The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Ozymandias74 on February 28, 2020, 01:53:32 PM

Title: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Ozymandias74 on February 28, 2020, 01:53:32 PM

While his tone is rather sardonic, i would like to see a FE response to this video.


Not even all 10 points, just a response to 1/some of his points.

point 9, take a flight.   He pointed out how flight paths dont work on a flat earth model.   While I agree with that, someone else in the comments pointed out that flight path times and fuel requirements are calculated using a spherical model.   The fact that planes are not constantly running out of fuel should indicate something about the shape of the earth.   But i guess the other possibility is that the airline industry is in on the flat earth conspiracy too, just like NASA.

A friend of mine flew from Sydney back home to Dallas last week, non stop, about 17 hours.  This flight is not possible on a flat earth.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 02:04:19 PM

If it's not worth your time to argue at least one of his points, I'm not sure you'll find anybody willing to attack it.

The argument you do manage to make is a bit silly. To say "the fact that planes aren't constantly running out of fuel" sorta presupposes that there are airlines out there that are filling up the tanks to their planes JUST ENOUGH to get to their destinations.

You start to make another argument around the flight from Sydney to Dallas which I believe I took years ago; I'm not certain why you think this flight is impossible though.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Ozymandias74 on February 28, 2020, 06:19:58 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 02:04:19 PM

The argument you do manage to make is a bit silly. To say "the fact that planes aren't constantly running out of fuel" sorta presupposes that there are airlines out there that are filling up the tanks to their planes JUST ENOUGH to get to their destinations.

to clarify what i was trying to say, airlines calculate their flight times and fuel consumption based on a sphere model.  A flight from Los Angeles to tokyo on a round earth would take a different amount of time and use a different amount of fuel than the same flight on a flat earth.  Relatively short flights probably aren't THAT much different on a flat earth vs round earth.  However intercontinental flights would be drastically different in time and fuel needed. 
This is especially true for flights in the 'southern hemisphere' on a flat earth model.

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 02:04:19 PM

You start to make another argument around the flight from Sydney to Dallas which I believe I took years ago; I'm not certain why you think this flight is impossible though.

You are correct, I did phrase this wrong.   I said a flight from Sydney to Dallas would be impossible on a flight earth model.    I don't know that such a flight would be 'impossible' on a flat earth, however I do know that the flight path would definitely be different if the earth were flat.   This is the way I should have phrased my statement.   The path flown was represented on a globe, basically over the pacific, north east over water for most of the flight, and coming in over Baja California, the Gulf of California, Northwestern Mexico and West Texas.
I would like to see the flight path modeled on a flat earth map, most flat earth maps have Australia in such a position that a flight from Sydney to Dallas would come in over the western United states, or possibly even Canada.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 06:26:53 PM

I'm not sure you've ever been on a commercial plane or experienced what that whole bit is about. They are a clusterfuck, and its very understandable why they needed bailouts and will again.

Quote

You are correct, I did phrase this wrong.   I said a flight from Sydney to Dallas would be impossible on a flight earth model.    I don't know that such a flight would be 'impossible' on a flat earth, however I do know that the flight path would definitely be different if the earth were flat.   This is the way I should have phrased my statement.   The path flown was represented on a globe, basically over the pacific, north east over water for most of the flight, and coming in over Baja California, the Gulf of California, Northwestern Mexico and West Texas.
I would like to see the flight path modeled on a flat earth map, most flat earth maps have Australia in such a position that a flight from Sydney to Dallas would come in over the western United states, or possibly even Canada.

It is bold for you to say that it would be different on a flat earth; I'd like to know why you hold that view.

That said, this sounds good. Want to help? Let's leverage apis that show flight paths and compare them to the speed they must be traveling, the gas etc. Help me gather that data, and I'm happy to help write something that helps contextualize it in software.

I feel it might be a bit useless honestly, and it might just show that the airlines aren't good at managing business due to them being federally regulated and federally subsidized from the 50s until the 70s. But okay...

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Ozymandias74 on February 28, 2020, 09:13:25 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 06:26:53 PM

I'm not sure you've ever been on a commercial plane or experienced what that whole bit is about. They are a clusterfuck, and its very understandable why they needed bailouts and will again.

Quote

You are correct, I did phrase this wrong.   I said a flight from Sydney to Dallas would be impossible on a flight earth model.    I don't know that such a flight would be 'impossible' on a flat earth, however I do know that the flight path would definitely be different if the earth were flat.   This is the way I should have phrased my statement.   The path flown was represented on a globe, basically over the pacific, north east over water for most of the flight, and coming in over Baja California, the Gulf of California, Northwestern Mexico and West Texas.
I would like to see the flight path modeled on a flat earth map, most flat earth maps have Australia in such a position that a flight from Sydney to Dallas would come in over the western United states, or possibly even Canada.

It is bold for you to say that it would be different on a flat earth; I'd like to know why you hold that view.

That said, this sounds good. Want to help? Let's leverage apis that show flight paths and compare them to the speed they must be traveling, the gas etc. Help me gather that data, and I'm happy to help write something that helps contextualize it in software.

I feel it might be a bit useless honestly, and it might just show that the airlines aren't good at managing business due to them being federally regulated and federally subsidized from the 50s until the 70s. But okay...

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/i/ozymandias74/0/Flat_earth(1).jpg)
I took the image of the flat earth from the map section, i added 2 dots for approximate locations of Sydney and Dallas and drew a straight line between them.  (the shortest distance between 2 points on a flat plane is a straight line)  This is how I came to the conclusion that the flight route for Sydney to Dallas would not work on a flat earth map.  I realize there are others, but this is a common map i see among flat earthers.

As for researching airlines, what does being federally funded from the 50's to the 70s have to do with today?  Airlines are in it to make a profit (at least the non-nationalized airlines are anyway.)  They want to keep their customers happy and costs down.  Flying the shortest routes and using the least fuel is in their own best interests.  A plane doesn't need to be fully fueled for a 2 hour flight, but it would need more than 2 hours of fuel for unexpected emergencies, re routes to another airport, etc.  Even if such research into airline fuel usage was ever done, whatever the results were, both sides would just ignore the data, complain the results were biased or wrong, etc and it would really not prove anything.

My point was not necessarily to prove the fuel usage or flight paths, my point was that if the earth is actually flat, then the airlines have to be in on it too. 
Its not just NASA, its not just the government or scientists or engineers or the entire educational system.   There are so many jobs and industries around (yes i used the word 'around' on purpose) the world that only work on a globe earth.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 10:12:15 PM

Yeah.. I hate to be the one to break it you but that is a 200 year old map we've been pushing the media to feed rubes like you here.

We have advanced a lot further than that.

Do airlines really make a profit? They seem a bit like a side liberalist project funded by the government so Americans can "FLY THE SKIES!" But it is undermined by the small government that is pushed by the republicans. They have different names in other times, but that is them now.

Have you been in an airport? It's like a chinese fucking firedrill. When folks ask me to trust things because the airline industry can fly from point a to b, I have the remember all the wonderful and genius pilots I've met, and the circumstances under which they work. Just weeks ago a bunch of airline workers said the cabins were leaking poisoning gas. They have some suit around it I believe. People aren't driven to that level of dedication without cause.

I have to remember the many times folks have taken their little golf cart bullshit to drive me to a terminal to get to the flight they couldn't organize folks to get to so they could get money.

That is the capitialism we are living in today. That is the orthodoxy that allows uneven distributions of power.

Any time any of us have been on a plane, it has been a complete shit show. You are lucky now a days if you get a bag of peanuts or they don't fuck you over some other way.  I'ts like being in a sardine can. I was on a flight the other day, and they asked 20 people to volunteer to leave; I talked to the attendant did my usual schitck and found out just to have a fucking party because some stewardess got her "wings" they delayed 20 folks. I sat home on that flight on a 20 passenger less snooze fest.

On the other hand, I have been on a military plane, and I saw the space available. Just shit I don't give a fuck engineering between the two. Somehow the military made a more comfortable space than the commerce that is meant to sell to the people.

You've seen the films, where they say you can't film in an airport. Where they say the flight is delayed, then they act like the "sky law." Where they are all righteous. You know it is a shit situation, so when folks bring up that the airline industry is somehow awesome and doesn't waste fuel.

I mean really. That is almost harder to believe than our stance, and after 20 years of fighting the good fight I recognize how hard our fight is.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 10:14:17 PM

And then there's lost luggage! But the point stands. The airline industry is the perfect example of disfunctional capitalism.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 10:17:57 PM

And afterwards, you can go to the unclaimed baggage selling stations and buy the misery of others.  Deregulation of essential goods harms good and disproportionally it harms poor people.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 28, 2020, 10:41:41 PM

It is interesting to compare the flights QANTAS QF27/28, Sydney to/from Santiago with the flight QF7 from Sydney to Dallas-Fort Worth as shown here:

Quote from: rabinoz on March 09, 2019, 05:40:21 PM

This post was mainly quotes from a QANTAS pilot on a QF28 non-stop flight from Santiago to Sydney:
             Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71309.msg2055711;topicseen#msg2055711).
The usual flight distance from Santiago to Sydney is about 11,600 km in about 13 hours 30 minutes.
Sydney to Santiago is faster and usually a shorter distance than the return flight from Santiago to Sydney because of the west to east jet-stream.

But on the "standard flat earth map", the "UN Flag" or "Ice-Wall", the shortest distance Sydney to/from Santiago would be about 25,500 km.
That would be quite impossible because of the range of aircraft and maximum speed. See:

(https://i.postimg.cc/HWh03X0h/1892-Gleasons-Map-Sydney-to-Santiago-25500-km-sml.jpg) (https://postimages.org/) Gleason's Map (Ice-Wall) - Sydney to Santiago - 25,500 km

So the flight distance for Qantas QF28 from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia, is about 11,600 km and is flown in about 13 hours 30 minutes.
But on the usual flat Earth map, that distance is about 25,500 km and far outside the range of the Boeing 747Bs used and quite impossible to fly in the 13 hours 30 minutes taken for that flight.

And what might be more significant is that on that North Polar AEP map the flight from Sydney to Santiago would overfly Dallas Forth Worth yet from the following flight on Feb 24, 2020 the flight distance from Sydney to Dallas-Fort Worth is about 13,800 km over 2000 km further than the Sydney to Santiago flight.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzD60Nfn/flightradar24-Playback-of-flight-QF7-Feb-24-2020.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/LqtL0NZb)

There certainly seems something grossly wrong with that flat-Earth map.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 10:43:51 PM

Does there?

I mean honestly. Yeah the 1800s map isn't really that great. There have been many provided that are better fits; Wilmore's map is not a bad solution given the variance required.

The fact that you are so positive though for such a disreputable source. I don't get it. That's not science.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 10:45:40 PM

This is the Tao. It has had many names, and every time those names have been wrong or lost. We have seen that mathematics has shown us that logic is the only religion that can prove itself wrong; what then of philosophy? And then the epistemologies and their specializations?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: jimster on February 28, 2020, 11:11:08 PM

I flew from Sydney to LA. The flight time matched the published distance and known airliner speed, which all matched RE maps and globe. Do you have a FE map that matches my experience and published data? On the FAQ map, taking the width of USA as 3000 mi, the distance is greater than the range of any airliner.

Would love to see a FE map that showed the distance from LA to Sydney as the distance the airlines and the internet say it is. Got one? If so, why is the obviously wrong FAQ map still there? I would think FE would be rushing out a FE map that matched distance published by airlines and consistent with maps and gps.

FE is a new kind of sciemce, one that publishes clearly wrong things and promises a good solution real soon now, but still no flat map/

We know the FAQ map is wrong, Australia is half again as wide as USA, excerpt we know that Australia is 2700 miles across, while USA is 3000.

Love tp see a map that shows Australia 10% narrower than USA and Sydney to LA close enough to

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 28, 2020, 11:14:50 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:43:51 PM

Does there?

I mean honestly. Yeah the 1800s map isn't really that great. There have been many provided that are better fits; Wilmore's map is not a bad solution given the variance required.

The fact that you are so positive though for such a disreputable source. I don't get it. That's not science.

Id love to see a flat earth map than answers flights for all 3 long distance Southern Hemisphere flights
South America - South Africa
South America - Australia
Australia - South Africa


I suppose you can just pretend one or all 3 of those flights dont exist.
Its the usual easy way out taken, Just ask Wise

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:15:43 PM

Again, Jimster we do. The projection of the non-euclidean map is that of a globe. It's useful to navigate - in the old days they did plane sailing. It is pretty similar to what folks do now. If you want to talk topology and why you can't put a non-euclidean surface on a flat image for you to see on your computer, I don't know how to help you but to point you to Simulacres et Simulation.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:21:29 PM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 28, 2020, 11:14:50 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:43:51 PM

Does there?

I mean honestly. Yeah the 1800s map isn't really that great. There have been many provided that are better fits; Wilmore's map is not a bad solution given the variance required.

The fact that you are so positive though for such a disreputable source. I don't get it. That's not science.

Id love to see a flat earth map than answers flights for all 3 long distance Southern Hemisphere flights
South America - South Africa
South America - Australia
Australia - South Africa


I suppose you can just pretend one or all 3 of those flights dont exist.
Its the usual easy way out taken, Just ask Wise

I don't ask wise about matters of fact. He is a visionary. I might as well ask a painter to solve a calculus equation. If you can't see that, you have eyes that cannot see, and in actuality you might need wise quite a bit.

First off - Give me some specific and real flight paths. Not three random continents and places. Beyond that, as an intelligent person you can surely invent a map that would fit your scenario. What does that say of your metrics? What if you proceeded as such and made a dinosaur of the whole thing - ad hoc it all the way?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 28, 2020, 11:22:14 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:43:51 PM

Does there?

I mean honestly. Yeah the 1800s map isn't really that great. There have been many provided that are better fits; Wilmore's map is not a bad solution given the variance required.

The fact that you are so positive though for such a disreputable source. I don't get it. That's not science.

Wilmore's map is just the Lambert Globe projection. If used as an FE model, I'd say there are a lot of 'variances', as you call them, that would need to be ironed out. In other words, it solves some issues with the AE FE 'model' yet creates new ones all to itself.

I'm not following your sort of over-arching Yelp review of the airline industry logic and how it applies to any of this. Sure, air travel has become a less than glamorous and convenient mode of transportation in the past 30 years or so. But I can also still get door-to-door from SFO to JFK in about 6 hours for about 600 bucks. Not bad, really. Considering the alternatives if you're trying to get from A to B in an expedient manner. So I'm not sure, "Air travel sucks because I don't get free peanuts anymore..." = The entire industry is disreputable.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:24:50 PM

Hartle was not wrong when he said all points of data have more than one solution; I extend that to say - infinite solutions. It's apparent without proof as it is the chief problem of empiricism and religion at once. And yet proof comes easy if you even try to show it or prove it wrong.

Hold on responding to the new post in a second.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 28, 2020, 11:26:39 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:12:15 PM

Yeah.. I hate to be the one to break it you but that is a 200 year old map we've been pushing the media to feed rubes like you here.

Well, where is your 2020 flat-Earth map?

The whole world seems to have gotten along fine with maps that have been projections of the Globe Earth for centuries and they seemed quite accurate.

For example, Kingsford Smith's flight from Oakland, Ca to Brisbane in 1928 used such maps to calculate distance and plot the course.
There were no modern navigation aids and no GPS. All navigation was dead reckoning plus Celestial Navigation.  Maybe you can explain how his route fits your flat-Earth map.
See Sunlight on a flat Earth map « Reply #36 on: May 21, 2019, 08:43:37 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81479.msg2173030#msg2173030).
If Harry Lyons got his distances or directions wrong they would never have found Suva in Fiji as shown on the chart:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZt1B2yk/Kingsford-Smith-Chart-2021-to-Suva-Fiji.jpg)
Trove Harry Lyon map collection No. 2021 (https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1267315414/view)
And that chart has Harry Lyon's annotation on it.

So where is this map of yours that has all these distances and directions correct?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:28:05 PM

Quote from: Stash on February 28, 2020, 11:22:14 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:43:51 PM

Does there?

I mean honestly. Yeah the 1800s map isn't really that great. There have been many provided that are better fits; Wilmore's map is not a bad solution given the variance required.

The fact that you are so positive though for such a disreputable source. I don't get it. That's not science.

Wilmore's map is just the Lambert Globe projection. If used as an FE model, I'd say there are a lot of 'variances', as you call them, that would need to be ironed out. In other words, it solves some issues with the AE FE 'model' yet creates new ones all to itself.

I'm not following your sort of over-arching Yelp review of the airline industry logic and how it applies to any of this. Sure, air travel has become a less than glamorous and convenient mode of transportation in the past 30 years or so. But I can also still get door-to-door from SFO to JFK in about 6 hours for about 600 bucks. Not bad, really. Considering the alternatives if you're trying to get from A to B in an expedient manner. So I'm not sure, "Air travel sucks because I don't get free peanuts anymore..." = The entire industry is disreputable.

What I'm saying is yes they have been ironed out. And here we are. Unfortunately, you lot wish to think that anything that explains the same dataset you explain is the same idea. That someone is just taking your idea and "making it flat!"

It's not.

Secondly, there is a necessary nominalism to mathematics, and unfortunately that trickles down to empiricism.

As far as airports, come on. Yeah you get from a to b. That's about all you can claim.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:30:44 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 28, 2020, 11:26:39 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:12:15 PM

Yeah.. I hate to be the one to break it you but that is a 200 year old map we've been pushing the media to feed rubes like you here.

Well, where is your 2020 flat-Earth map?

The whole world seems to have gotten along fine with maps that have been projections of the Globe Earth for centuries and they seemed quite accurate.

For example, Kingsford Smith's flight from Oakland, Ca to Brisbane in 1928 used such maps to calculate distance and plot the course.
There were no modern navigation aids and no GPS. All navigation was dead reckoning plus Celestial Navigation.  Maybe you can explain how his route fits your flat-Earth map.
See Sunlight on a flat Earth map « Reply #36 on: May 21, 2019, 08:43:37 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81479.msg2173030#msg2173030).
If Harry Lyons got his distances or directions wrong they would never have found Suva in Fiji as shown on the chart:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZt1B2yk/Kingsford-Smith-Chart-2021-to-Suva-Fiji.jpg)
Trove Harry Lyon map collection No. 2021 (https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1267315414/view)
And that chart has Harry Lyon's annotation on it.

So where is this map of yours that has all these distances and directions correct?

The world went along fine when it was a Portolan map as well. Or when we thought we could make salamanders out of fire. yeah, things get along fine even if we are dumb as a rock. Man navigated across oceans and then built the statues on easter island.

Your approximations are not as good as you think they are.  They might serve you well for sailing and building big rocks, but that says nothing of their truth.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:32:06 PM

We have always been wrong, when tested about our beliefs as mankind. Whether it was a map, or a globe or a stupid little idea. They have always shown us that there is another way of looking at things that is additive to the perspective.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:32:40 PM

But hey - not the flat earth society. That must be a damned fact.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:39:08 PM

Quote from: Stash on February 28, 2020, 11:22:14 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:43:51 PM

Does there?

I mean honestly. Yeah the 1800s map isn't really that great. There have been many provided that are better fits; Wilmore's map is not a bad solution given the variance required.

The fact that you are so positive though for such a disreputable source. I don't get it. That's not science.

Wilmore's map is just the Lambert Globe projection. If used as an FE model, I'd say there are a lot of 'variances', as you call them, that would need to be ironed out. In other words, it solves some issues with the AE FE 'model' yet creates new ones all to itself.

I'm not following your sort of over-arching Yelp review of the airline industry logic and how it applies to any of this. Sure, air travel has become a less than glamorous and convenient mode of transportation in the past 30 years or so. But I can also still get door-to-door from SFO to JFK in about 6 hours for about 600 bucks. Not bad, really. Considering the alternatives if you're trying to get from A to B in an expedient manner. So I'm not sure, "Air travel sucks because I don't get free peanuts anymore..." = The entire industry is disreputable.

I'm sorry. Have you seen airports? They can't even put their fucking hat on, and you want me to think they plan the right amount of gas to fly any amount of distance, aside that those that design those airplanes and their tanks might well know that its a shit show in the civilian space. I .. I am at a loss. Yeah its a yelp review. Good job thinking critically about that one.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:39:43 PM

They fill up their tanks and get the next asshole to the next a to b.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 28, 2020, 11:46:52 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:28:05 PM

Quote from: Stash on February 28, 2020, 11:22:14 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:43:51 PM

Does there?

I mean honestly. Yeah the 1800s map isn't really that great. There have been many provided that are better fits; Wilmore's map is not a bad solution given the variance required.

The fact that you are so positive though for such a disreputable source. I don't get it. That's not science.

Wilmore's map is just the Lambert Globe projection. If used as an FE model, I'd say there are a lot of 'variances', as you call them, that would need to be ironed out. In other words, it solves some issues with the AE FE 'model' yet creates new ones all to itself.

I'm not following your sort of over-arching Yelp review of the airline industry logic and how it applies to any of this. Sure, air travel has become a less than glamorous and convenient mode of transportation in the past 30 years or so. But I can also still get door-to-door from SFO to JFK in about 6 hours for about 600 bucks. Not bad, really. Considering the alternatives if you're trying to get from A to B in an expedient manner. So I'm not sure, "Air travel sucks because I don't get free peanuts anymore..." = The entire industry is disreputable.

What I'm saying is yes they have been ironed out. And here we are. Unfortunately, you lot wish to think that anything that explains the same dataset you explain is the same idea. That someone is just taking your idea and "making it flat!"

It's not.

Secondly, there is a necessary nominalism to mathematics, and unfortunately that trickles down to empiricism.

As far as airports, come on. Yeah you get from a to b. That's about all you can claim.

So far I haven't been privy to anything 'ironed out' other than you just now saying that issues with an FE map have been ironed out. So that's what is desired, the ironed out bits, in this case specific to flight paths/routes.

As to (we think) someone is just taking your idea and "making it flat!", no, we already did that for ourselves. Hence all of the various globe projections in the cartography realm. So we're all set. All anyone is asking of FE is what does the model look like, you know like roughly where stuff is, what's close to what, maybe in which general direction would you need to go to get from here to to there. Then, ultimately, an FE map that's as accurate as anything used in the RE world. That's all.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:54:32 PM

Yeah, you guys were all set with the piri reis map too. You positivists are always 'all set.'

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:56:20 PM

Also the idea that you did it for yourselves - fuck no you didn't You just listened to someone else that said they did it. Fuck right off.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 28, 2020, 11:56:53 PM

Wipe your own ass for once and then you can say your map is fucking accurate.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 28, 2020, 11:59:40 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:39:08 PM

Quote from: Stash on February 28, 2020, 11:22:14 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:43:51 PM

Does there?

I mean honestly. Yeah the 1800s map isn't really that great. There have been many provided that are better fits; Wilmore's map is not a bad solution given the variance required.

The fact that you are so positive though for such a disreputable source. I don't get it. That's not science.

Wilmore's map is just the Lambert Globe projection. If used as an FE model, I'd say there are a lot of 'variances', as you call them, that would need to be ironed out. In other words, it solves some issues with the AE FE 'model' yet creates new ones all to itself.

I'm not following your sort of over-arching Yelp review of the airline industry logic and how it applies to any of this. Sure, air travel has become a less than glamorous and convenient mode of transportation in the past 30 years or so. But I can also still get door-to-door from SFO to JFK in about 6 hours for about 600 bucks. Not bad, really. Considering the alternatives if you're trying to get from A to B in an expedient manner. So I'm not sure, "Air travel sucks because I don't get free peanuts anymore..." = The entire industry is disreputable.

I'm sorry. Have you seen airports? They can't even put their fucking hat on, and you want me to think they plan the right amount of gas to fly any amount of distance, aside that those that design those airplanes and their tanks might well know that its a shit show in the civilian space. I .. I am at a loss. Yeah its a yelp review. Good job thinking critically about that one.

Sorry, you lost me here again with this mire of disdain for people who can't put on a hat? Who are these people with hats? Do they literally fumble with them as they attempt to put them on? You apparently have your critical thinking cap on right now. Do tell.

As for folks responsible for planning and filling planes with fuel, I think a lot of them have hats though I don't know if it's critical to their job to wear them. But yes, if you felt that these hat fumbling folks don't plan the right amount of gas to fly any amount of distance then I'm not really sure why you would fly. Seems quite illogical to not trust the system at all yet climb into a tube that will race across the sky at 500 mph 7 or so miles up. Why in the world would you do such a thing?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:02:44 AM

Yeah you are right. It's all about hats. Nicely played. No one ever drops a hat.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:03:18 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:54:32 PM

Yeah, you guys were all set with the piri reis map too. You positivists are always 'all set.'

No we weren't. The entirety of the globe was not known at the time.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:05:54 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:02:44 AM

Yeah you are right. It's all about hats. Nicely played. No one ever drops a hat.

Now are you referring to 'the drop of a hat' as in doing something quickly? I'm still confused about this hat business.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 12:08:28 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:30:44 PM

The world went along fine when it was a Portolan map as well.

Sure but those navigators were aiming for large continents not tiny islands in a huge expanse like the Pacific Ocean.
But Captain Cook did navigate to the little island of Tahiti without problem and he knew nothing of you "non-Euclidean flat Earth".
He just accepted, probably without being aware of it, that he was navigating a non-Euclidean 2-D space embedded in a Euclidean 3-D space.

Quote from: John Davis

Or when we thought we could make salamanders out of fire. yeah, things get along fine even if we are dumb as a rock.

Irrelevant!

Quote from: John Davis

Man navigated across oceans and then built the statues on easter island.

But were they specifically navigating "across oceans" to find "Easter Island"?
Captain Cook was very deliberately navigating to Tahiti and Kingsford-Smith was very deliberately navigating to Suva and it vital that he find it promptly!

Quote from: John Davis

Your approximations are not as good as you think they are.  They might serve you well for sailing and building big rocks, but that says nothing of their truth.

Really?
What evidence have you to claim that these "approximations are not as good as" claimed - can YOU do better?
Do you have a better map?

But Harry Lyons was not "sailing and building big rocks" but navigating a plane over the longest non-stop flight to date where the fuel usage was critical.
Over the ocean, there is only the occasional tiny island and he was aiming for the small islands of Fiji.

I would say that the simple fact that they did land at Suva was rather good evidence that their distance and directions were very close.

You really are a great one for saying words with nothing to back them up.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:09:46 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:56:20 PM

Also the idea that you did it for yourselves - fuck no you didn't You just listened to someone else that said they did it. Fuck right off.

No, we had(have) people, lots of them, measuring stuff and writing it down. It's all quite well documented. I can point you to some references if you would like.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:11:59 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:09:46 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:56:20 PM

Also the idea that you did it for yourselves - fuck no you didn't You just listened to someone else that said they did it. Fuck right off.

No, we had(have) people, lots of them, measuring stuff and writing it down. It's all quite well documented. I can point you to some references if you would like.

Yeah, so did Piri Reis. At least he had the balls the go out and prove it. Albeit with slaves arms.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:12:54 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:56:53 PM

Wipe your own ass for once and then you can say your map is fucking accurate.

I have for quite some time and presume I will continue to do so for some time to come. So according to you, I assume that I can rightfully say my map is accurate.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:12:58 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:03:18 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:54:32 PM

Yeah, you guys were all set with the piri reis map too. You positivists are always 'all set.'

No we weren't. The entirety of the globe was not known at the time.

Are you so certain it is now?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:13:56 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:05:54 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:02:44 AM

Yeah you are right. It's all about hats. Nicely played. No one ever drops a hat.

Now are you referring to 'the drop of a hat' as in doing something quickly? I'm still confused about this hat business.

Its okay. This hat business is certainly confusing you and putting you up in a ruckus. Pay it no mind. I'm sure its not important at all.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:18:11 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 12:08:28 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:30:44 PM

The world went along fine when it was a Portolan map as well.

Sure but those navigators were aiming for large continents not tiny islands in a huge expanse like the Pacific Ocean.
But Captain Cook did navigate to the little island of Tahiti without problem and he knew nothing of you "non-Euclidean flat Earth".
He just accepted, probably without being aware of it, that he was navigating a non-Euclidean 2-D space embedded in a Euclidean 3-D space.

Quote from: John Davis

Or when we thought we could make salamanders out of fire. yeah, things get along fine even if we are dumb as a rock.

Irrelevant!

Quote from: John Davis

Man navigated across oceans and then built the statues on easter island.

But were they specifically navigating "across oceans" to find "Easter Island"?
Captain Cook was very deliberately navigating to Tahiti and Kingsford-Smith was very deliberately navigating to Suva and it vital that he find it promptly!

Quote from: John Davis

Your approximations are not as good as you think they are.  They might serve you well for sailing and building big rocks, but that says nothing of their truth.

Really?
What evidence have you to claim that these "approximations are not as good as" claimed - can YOU do better?
Do you have a better map?

But Harry Lyons was not "sailing and building big rocks" but navigating a plane over the longest non-stop flight to date where the fuel usage was critical.
Over the ocean, there is only the occasional tiny island and he was aiming for the small islands of Fiji.

I would say that the simple fact that they did land at Suva was rather good evidence that their distance and directions were very close.

You really are a great one for saying words with nothing to back them up.

Can JOHN DAVIS do better? Oh my. A dime to anyone who was asked that question and said yes. Unfortunately, the resounding answer from camp round is "no. I have a globe." Instead of empowering you the fight for empricism and logic has instead dwarfed the intellectual community. Well. The middle of it at least.

Any man who has flown knows that fuel consumption is dependent upon weather. Tell me, do you know if it's going to rain tomorrow? Modern positivist meteorologists with their big radars seem to have a hard time predicting even that. And yet you are so certain these feats cannot be done - I have to think back to those moai. Do you think those who built them planned their fuel well?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:21:00 AM

You are so certain in this group of corporations ability to predict weather you fail to see they just build their tanks big enough and fly fast enough, and then push folks off to flights and make more money off them while being fed by the federal budget.

Yelp! Indeed.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:21:46 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:13:56 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:05:54 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:02:44 AM

Yeah you are right. It's all about hats. Nicely played. No one ever drops a hat.

Now are you referring to 'the drop of a hat' as in doing something quickly? I'm still confused about this hat business.

Its okay. This hat business is certainly confusing you and putting you up in a ruckus. Pay it no mind. I'm sure its not important at all.

I'm pretty sure you're the one up in a ruckus when you're telling me to go fuck right off and wipe my ass. The coup de gras would have been if you had told me to do those two things at the same time.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:22:40 AM

No, pretty sure you should try wiping your own ass.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:23:38 AM

It's not hard. Just try it once. Its okay because its an allegorical ass. You don't actually have to wipe your white ass.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:24:27 AM

We can help. We have a large library of folks that can wipe their own ass. Or we can direct you to others that wiped their ass.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:25:21 AM

Carpenter wasn't too bad at it. I mean it wasn't a perfect wipe, but at least he did it. Fort not too shabby either. Newton - the master fudger wiped his ass pretty darned well.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:27:16 AM

Einstein had to have a moment while everyone waited for him to wipe it. But hey, they got him the toilet paper and there it was.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:29:00 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:22:40 AM

No, pretty sure you should try wiping your own ass.

How is the new more constructive debate, content-full, no insulting forum format working out for you? Seems like you're really representing well.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:32:51 AM

Good thing I'm in general fool.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:35:09 AM

So, can you? Wipe your own ass?

What's one original thought you had? Some brilliant little dumb idea? I think we all have them.

I mean its all well enough to let the globs wipe your ass with their globe. Tell me. What is a fact you know. 

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:37:55 AM

I'll go first if you are shy.

Take Cantor's slash. Instead of an unordered list of numbers, instead choose to use binary numbers. Reverse them (so 1, 01, 11, etc) and sort them in order.

You can find the exact difference at any point between any number and the number outside the set. This makes it inside the set, and there you go.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:39:28 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:21:00 AM

You are so certain in this group of corporations ability to predict weather you fail to see they just build their tanks big enough and fly fast enough, and then push folks off to flights and make more money off them while being fed by the federal budget.

Yelp! Indeed.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the economics of commercial passenger air travel. Fuel couldn't be a bigger factor in the mix:

(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hugo_Gordijn/publication/313766887/figure/fig3/AS:462297807233029@1487231794796/United-States-passenger-airlines-operating-costs-2014-Source-Airlines-for-America.png)
1 United States' passenger airlines operating costs (2014). Source: Airlines for America, 2014.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:41:53 AM

So I guess you can't wipe your own ass. Nice pie chart though.

(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/GPH7WA/business-man-pointing-at-a-laptop-computer-with-pie-chart-GPH7WA.jpg)
 

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:45:52 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:35:09 AM

So, can you? Wipe your own ass?

What's one original thought you had? Some brilliant little dumb idea? I think we all have them.

I mean its all well enough to let the globs wipe your ass with their globe. Tell me. What is a fact you know.

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:37:55 AM

I'll go first if you are shy.

Take Cantor's slash. Instead of an unordered list of numbers, instead choose to use binary numbers. Reverse them (so 1, 01, 11, etc) and sort them in order.

You can find the exact difference at any point between any number and the number outside the set. This makes it inside the set, and there you go.

I thought you said you were going first? How is Cantor's Slash one of your 'original thoughts'?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 12:49:23 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:18:11 AM

Any man who has flown knows that fuel consumption is dependent upon weather.

To a limited extent only and planes carry a reserve for that but not enough to endlessly hunt for their destination.

Quote from: John Davis

Tell me, do you know if it's going to rain tomorrow? Modern positivist meteorologists with their big radars seem to have a hard time predicting even that.

And that is quite irrelevant and you know it!

Quote from: John Davis

And yet you are so certain these feats cannot be done - I have to think back to those moai. Do you think those who built them planned their fuel well?

It seems that all your debates end up in your ridiculing and insulting everybody.

Now where is your map?

And it has to be a map with no "uncrossable edges" because the Earth has been circumnavigated in virtually every direction imaginable.
And this includes around the Earth within ±2° of the Equator and via both the North Pole and the South Pole.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:51:17 AM

Its' a disproof of cantor's slash's premise - but hey you'd have to know the original point of it to see that. Or hey, you can take any of my flat earth ideas you've been trying to shit on. It's so hard to do that you've been here so long. You know, just in case someone else can't shit on it you gotta be here to shit on it first.

Too bad you can't wipe. It would be so easy to wipe right, and yet here you are. Wiping left. Well.

Trying to.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:56:36 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 12:49:23 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:18:11 AM

Any man who has flown knows that fuel consumption is dependent upon weather.

To a limited extent only and planes carry a reserve for that but not enough to endlessly hunt for their destination.

No one said they did. But let's be honest. They don't run out because they have more than enough.

You know, because engineering and its cheap to build a larger fuel tank and fill it up. There is no cost benefit in filling up a half tank.

Quote

Quote from: John Davis

Tell me, do you know if it's going to rain tomorrow? Modern positivist meteorologists with their big radars seem to have a hard time predicting even that.

And that is quite irrelevant and you know it!

I think I later point out it isn't.

Quote

Quote from: John Davis

And yet you are so certain these feats cannot be done - I have to think back to those moai. Do you think those who built them planned their fuel well?

It seems that all your debates end up in your ridiculing and insulting everybody.

I don't think what I said there ridicules anyone. Are you a stone statue on easter island? No?

Did you build them?

No? Because from this angle, it seems I'm giving them some pretty fucking high praise.

Quote

Now where is your map?

And it has to be a map with no "uncrossable edges" because the Earth has been circumnavigated in virtually every direction imaginable.
And this includes around the Earth within ±2° of the Equator and via both the North Pole and the South Pole.

Really?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 12:58:02 AM

Yeah I'll ridicule those who blindly follow some shit idea and haven't wiped their own ass. You are right about that rab.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 12:59:37 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:41:53 AM

So I guess you can't wipe your own ass. Nice pie chart though.

It was a nice pie chart. Glad you liked it. Just more evidence that you just make things up, like commercial passenger airplane tanks are made big enough to just fill them up to whatevs, because having a clear understanding of consumption and cost apparently doesn't matter.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 01:02:09 AM

And that pie chart supplied you with that expertise.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 01:02:46 AM

.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 01:09:08 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 01:02:09 AM

And that pie chart supplied you with that expertise.

So I take it you were innately born with all of your expertise?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 01:13:04 AM

No I got it from pie charts and googling to prove folks wrong on the internet.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 01:14:17 AM

This home is protected. If you'd like us to keep making a fool of ya, keep around. We need something to do while we are right.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 29, 2020, 01:15:30 AM

Too bad we are devolving to insulting now. So Ill quickly place this here and go.

Aircraft do not have unlimited range, and those with a long range have a choice between more fuel or cargo. This is obvious and not worth discussing.
But it also means that certain aircraft are designed for different routes.
Long routes, such at the 11 000km+ routes that are flown in the Southern Hemisphere are flown with special aircraft. We know how much fuel they take, and their maximum range. This is not UFO technology, stuff is built by people. So I am not even sure what Johns argument is.

As mentioned, airlines go belly up a lot, because its a cost competitive market, with many airlines being unfairly subsidized. So most are not going to fly higher cost flights if they dont absolutely have to.

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:21:29 PM

First off - Give me some specific and real flight paths. Not three random continents and places.

There are not that many flights that go that far in the world, but the main ones are
Jhb - Perth  - SAA280
Jhb - Sau Paulo - SAA222
Melbourne - Santiago - LATAM 804
I have flown one of them, its real and does not take twice as long as they say it does.

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:21:29 PM

Beyond that, as an intelligent person you can surely invent a map that would fit your scenario. What does that say of your metrics? What if you proceeded as such and made a dinosaur of the whole thing - ad hoc it all the way?

I bet I could make a projection that would work with just the 3 flights in the southern hemisphere. But I cant make a projection that would make 3 flights in the southern hemisphere work and another 3 similar distance flights in the northern hemisphere work as well.
Its not just about one or two flights that need to work. Its about making ALL the flights work.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 01:16:35 AM

Good go back to your fucking homes. This is ours.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 01:18:09 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 01:13:04 AM

No I got it from pie charts and googling to prove folks wrong on the internet.

So that's where you got your expertise that commercial passenger airlines pay no mind to fuel costs, consumption, and distances?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 01:23:11 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 29, 2020, 01:18:09 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 01:13:04 AM

No I got it from pie charts and googling to prove folks wrong on the internet.

So that's where you got your expertise that commercial passenger airlines pay no mind to fuel costs, consumption, and distances?

Are orthodox men really this dense?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 01:27:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 01:14:17 AM

This home is protected. If you'd like us to keep making a fool of ya, keep around. We need something to do while we are right.

“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 01:31:03 AM

Let us find out who the fool is then. Or you can go on home. I think you've shown yourself a fool or full of shit better than a candle experiment ever could.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Stash on February 29, 2020, 01:38:53 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 01:31:03 AM

Let us find out who the fool is then. Or you can go on home. I think you've shown yourself a fool or full of shit better than a candle experiment ever could.

I think you've bested everyone this evening in the fool & full of shit department. Hat's off to you.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 01:43:05 AM

Off home it is then.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 01:58:49 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:56:36 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 12:49:23 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:18:11 AM

Any man who has flown knows that fuel consumption is dependent upon weather.

To a limited extent only and planes carry a reserve for that but not enough to endlessly hunt for their destination.

No one said they did. But let's be honest. They don't run out because they have more than enough.

But commercial planes do not carry unnecessary fuel.

Quote from: John Davis

You know, because engineering and its cheap to build a larger fuel tank and fill it up.

It is not "cheap to build a larger fuel tank and fill it up"!

Quote from: John Davis

There is no cost benefit in filling up a half tank.

No so, there is a huge financial benefit in filling with no more fuel than needed after allowing for possible diversions and emergencies.
Carrying extra weight, be it fuel or anything else costs performance in terms of speed and fuel consumption.
As a result airlines do a careful analysis to determined the best fuel load for a flight and that can even depend on the relative costs of fuel and the extra turnaround time if refueling is necessary.

I won't bother with the rest of your post other than:

Quote from: John Davis

Quote

Now where is your map?

And it has to be a map with no "uncrossable edges" because the Earth has been circumnavigated in virtually every direction imaginable.
And this includes around the Earth within ±2° of the Equator and via both the North Pole and the South Pole.

Really?

Yes really, unless you claim that many if these circumnavigations are just "fake news" as many flat-Earthers have claimed.

Of course your "non-Euclidean map" might explain all that.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: JackBlack on February 29, 2020, 02:00:52 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 12:56:36 AM

You know, because engineering and its cheap to build a larger fuel tank and fill it up. There is no cost benefit in filling up a half tank.

No, there is a benefit.
Remember, planes fly by generating lift.
For the duration of the flight, they need to generate enough lift to negate their weight.
This lift requires fuel to produce as it slows the aircraft down.
More fuel, means more weight, which means more fuel is burnt, which costs more money.

You may as well have said there is no cost benefit in not filling up a hole with jet fuel and lighting it on fire.

Then there is also the issue of the maximum weight the plane can handle, which is lower when landing.
Filling up the tank every time could result in them needing to dump a large amount of fuel to be able to land.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Wolvaccine on February 29, 2020, 02:04:37 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 29, 2020, 01:38:53 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 01:31:03 AM

Let us find out who the fool is then. Or you can go on home. I think you've shown yourself a fool or full of shit better than a candle experiment ever could.

I think you've bested everyone this evening in the fool & full of shit department. Hat's off to you.

I think John forgot to sign out of his account and log in with his Papa Legba account  :o

In all seriousness are you okay John? I hope its only faux rage we are seeing. This style and language of posting seems beneath a secretary and leader of the best Flat Earth forum and society on the internet. You can beat people with your intellect, not base language.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 01:58:49 AM

But commercial planes do not carry unnecessary fuel.

Yes they do. They say they do. In the event they need to go to another airport or circle around one for a while before landing clearance etc. And weather indeed impacts fuel consumption. Flying against 200km/h winds against the nose vs the tail for example.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 02:07:42 AM

Fuck off this is not your home. I've had enough of you shitting on us. Fair was fair enough, but that is not what this is. Also those arguments are just trash and you know it. Anyone who reads it should know it too.

But hey, how bravely you face us - with your sixteen pounder gun. That should be something that you can bring home and fuck your wife with.

We are coming. You have sowed these seeds. I have made a point of making this society not based on any evangelical cause. You have come here.

We will defend ourselves.  IN VERITATE VICTORIA

I have no alts Shifter. I am who I am, and this is my home and I will defend it.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 02:09:07 AM

Beneath a secretary was putting up with this bullshit. This is a home to the wayward. You can go fuck off home.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Wolvaccine on February 29, 2020, 02:13:26 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 02:09:07 AM

Beneath a secretary was putting up with this bullshit. This is a home to the wayward. You can go fuck off home.

Is this passion and language the style and tone you want to set for your society though? You can defend your home and still express the same passion for doing so without the potty mouth.

Because the foul language demotes your intelligence and seemingly grants an intellectual 'win' to those you argue against. You are better than they are. Better than this

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 02:14:47 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 01:31:03 AM

Let us find out who the fool is then. Or you can go on home. I think you've shown yourself a fool or full of shit better than a candle experiment ever could.

Have you tried you "candle experiment" yet and proven that the earth is a very small sphere ;D?

As I said you seem to end up with ridicule and ad hominem, so sad!

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 02:19:56 AM

If you stay, We will fight you for 800 more.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 02:21:40 AM

And yes, I had a laugh or two at your expense. Oh dinosaurs are fake, and candles can't burn a thread.  You lot have finally lit the fuse. Where are the cheers and jeers now?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 02:22:26 AM

The flat earth ideology is right. Perhaps I was a Hampden after all.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 02:29:55 AM

Oh shit wear your fucking sun glasses at night! The Flat Earth Nation is coming. And we have been building it for years. It's almost like you can build a whole fucking nation out of an idea others think is foolish outside a forum and even with dickhats being cute and having their own thing. That would not be fair to have a surprise like that. So here it is. Fair warning.

We are coming. And we will dismantle your academics and your little religions.

Get out of our fucking homes. This is your last chance. After this, of course, you know this means war.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 02:31:09 AM

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Daffy_Duck.svg/1200px-Daffy_Duck.svg.png)

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 02:37:14 AM

Quote from: Shifter on February 29, 2020, 02:04:37 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 01:58:49 AM

But commercial planes do not carry unnecessary fuel.

Yes they do. They say they do. In the event they need to go to another airport or circle around one for a while before landing clearance etc. And weather indeed impacts fuel consumption. Flying against 200km/h winds against the nose vs the tail for example.

I said "commercial planes do not carry unnecessary fuel" and if you read further you'd find that I expanded on that:

Quote from: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 01:58:49 AM

Quote from: John Davis

There is no cost benefit in filling up a half tank.

No so, there is a huge financial benefit in filling with no more fuel than needed after allowing for possible diversions and emergencies.

And I doubt that any plane would be unexpectedly "Flying against 200km/h winds against the nose vs the tail for example".
Rather than that they would change altitude or course.
The jet streams are well monitored, for example Tracking the jet streams from space (https://l-zone.info/2015/01/tracking-the-jet-streams-from-space/).
The planes flight computer will also show the current winds.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 02:50:39 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 02:21:40 AM

And yes, I had a laugh or two at your expense. Oh dinosaurs are fake, and candles can't burn a thread.  You lot have finally lit the fuse. Where are the cheers and jeers now?

If you're so immature that "a laugh or two at others expense" makes you happy, good luck.

But it's obvious that you have never attempted the "candle experiment" or you might realise just how much a 400 metre "thread" sags.

You can cheer and jeer to your heart's content but that changes nothing.

You said: 

Quote from: John Davis on August 23, 2019, 01:39:18 PM

The disproofs of a round earth are so plentiful and readily available that we can show its absurdity with ease at the beck and call of any globularist

Well, your "crate experiment" proved nothing and your "candle experiment" sagged away to oblivion so what's next on this great list of "disproofs of a round earth"?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 02:53:18 AM

Your piece meal examples will not convince any flat earther.

The current winds say little of those winds ahead. I worry you are being a bit silly about this. So these jets, you say, are optimizing around jet streams? That changes a lot of things don't you think? So they find the clearest path through jet streams or using them - and yet we trust they can accurately predict their gas usage when we can't predict the weather?

It's hard to swallow. I want to believe, but come on. It would make life a lot easier to believe.  The pilots I met don't give enough fucks for that.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 02:53:54 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 02:50:39 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 02:21:40 AM

And yes, I had a laugh or two at your expense. Oh dinosaurs are fake, and candles can't burn a thread.  You lot have finally lit the fuse. Where are the cheers and jeers now?

If you're so immature that "a laugh or two at others expense" that makes you happy, good luck.

But it's obvious that you have never attempted the "candle experiment" or you might realise just how much a 400 metre "thread" sags.

You can cheer and jeer to your heart's content but that changes nothing.

You said: 

Quote from: John Davis on August 23, 2019, 01:39:18 PM

The disproofs of a round earth are so plentiful and readily available that we can show its absurdity with ease at the beck and call of any globularist

Well, your "crate experiment" proved nothing and your "candle experiment" sagged away to oblivion so what's next on this great list of "disproofs of a round earth"?

They aren't a laugh as I explained to previously.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Username on February 29, 2020, 02:57:27 AM

Or do you forget, "rab"?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: JackBlack on February 29, 2020, 03:55:55 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 02:53:18 AM

and yet we trust they can accurately predict their gas usage when we can't predict the weather?

It is called a margin of error.
They don't carry just enough to get to their destination, there will always be some margin of error, unless there is a screw up like when Canadia switched to metric with Air Canada Flight 143 running out of fuel.
If they just filled it up that wouldn't have happened.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 04:44:18 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 02:53:18 AM

Your piece meal examples will not convince any flat earther.

Said flat-Earther probably doesn't believe that there are satellites that can and do monitor the winds, including the jets streams.

Quote from: John Davis

The current winds say little of those winds ahead. I worry you are being a bit silly about this. So these jets, you say, are optimizing around jet streams?

I said no such thing!

But even before the flight takes off the flight route is chosen with regard to the current winds.

Quote from: John Davis

That changes a lot of things don't you think?
give enough fucks for that.

Quote from: John Davis

So they find the clearest path through jet streams or using them - and yet we trust they can accurately predict their gas usage when we can't predict the weather?

The jet streams at 30,000 to 40,000 feet are far more predictable than surface winds but even surface winds are not quite as fickle as you make out except for thunderstorms and the like.

When it is said that "we can't predict the weather" it usually just means that we cannot predict exactly where it will rain but the general weather conditions are usually fairly predictable over a day or two.
And even the likelihood of thunderstorms might be known even is not exactly where.

Quote from: John Davis

It's hard to swallow. I want to believe, but come on. It would make life a lot easier to believe.  The pilots I met don't give enough fucks for that.

And how many long-distance international pilots have you met?

You can believe what you like but flights like the QF27 non-stop from Sydney to Santiago are flown on 6 days a week.
But even now QANTAS uses the Boeing 747-438(ER) 4-engined plane because there are very few alternate airports to use in case of an engine failure.
Though they expect to change over to the Boeing 787-9 during this year.
The return flight QF28 non-stop from Santiago to Sydney commonly flies very far south, sometimes close the 70°S latitude line .

As to extra fuel there is this:

Quote

Flight Review: Qantas Business Class Sydney To Santiago (https://www.notquitenigella.com/2017/06/10/qantas-business-class-747-400/)
There is a delay taking off-something technical about a sealant or adhesive and as nobody wants things to fall off mid flight no-one seems particularly bothered. It takes about an hour to rectify the situation and then we are taxiing down the runway with the captain explaining that they have 2 tonnes of extra fuel that will allow them to fly at a higher mach so we won't lose much time.

The maximum fuel load of that plane is 227,572 litres or about 183 tonnes and a typical flight might burn about 195,000 litres or 157 tonnes.

New Zealand, however, currently has slightly different ETOPS rules and Air New Zealand does currently use the Boeing 777-219(ER) for the Aukland to/from Buenos Aries route.

---

If you are interested, this refers to a post by a QANTAS pilot about the Santiago to Sydney flight:
This whole thread about that flight is worth reading: A Flight over the Antarctic Sea Ice From Chile to Australia (QF28) (https://www.metabunk.org/a-flight-over-the-antarctic-sea-ice-from-chile-to-australia-qf28.t8235/).

It has a post about another flight, this one flown by TWcobra:

Quote from: TWCobra

Abishua, I flew the QF28 flight from Santiago to Sydney a few days ago. I mean physically flew the aircraft, a 747.

We flew within sight of the Antarctic, down to 71.5 degrees south. We can go further south on that route but are limited to 71.5 south by lack of line of sight to the ATC communications satellites over the equator.

That in itself should tell you the world is not flat, however, can you understand that airlines are commercial entities, where containing fuel costs are paramount to maintaining profitability?

Santiago and Sydney are almost on the exact same latitude of 34'00 south. Sydney's Longitude is 151 deg East and Santiago is at 72 deg W. To fly between the two cities I must cover 137 lines, or degrees of longitude.. Correct?

The flat earth model has the distance between degrees of longitude becoming much larger as we approach Antarctica. This greatly increases the east-west distance the aircraft must fly to cover those 137 degrees of longitude. In this case the flat earth model makes it physically impossible to fly the distance on a full load of fuel.

Yet that is what we did. Because lines of longitude converge at the pole, the distance between them is shorter the closer you get to the pole. This is how great circle routes works and why airlines always fly an approximation of a GCR. They do get modified by winds and airspace restrictions.

[In the post above] are two representations of the route we followed [and videos and satellite photos of the route]

The first [map] does not depict the lines of longitude as they are or even as the Flat Earth model presents them. The do show the jets streams however.

The second is the actual route we flew, which was basically a straight line GCR modified for the winds on the day, and the 71.5S constraint. It depicts the lines of longitude converging at the pole, making this route the shortest way.

It may not be congruent with your beliefs, but that's the way we fly between these two cities, and we do it because any other way would cost too much fuel.

Sorry the "Flat Earth" does not exist. That's all there is to it.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 04:55:39 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 29, 2020, 02:53:54 AM

They aren't a laugh as I explained to previously.

Well please show the results of your "candle experiment" because even the best strength/weight ration "thread" would sag more than 10 times the curve of the Earth even at twice its rated load.

So your "candle experiment" is a joke!
Your "shipping crate experiment" is little better because even if the top of the crate is 30 feet above water level the dip to the horizon would be only about 0.09° so it would show next to nothing.
And once the sun showing was 20% of its diameter the top edge of the Sun would be level with the top edge of the crate.

Putting your crate on a 1000 foot mountain might show something!

So, yes those two are jokes, so what's next!

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Unconvinced on February 29, 2020, 12:53:44 PM

Yikes!

I think we finally broke John.  :(

Amongst that pretty spectacular rant, he does have one point.  This is a flat earther forum, so maybe us roundies should try to tone it down a little?

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 01:55:35 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on February 29, 2020, 12:53:44 PM

Yikes!

I think we finally broke John.  :(

Amongst that pretty spectacular rant, he does have one point.  This is a flat earther forum, so maybe us roundies should try to tone it down a little?

Maybe but when they post obviously incorrect claims one has to try to answer it - but we should do it respectfully.
In this thread, I do believe that I've simply been presenting what I see as the answers.

And I don't want to "break" anyone, especially not John Davis.
I do wonder if he's pushing himself too hard with his heavy work commitments and the time he spends here.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: Ozymandias74 on February 29, 2020, 05:21:14 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:12:15 PM

Yeah.. I hate to be the one to break it you but that is a 200 year old map we've been pushing the media to feed rubes like you here.

We have advanced a lot further than that.

I dont understand, the FE community has a more updated supposedly accurate map, and yet they continue to push old outdated maps on 'rubes like me'?  What would be the point.  if FEers want to be more mainstream and not thought of as a joke by society in general, you would think they would go out of their way to publish accurate maps and data instead of keeping such information hidden or making it hard to find.   That does not seem like a very effective way to change the perception that FE is a joke and FEers are a uneducated and ignorant.

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: rabinoz on February 29, 2020, 05:52:27 PM

Quote from: Ozymandias74 on February 29, 2020, 05:21:14 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 10:12:15 PM

Yeah.. I hate to be the one to break it you but that is a 200 year old map we've been pushing the media to feed rubes like you here.

We have advanced a lot further than that.

I dont understand, the FE community has a more updated supposedly accurate map, and yet they continue to push old outdated maps on 'rubes like me'?  What would be the point?

To confuse poor ignorant 'rubes like us' maybe?

quote author=Ozymandias74]
if FEers want to be more mainstream and not thought of as a joke by society in general, you would think they would go out of their way to publish accurate maps and data instead of keeping such information hidden or making it hard to find.   That does not seem like a very effective way to change the perception that FE is a joke and FEers are a uneducated and ignorant.
[/quote]
Remember this?

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:15:43 PM

The projection of the non-Euclidean map is that of a Globe. It's useful to navigate - in the old days they did plane sailing. It is pretty similar to what folks do now.

Maybe this is John Davis's "new map" ;D?
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZqzS629b/Terrestrial-Globe.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HrzRgS4R)

Title: Re: Professor Dave Explains - 10 Challenges for flat earthers
Post by: markjo on March 05, 2020, 11:37:27 AM

I have one simple challenge to FE'ers.

Create a flat earth model (physical or computer based) that demonstrates the general principles of the rising and setting of the sun and moon, solar and lunar eclipses, and the seasons along with the seasonal day/night patterns as well as or better than this:
(https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2017/11/4/0/4/4/044adcbc-7aca-4b05-87cd-ee562c7b397e.jpg)

I've been asking for one for years, but no FE'er seems to be up to the challenge.