[geckothegeek]

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.

[StinkyOne]

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.

[TomInAustin]

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!

[3DGeek]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

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".

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?

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.

* 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?

[geckothegeek]

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.

[Curious Squirrel]

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.

[inquisitive]

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.

[3DGeek]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

* 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.

[CriticalThinker]

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

[JHelzer]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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?

[Curious Squirrel]

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).

[geckothegeek]

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.

[geckothegeek]

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.

[CriticalThinker]

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

[Tom Bishop]

Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?

[Curious Squirrel]

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?

[CriticalThinker]

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

[Ga_x2]

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 

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...