Flight Time of Chile-Australia and Hong Kong-Canada Based on Flat Earth map

Those distances are possible in RFE map, and I guess the flight from Santiago to Melbourne goes circular. Is that right?
Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 07:04:34 AM

Those distances are possible in RFE map, and I guess the flight from Santiago to Melbourne goes circular. Is that right?
Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?

We have been over this, your RFE map just moves the problem.
It makes the many more flights around the NP impossible.

Those distances are possible in RFE map, and I guess the flight from Santiago to Melbourne goes circular. Is that right?
Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?

I don't think the aircraft type and the cruising speed can make such a huge difference for large distances.

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 07:04:34 AM

Those distances are possible in RFE map, and I guess the flight from Santiago to Melbourne goes circular. Is that right?
Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?

But, just face the facts, 
your RFE map makes, the distance between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada totally impossible to fly non-stop.

Then your ask, "Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?" What a silly question!
I know Santiago to Sydney better, so
look up details of say QANTAS QFA28 yourself and found that it does not fly over Antarctica and rarely flies further south than 70°S.

These two flights, Hong Kong to Toronto (or Tokyo to Los Angeles) and Santiago to Melbourne (or Santiago to Sydney), taken together prove that neither the usual "Ice-Wall map" nor your "Reverse Flat Earth map" is acceptable.

So, try again.

Hello! I am new to this forum and I recently saw the conference in Raleigh and I want to learn more about it!

I have read some articles and watched some videos relating to the Flat Earth Theory.

This idea came up into my mind as I have recently flew to Australia from Chile and I need an explanation for this.

According to the Flat Earth Map, the distance between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada is significantly closer if it was to be compared with Santiago, Chile and Melbourne, Australia.

However, Flight time between Santiago, Chile and Melbourne, Australia is approximately 14 hours (based on LATAM Airlines LA805). On the other side, flight time between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada is approximately 15 hours (based on Air Canada AC016).

I don't think the aircraft type and the cruising speed can make such a huge difference for large distances.

If the Earth is actually round, then airplanes can fly south from Australia and end up in South America.

If the Earth is Flat, its most direct route has to go a long distance across Asia, North Pole, and North America before reaching South America. (According to Flat Earth Map)

So how come Canada-Hong Kong flight Time is longer than Chile-Australia flight time? according to Flat Earth Map

Can somebody please give an explanation to this?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2017, 05:21:05 PM

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 07:04:34 AM

Those distances are possible in RFE map, and I guess the flight from Santiago to Melbourne goes circular. Is that right?
Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?

But, just face the facts, 
your RFE map makes, the distance between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada totally impossible to fly non-stop.

Then your ask, "Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?" What a silly question!
I know Santiago to Sydney better, so
look up details of say QANTAS QFA28 yourself and found that it does not fly over Antarctica and rarely flies further south than 70°S.

These two flights, Hong Kong to Toronto (or Tokyo to Los Angeles) and Santiago to Melbourne (or Santiago to Sydney), taken together prove that neither the usual "Ice-Wall map" nor your "Reverse Flat Earth map" is acceptable.

So, try again.

Of course for Santiago - Melbourne, by going curve, the distance n flight time will become making sense.

For flight Hongkong-Toronto,  there is Hawaii between both towns for transit, isn't it?

Toronto Pearson Int'l - YYZ to Hong Kong Int'l - HKG, THURSDAY 14/12/2017

OR
Who says direct flight within such distance is impossible?
Wanna know the clue?
Please doing some jogging first before I come back.

Let see this: From Norway goes to France for a transit, and then goes to Greenland for a transit and then goes to Canada as a final destination.

Have you tried drawing RFE map for your research? You'll see that its flight distance is not only huge, but also ineffective.

The trajectory through Russia-Iran-Somalia-South Africa-Argentine-Bolivia-Mexico-USA-Canada is the shortest way to go compared to the usual trajectory through Greenland.

For flight Hongkong-Toronto,  there is Hawaii between both towns for transit, isn't it?

Who says direct flight within such distance is impossible?

Different types of airplanes have different speeds. It changes your mind about the distances. Actually a type of airplane should have about same speeds in every routes. But they have not. For example;

This is an A333 airplane has 575 kmh average speed. But it flights from Hong Kong to China with the speed of 414 kmh. But same airplane flights between Singapore to China may has 690kmh average speed about %50 more speed than the first path.

What changed? Nothing has changed except path.

Average speed from Toronto to Hong Kong: 810 kms. This speed is practically impossible for a B77.
If we see the average speed of B77 types, its about 530 kms.

The other route Qantas using good airplanes generally has 4 motors. The average time is 13 hours

Because B744 is a better aircraft has higher speed than a B737.

Even so I think the path between Sydney to Santiago may be a bit shorter. But this event doesn't change the result.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 14, 2017, 10:18:26 PM

Different types of airplanes have different speeds. It changes your mind about the distances. Actually a type of airplane should have about same speeds in every routes. But they have not. For example;

No it shouldn't.
See, planes aren't made of magic.
They take time to accelerate and slow down, and fly and can fly faster the higher they are.
They also typically go slow on the final approach.

This means they won't magically start going at cruising speed at the start of the flight as they take-off and stop instantly from cruising speed as they land.

But this has the most significant effect on short flights making them appear quite slow. The longer the flight, the less significant the effect.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 14, 2017, 10:18:26 PM

This is an A333 airplane has 575 kmh average speed. But it flights from Hong Kong to China with the speed of 414 kmh. But same airplane flights between Singapore to China may has 690kmh average speed about %50 more speed than the first path.

And notice how there are roughly 3 stages for both?
Take-off and ascent.
Cruise.
Landing.

Notice how each stage is basically the same for both aircraft?

Notice how the difference is how much time is spent in the cruise stage?

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 14, 2017, 10:18:26 PM

What changed? Nothing has changed except path.

What changed? The distance between the locations and thus the time spent in cruise.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 14, 2017, 10:18:26 PM

Average speed from Toronto to Hong Kong: 810 kms. This speed is practically impossible for a B77.
If we see the average speed of B77 types, its about 530 kms.

You sure do love mixing up your units.
Its average speed is closer to 530 MILES per hour, not km per hour.
So, in kph, that works out to be ~850 km/hr.

So that sure seems to be fine.

In fact, the cruise speed for a 777 is 892 km/hr, with a max speed of 945 km/hr

So that means the path is fine, there is no reason to think it is magically shorter.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 14, 2017, 10:18:26 PM

The other route Qantas using good airplanes generally has 4 motors. The average time is 13 hours

Really? It sure seems closer to 15 hours.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 14, 2017, 10:18:26 PM

Because B744 is a better aircraft has higher speed than a B737.

You had a 777 before.
But yes, the 747 is slightly faster, with a cruise speed of 907 km/hr instead of 892....
So not much difference.
Over the course of 15 hours that would be 225 km.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 14, 2017, 10:18:26 PM

Even so I think the path between Sydney to Santiago may be a bit shorter. But this event doesn't change the result.

Which just screws over the common FE map even more.

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 09:21:05 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2017, 05:21:05 PM

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 07:04:34 AM

Those distances are possible in RFE map, and I guess the flight from Santiago to Melbourne goes circular. Is that right?
Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?

But, just face the facts, 
your RFE map makes, the distance between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada totally impossible to fly non-stop.

Then your ask, "Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?" What a silly question!
I know Santiago to Sydney better, so
look up details of say QANTAS QFA28 yourself and found that it does not fly over Antarctica and rarely flies further south than 70°S.

These two flights, Hong Kong to Toronto (or Tokyo to Los Angeles) and Santiago to Melbourne (or Santiago to Sydney), taken together prove that neither the usual "Ice-Wall map" nor your "Reverse Flat Earth map" is acceptable.

So, try again.

Of course for Santiago - Melbourne, by going curve, the distance n flight time will become making sense.

For flight Hongkong-Toronto,  there is Hawaii between both towns for transit, isn't it?

No, the non-stop Toronto to Hong Kong flight goes nowhere near Hawaii. It flies far up towards the North Pole.
Have a look at this Air Canada flight,

Toronto Pearson Int'l - YYZ to Hong Kong Int'l - HKG, THURSDAY 14/12/2017

From: Flight aware, Air Canada 15 ACA15 / AC15

Quote from: Danang

OR
Who says direct flight within such distance is impossible?
Wanna know the clue?
Please doing some jogging first before I come back.

I'll leave it to you to fit that onto your RFE map.

...

(Rubbish deleted...)

Quote from: leeliu14 on December 13, 2017, 11:39:10 AM

Hello! I am new to this forum and I recently saw the conference in Raleigh and I want to learn more about it!

I have read some articles and watched some videos relating to the Flat Earth Theory.

This idea came up into my mind as I have recently flew to Australia from Chile and I need an explanation for this.

According to the Flat Earth Map, the distance between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada is significantly closer if it was to be compared with Santiago, Chile and Melbourne, Australia.

However, Flight time between Santiago, Chile and Melbourne, Australia is approximately 14 hours (based on LATAM Airlines LA805). On the other side, flight time between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada is approximately 15 hours (based on Air Canada AC016).

I don't think the aircraft type and the cruising speed can make such a huge difference for large distances.

If the Earth is actually round, then airplanes can fly south from Australia and end up in South America.

If the Earth is Flat, its most direct route has to go a long distance across Asia, North Pole, and North America before reaching South America. (According to Flat Earth Map)

So how come Canada-Hong Kong flight Time is longer than Chile-Australia flight time? according to Flat Earth Map

Can somebody please give an explanation to this?

Hello, wellcome.

Different types of airplanes have different speeds. It changes your mind about the distances. Actually a type of airplane should have about same speeds in every routes. But they have not. For example;

This is an A333 airplane has 575 kmh average speed. But it flights from Hong Kong to China with the speed of 414 kmh. But same airplane flights between Singapore to China may has 690kmh average speed about %50 more speed than the first path.

Links for those two path: Hong Kong-China
Singapore to China

What changed? Nothing has changed except path. The situation of same airplane has about %50 more speed in some directions and has about %50 less speed in some direction is logically meaningless. This is because, actually the distances are wrong.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 15, 2017, 12:10:00 AM

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 09:21:05 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2017, 05:21:05 PM

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 07:04:34 AM

Those distances are possible in RFE map, and I guess the flight from Santiago to Melbourne goes circular. Is that right?
Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?

But, just face the facts, 
your RFE map makes, the distance between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada totally impossible to fly non-stop.

Then your ask, "Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?" What a silly question!
I know Santiago to Sydney better, so
look up details of say QANTAS QFA28 yourself and found that it does not fly over Antarctica and rarely flies further south than 70°S.

These two flights, Hong Kong to Toronto (or Tokyo to Los Angeles) and Santiago to Melbourne (or Santiago to Sydney), taken together prove that neither the usual "Ice-Wall map" nor your "Reverse Flat Earth map" is acceptable.

So, try again.

Of course for Santiago - Melbourne, by going curve, the distance n flight time will become making sense.

For flight Hongkong-Toronto,  there is Hawaii between both towns for transit, isn't it?

No, the non-stop Toronto to Hong Kong flight goes nowhere near Hawaii. It flies far up towards the North Pole.
Have a look at this Air Canada flight,

Toronto Pearson Int'l - YYZ to Hong Kong Int'l - HKG, THURSDAY 14/12/2017

From: Flight aware, Air Canada 15 ACA15 / AC15

Quote from: Danang

OR
Who says direct flight within such distance is impossible?
Wanna know the clue?
Please doing some jogging first before I come back.

I'll leave it to you to fit that onto your RFE map.

There is something wrong with airplane speed. By the nature of the air, an airplane will go accelerating, not constant speed like land vehicles. Please check out this : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73477.0

Quote from: Danang on December 16, 2017, 10:52:36 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 15, 2017, 12:10:00 AM

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 09:21:05 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2017, 05:21:05 PM

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 07:04:34 AM

Those distances are possible in RFE map, and I guess the flight from Santiago to Melbourne goes circular. Is that right?
Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?

But, just face the facts, 
your RFE map makes, the distance between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada totally impossible to fly non-stop.

Then your ask, "Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?" What a silly question!
I know Santiago to Sydney better, so
look up details of say QANTAS QFA28 yourself and found that it does not fly over Antarctica and rarely flies further south than 70°S.

These two flights, Hong Kong to Toronto (or Tokyo to Los Angeles) and Santiago to Melbourne (or Santiago to Sydney), taken together prove that neither the usual "Ice-Wall map" nor your "Reverse Flat Earth map" is acceptable.

So, try again.

Of course for Santiago - Melbourne, by going curve, the distance n flight time will become making sense.

For flight Hongkong-Toronto,  there is Hawaii between both towns for transit, isn't it?

No, the non-stop Toronto to Hong Kong flight goes nowhere near Hawaii. It flies far up towards the North Pole.
Have a look at this Air Canada flight,

Toronto Pearson Int'l - YYZ to Hong Kong Int'l - HKG, THURSDAY 14/12/2017

From: Flight aware, Air Canada 15 ACA15 / AC15

Quote from: Danang

OR
Who says direct flight within such distance is impossible?
Wanna know the clue?
Please doing some jogging first before I come back.

I'll leave it to you to fit that onto your RFE map.

There is something wrong with airplane speed. By the nature of the air, an airplane will go accelerating, not constant speed like land vehicles. Please check out this : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73477.0

Wrong.  Air friction still exists.

Quote from: frenat on December 16, 2017, 11:45:44 AM

Quote from: Danang on December 16, 2017, 10:52:36 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 15, 2017, 12:10:00 AM

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 09:21:05 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2017, 05:21:05 PM

Quote from: Danang on December 14, 2017, 07:04:34 AM

Those distances are possible in RFE map, and I guess the flight from Santiago to Melbourne goes circular. Is that right?
Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?

But, just face the facts, 
your RFE map makes, the distance between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada totally impossible to fly non-stop.

Then your ask, "Your flight didn't go through Antartica, do you?" What a silly question!
I know Santiago to Sydney better, so
look up details of say QANTAS QFA28 yourself and found that it does not fly over Antarctica and rarely flies further south than 70°S.

These two flights, Hong Kong to Toronto (or Tokyo to Los Angeles) and Santiago to Melbourne (or Santiago to Sydney), taken together prove that neither the usual "Ice-Wall map" nor your "Reverse Flat Earth map" is acceptable.

So, try again.

Of course for Santiago - Melbourne, by going curve, the distance n flight time will become making sense.

For flight Hongkong-Toronto,  there is Hawaii between both towns for transit, isn't it?

No, the non-stop Toronto to Hong Kong flight goes nowhere near Hawaii. It flies far up towards the North Pole.
Have a look at this Air Canada flight,

Toronto Pearson Int'l - YYZ to Hong Kong Int'l - HKG, THURSDAY 14/12/2017

From: Flight aware, Air Canada 15 ACA15 / AC15

Quote from: Danang

OR
Who says direct flight within such distance is impossible?
Wanna know the clue?
Please doing some jogging first before I come back.

I'll leave it to you to fit that onto your RFE map.

There is something wrong with airplane speed. By the nature of the air, an airplane will go accelerating, not constant speed like land vehicles. Please check out this : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73477.0

Wrong.  Air friction still exists.

Air friction exists but gives mere a little resistance of airplane's acceleration/speed.
The air is not solid substance, it's different from vehicle's roads.

There is something wrong with airplane speed. By the nature of the air, an airplane will go accelerating, not constant speed like land vehicles. Please check out this : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73477.0

Air friction exists but gives mere a little resistance of airplane's acceleration/speed.
The air is not solid substance, it's different from vehicle's roads.

Thank you rabinoz/jackblack

You showed to everyone how you are a clone master.

Quote from: leeliu14 on December 15, 2017, 03:39:36 PM

(Rubbish deleted...)

Thank you rabinoz/jackblack
You showed to everyone how you are a clone master.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 14, 2017, 10:18:26 PM

Quote from: leeliu14 on December 13, 2017, 11:39:10 AM

Hello! I am new to this forum and I recently saw the conference in Raleigh and I want to learn more about it!

I have read some articles and watched some videos relating to the Flat Earth Theory.

This idea came up into my mind as I have recently flew to Australia from Chile and I need an explanation for this.

According to the Flat Earth Map, the distance between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada is significantly closer if it was to be compared with Santiago, Chile and Melbourne, Australia.

However, Flight time between Santiago, Chile and Melbourne, Australia is approximately 14 hours (based on LATAM Airlines LA805). On the other side, flight time between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada is approximately 15 hours (based on Air Canada AC016).

I don't think the aircraft type and the cruising speed can make such a huge difference for large distances.

If the Earth is actually round, then airplanes can fly south from Australia and end up in South America.

If the Earth is Flat, its most direct route has to go a long distance across Asia, North Pole, and North America before reaching South America. (According to Flat Earth Map)

So how come Canada-Hong Kong flight Time is longer than Chile-Australia flight time? according to Flat Earth Map

Can somebody please give an explanation to this?

Hello, wellcome.

Different types of airplanes have different speeds. It changes your mind about the distances. Actually a type of airplane should have about same speeds in every routes. But they have not. For example;

This is an A333 airplane has 575 kmh average speed. But it flights from Hong Kong to China with the speed of 414 kmh. But same airplane flights between Singapore to China may has 690kmh average speed about %50 more speed than the first path.

Links for those two path: Hong Kong-China
Singapore to China

What changed? Nothing has changed except path. The situation of same airplane has about %50 more speed in some directions and has about %50 less speed in some direction is logically meaningless. This is because, actually the distances are wrong.

What changed is the shorter flight spends more time in takeoff, ascent, descent and landing  than the longer flight so it must spend much less time at cruising speed.  When a flight is at lower altitudes they have to go slower (250 mph speed limit below 10,000 feet and thicker air).  Your shorter flight was only 1 hour and likely never got to full cruising altitude.

Quote from: frenat on December 16, 2017, 11:43:00 AM

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on December 14, 2017, 10:18:26 PM

Quote from: leeliu14 on December 13, 2017, 11:39:10 AM

Hello! I am new to this forum and I recently saw the conference in Raleigh and I want to learn more about it!

I have read some articles and watched some videos relating to the Flat Earth Theory.

This idea came up into my mind as I have recently flew to Australia from Chile and I need an explanation for this.

According to the Flat Earth Map, the distance between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada is significantly closer if it was to be compared with Santiago, Chile and Melbourne, Australia.

However, Flight time between Santiago, Chile and Melbourne, Australia is approximately 14 hours (based on LATAM Airlines LA805). On the other side, flight time between Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada is approximately 15 hours (based on Air Canada AC016).

I don't think the aircraft type and the cruising speed can make such a huge difference for large distances.

If the Earth is actually round, then airplanes can fly south from Australia and end up in South America.

If the Earth is Flat, its most direct route has to go a long distance across Asia, North Pole, and North America before reaching South America. (According to Flat Earth Map)

So how come Canada-Hong Kong flight Time is longer than Chile-Australia flight time? according to Flat Earth Map

Can somebody please give an explanation to this?

Hello, wellcome.

Different types of airplanes have different speeds. It changes your mind about the distances. Actually a type of airplane should have about same speeds in every routes. But they have not. For example;

This is an A333 airplane has 575 kmh average speed. But it flights from Hong Kong to China with the speed of 414 kmh. But same airplane flights between Singapore to China may has 690kmh average speed about %50 more speed than the first path.

Links for those two path: Hong Kong-China
Singapore to China

What changed? Nothing has changed except path. The situation of same airplane has about %50 more speed in some directions and has about %50 less speed in some direction is logically meaningless. This is because, actually the distances are wrong.

What changed is the shorter flight spends more time in takeoff, ascent, descent and landing  than the longer flight so it must spend much less time at cruising speed.  When a flight is at lower altitudes they have to go slower (250 mph speed limit below 10,000 feet and thicker air).  Your shorter flight was only 1 hour and likely never got to full cruising altitude.

First one is 436 miles and second one is more than 2800 miles. I think we should not consider the take off such as lost times.

First one is 436 miles and second one is more than 2800 miles. I think we should not consider the take off such as lost times.