*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Look at the units.

I edited my post with a source. Even on the high end range of my quote it doesn't equate to 4000 miles.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Look at the units.

I edited my post with a source. Even on the high end range of my quote it doesn't equate to 4000 miles.

Again, study the units very carefully.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
It is pretty small for me on mobile. If it is supposed to say km, that doesn't make much sense either with kmh. Look at the first point with 2000 miles.

High range jet kmh: 2000 / 900 = 2.2

Low range jet kmh: 2000 / 750 = 2.6

Yet the point is about 3+ hours. Hundreds of km unaccounted for?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2018, 11:43:29 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
It is pretty small for me on mobile. If it is supposed to say km, that doesn't make much sense either with kmh. Look at the first point with 2000 miles.

High range jet kmh: 2000 / 900 = 2.2

Low range jet kmh: 2000 / 750 = 2.6

Yet the point is about 3+ hours. Hundreds of km unaccounted for?

Ok, expand the graph, and you will see the 1st point is at 3 hours, not 3+ as you suggest.

You provide figures for CRUISING speed, when the plane is up to speed, and not either accelerating or decelerating. The plane does not take off at 750 Km/Hr or land at that speed either. I dont know if you have ever been in a plane, but i do many times a year, and they dont tear along at cruising speed and just stop.
They slow down and take their time landing.

Your time difference of 0.4 of an hour (24 minutes) is easily covered by accelerating, and de accelerating upon take of and landing. You also choose the one point that will have the most error due to the necessary take of and landing cycle.

You really are stubborn, you think you got a slam dunk, but then it takes time to point out you are completely off track with units, but you persist in trying to prove your point, only to be told further you are not right.
It must be embarrassing to be wrong so often, and on so many silly, childish mistakes....

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Looks to be a point that edby is wrong then and other things do need to be taken into account.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Looks to be a point that edby is wrong then and other things do need to be taken into account.

No it looks to be a point that Edby is right, and you dont know the difference between Km and Miles!

You truly are trying to follow in EnaGs footsteps, claiming a result that disproves your point, as suggesting your point is valid, whilst all along you are in fact wrong.........

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Yup, look at the graph again. In 5 hrs takes 4000 kilometres, which Tom in his haste thought was miles. That's 800 km/hr or 500 mph. Perfectly reasonable for a long haul jet.

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


Your numbers don't make sense. Look at the one over the 5hr mark. It correlates with about 4000 miles.

https://www.quora.com/How-fast-do-aeroplanes-fly

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

Lets use 550 mph for example:

5hrs x 550 = 2750 miles

So your evidence is showing something contrary to the earth model you are arguing for.
Well. That's embarrassing...
This is where you come across as a troll. You misread the units and fine, that can happen.
But when that is pointed out you claim victory anyway.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Looks to be a point that edby is wrong then and other things do need to be taken into account.
There is certainly more than simple time proportion to distance relationship.
All flights need time to taxi to the threshold, take off and climb at a slower speed to cruising altitude then lose altitude, approach and land, then finally taxi to the terminal.
No-one is pretending that all these are the same for every flight, but that graph demonstrates a very good correlation.

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

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

But this is only a way to verify that the quoted flight distances are reasonable and not grossly misleading and no great accuracy is needed to show that some maps are totally unrealistic..

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
The equation can be rearranged into time(hrs) = 0.72 + distance(km)/871, rounding the numbers a bit.
Which is in fact clearly visible in the chart above. If the line is continued backwards, it intersects the x axis (time) at about 45 minutes.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Tom, the whole point is the close correlation across the graph, not the individual speed of one data point....
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Tom, the whole point is the close correlation across the graph, not the individual speed of one data point....
Let's not forget that. The standard FE objection is that we don't know about distances, unless we rely on satellite information, which is faked. OK, but we do know about flight times. To avoid the usual handwaving about jet streams, stopoffs, random unexplained changes of direction etc, we draw the graph above, which shows the correlation is pretty strong.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
If I found a flight time that covered too many miles you would just spout "jet streams" or some such. Too slow and you would spout low speeds or flight path. That prevents us from knowing if there is a true discrepancy.

How are kilometers gauged on the left hand side in that chart? Spherical coordinate distances from Longitude and Latitude systems? How do you measure that sort of large distance without using the standard Longitude and Latitude system?

That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 02:38:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
If I found a flight time that covered too many miles you would just spout "jet streams" or some such. Too slow and you would spout low speeds or flight path. That prevents us from knowing if there is a true discrepancy.

How are kilometers gauged on the left hand side in that chart? Spherical coordinate miles from Longitude and Latitude systems? How do you measure that sort of large distance without using the standard Longitude and Latitude system?

That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.
Yes, standard longitude/latitude then work out great circle distance using spherical globe assumption.

I know what you are going to say at this point, but please continue.

If I found a flight time that covered too many miles you would just spout "jet streams" or some such. Too slow and you would spout low speeds or flight path. That prevents us from knowing if there is a true discrepancy.

How are kilometers gauged on the left hand side in that chart? Spherical coordinate distances from Longitude and Latitude systems? How do you measure that sort of large distance without using the standard Longitude and Latitude system?

That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.
Still waiting for your opinion of the WGS-84 model.

That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.
No, the airline does.
And they know how long their flights take.
Planes fly at a fairly standard cruising speed and that graph demonstrates that, time and distance largely correlate.
It's almost like they know how far they're flying and how fast and they have a map which works.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.
No, the airline does.
And they know how long their flights take.
Planes fly at a fairly standard cruising speed and that graph demonstrates that, time and distance largely correlate.
It's almost like they know how far they're flying and how fast and they have a map which works.
Actually I think Tom's problem is the y-axis. This distance depends on spherical assumptions, and I suspect he thinks the logic is somehow circular.

This evidences a level of misunderstanding that is so profound that I don't know where to start.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
If I found a flight time that covered too many miles you would just spout "jet streams" or some such. Too slow and you would spout low speeds or flight path. That prevents us from knowing if there is a true discrepancy.

How are kilometers gauged on the left hand side in that chart? Spherical coordinate distances from Longitude and Latitude systems? How do you measure that sort of large distance without using the standard Longitude and Latitude system?

That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.

And yet i have explained to you many times tom that i can verify those distances.

The same calculations used for aircraft flight distances are used for calculating distances steamed by ships.
We verify our speed log with observations taken over the sea bed, which will mean if the earth is flat, our distances are also “flat earth based” if it is Global our Distances STEAMED are global.

Our distance/speed logs give an accuracy of within 1.5% typically.

So the distances quoted by airlines are within about 1.5% of the calculated distances.

I will be generous and give you 5% variation on those distances.
Now try and put them on a flat earth model, just be prepared for what you will find, you wont like it......

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.