;D

Online 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: Navigation
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2017, 04:50:33 PM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.

You are obviously part of The Grand Conspiracy.  ;D

Darn!  And he seemed such a nice guy too!

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

Offline Frank

  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Navigation
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2017, 04:43:38 AM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.

You are obviously part of The Grand Conspiracy.  ;D

Darn!  And he seemed such a nice guy too!

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


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

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 369
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Navigation
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2017, 02:29:49 PM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.

You are obviously part of The Grand Conspiracy.  ;D

Darn!  And he seemed such a nice guy too!

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


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


The debate tactic in use by FE is to avoid the inconvenient topics.  They will argue ships going over the horizon forever but will not touch navigation, star sightings in the southern hemisphere, satellites with polar orbits etc.  Like 3d has said, this place is great for mental exercises and new ways to think about the world.

The bottom line is this... We have a long haul pilot and a designer of professional flight simulators talking about real world navigation and no one steps up to challenge.  Other than some lame attempts to say you can't use lat long data and no one knows how far it is from New York to Paris.




The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

Online 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: Navigation
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2017, 03:42:29 PM »
I am surprised to see that no-one who believes that the earth is flat is actually replying to this. Reading through the other topics I got the impression, they are realy vocal about it. I showed this to my wife and she thinks it is a big joke, or some kind of experiment.
Having just flown from Asia to North America again, I came to think of how we used to fly freight around the world: Amsterdam-Dubai-Hongkong-Anchorage-Chicago-London-Amsterdam. All our navigational data would have been different if the earth was flat. Also the way a gyroscope works cannot be explained on a flat earth that is not rotating around itself.

This is a common happening on this forum.   When there is a debate on which they feel to be on fairly solid ground (typically in "ships vanishing over the horizon" arguments) then there are droves of FE'ers coming here to argue with photos and diagrams and such.   When something can be dismissed as "NASA conspiracy" or "Photoshopping" or "The camera was using a fisheye lens" or something - then they're here in large numbers.

When you get into areas where they are weak however - most of them simply drop off the radar and don't comment.

Tom Bishop does seem to stick with difficult topics for longer - but he too will simply stop talking when we reach a point where a rational person would simply admit defeat and step back in amazement at the wonders of the universe that they just unlocked for themselves.

Since I started posting careful step-by-step proofs, 100% of the FE'ers have gone quiet - only Tom (to his credit) is sticking with the evidence and providing semi-credible counter-arguments.

Right now, I feel that I know enough basic physics and high-school geometry - with no fear of googling for an answer - that I believe I have solid ways to defeat almost 100% of what's published here.

Areas that are difficult are:

* View of ships over the horizon.   The answer ought to be very simple - but temperature and humidity inversions very close to the water surface can conspire to make "real" evidence look wrong.   The detailed explanation of what's happening in any given picture is challenging for BOTH sides of the debate...so I tend to discount these lines of attack.

* Simple denial.   "Everything from NASA is a fake" - is very hard to disprove.   You can show that the conspiracy would have to be vastly larger than that - lasting at least 400 years and crossing national boundaries - but unless you can somehow prove that even the FE'ers themselves would have to be a part of the conspiracy - you can't *ultimately* defeat this argument.   You can show it's completely batshit crazy...but that's not "disproof".


Offline Frank

  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Navigation
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2017, 09:58:24 PM »
yes, I see. But is that not verging on psychotic?