#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #100 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?

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.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 09:05:58 PM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #101 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.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### TomInAustin

• 1211
• Round Duh
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #102 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.

Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8023
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #103 on: August 11, 2017, 10:19:49 PM »
On that note, would any of these methods 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?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8023
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #104 on: August 11, 2017, 10:21:05 PM »
Quote

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.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 10:32:23 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### inquisitive

• 1067
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #105 on: August 11, 2017, 10:27:29 PM »
Quote

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?

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8023
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #106 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.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### TomInAustin

• 1211
• Round Duh
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #107 on: August 11, 2017, 10:45:35 PM »
On that note, would any of these methods 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?

Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

#### TomInAustin

• 1211
• Round Duh
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #108 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.
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8023
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #109 on: August 11, 2017, 10:52:43 PM »
On that note, would any of these methods 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.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### TomInAustin

• 1211
• Round Duh
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #110 on: August 11, 2017, 11:01:58 PM »
On that note, would any of these methods 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.
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

#### TomInAustin

• 1211
• Round Duh
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #111 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.

Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

#### Merkava

• 63
• Masterdebater
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #112 on: August 11, 2017, 11:14:32 PM »
On that note, would any of these methods 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?
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

#### Merkava

• 63
• Masterdebater
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #113 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.
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

#### TomInAustin

• 1211
• Round Duh
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #114 on: August 11, 2017, 11:23:12 PM »
On that note, would any of these methods 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.
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8023
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #115 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.

"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### TomInAustin

• 1211
• Round Duh
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #116 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.

Since you never answered my question... would the numbers line up.  Odometer, GPS and Google Maps?
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8023
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #117 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.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### geckothegeek

##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #118 on: August 11, 2017, 11:52:19 PM »
On that note, would any of these methods 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.

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.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 12:20:23 AM by geckothegeek »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8023
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #119 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.
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).

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.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 12:40:06 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy