The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: onetwothreefour on April 25, 2010, 06:19:17 PM
-
These are something that no FEer has a good answer for.
http://flightaware.com/
People use this site every day to track when a loved one is arriving at an airport.
If the earth is flat then this site is either part of the conspiracy, or completely wrong and should've been shut down by now.
So the conspiracy keeps growing?
-
Has it escaped your attention that the aerospace industry is one giant hotbed of globularist lies?
-
Has it escaped your attention that the aerospace industry is one giant hotbed of globularist lies?
Including all of it's customers? Thanks for that amazing piece of sourced information.
-
Has it escaped your attention that the aerospace industry is one giant hotbed of globularist lies?
Including all of it's customers? Thanks for that amazing piece of sourced information.
No, why would its customers be involved in the deception? I have flown in a plane before, I am not part of the conspiracy.
-
Has it escaped your attention that the aerospace industry is one giant hotbed of globularist lies?
Including all of it's customers? Thanks for that amazing piece of sourced information.
No, why would its customers be involved in the deception? I have flown in a plane before, I am not part of the conspiracy.
We can't trust you. You admitted to flying a plane.
The only logical response is that you're faking being a true believer to gain the trust of the FEers and spy on them for the conspiracy. Perhaps even sabotage if needed.
-
Please do not make personal attacks against other members.
-
Has it escaped your attention that the aerospace industry is one giant hotbed of globularist lies?
Including all of it's customers? Thanks for that amazing piece of sourced information.
No, why would its customers be involved in the deception? I have flown in a plane before, I am not part of the conspiracy.
So all pilots and air traffic controllers are in on the conspiracy. Correct?
-
Has it escaped your attention that the aerospace industry is one giant hotbed of globularist lies?
Including all of it's customers? Thanks for that amazing piece of sourced information.
No, why would its customers be involved in the deception? I have flown in a plane before, I am not part of the conspiracy.
So all pilots and air traffic controllers are in on the conspiracy. Correct?
No, not at all. Why would they be?
-
Has it escaped your attention that the aerospace industry is one giant hotbed of globularist lies?
Including all of it's customers? Thanks for that amazing piece of sourced information.
No, why would its customers be involved in the deception? I have flown in a plane before, I am not part of the conspiracy.
So all pilots and air traffic controllers are in on the conspiracy. Correct?
No, not at all. Why would they be?
Because they navigate earth every single day with a Round Earth model, and it works. It's indisputable. We would either hear about the mistakes or you have to at least concede that the Flat Earth model requires that most pilots and air traffic controllers be in on the conspiracy.
-
Please do not make personal attacks against other members.
It's not a personal attack. I'm just questioning your credibility. Don't you question mine?
-
Has it escaped your attention that the aerospace industry is one giant hotbed of globularist lies?
Does that include publicly publishing flight schedules and actual flight times that can be verified by passengers?
-
Tailwind FTW!!
-
Tailwind FTW!!
And by that you mean?
-
Tailwind FTW!!
Now you're saying a tailwind is capable of pushing a plane from 500 mph to over 776 mph, with no one on board hearing the sonic boom it created?
-
Tailwind FTW!!
Now you're saying a tailwind is capable of pushing a plane from 500 mph to over 776 mph, with no one on board hearing the sonic boom it created?
notice that sonic boom has to do with the relative speed of an object with respect to the surrounding air.
-
Tailwind FTW!!
Now you're saying a tailwind is capable of pushing a plane from 500 mph to over 776 mph, with no one on board hearing the sonic boom it created?
notice that sonic boom has to do with the relative speed of an object with respect to the surrounding air.
Sigh. Even is such a tail wind were possible, that would mean a headwind of equal velocity would affect air travel going the opposite direction. This would reek havoc on those flights. I mean flying into winds that could speed a plane up by hundreds of miles per hour would be suicide. I mean if they can speed the plane up by more the 200 mph, they can slow it down by just as much.
-
Tailwind FTW!!
And by that you mean?
I stopped being lazy and googled it.
I wasn't aware of tailwinds that could speed up an aircraft so much,and that occur so often.
-
Tailwind FTW!!
Now you're saying a tailwind is capable of pushing a plane from 500 mph to over 776 mph, with no one on board hearing the sonic boom it created?
notice that sonic boom has to do with the relative speed of an object with respect to the surrounding air.
Sigh. Even is such a tail wind were possible, that would mean a headwind of equal velocity would affect air travel going the opposite direction. This would reek havoc on those flights. I mean flying into winds that could speed a plane up by hundreds of miles per hour would be suicide. I mean if they can speed the plane up by more the 200 mph, they can slow it down by just as much.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml)
-
Tailwind FTW!!
Now you're saying a tailwind is capable of pushing a plane from 500 mph to over 776 mph, with no one on board hearing the sonic boom it created?
notice that sonic boom has to do with the relative speed of an object with respect to the surrounding air.
Sigh. Even is such a tail wind were possible, that would mean a headwind of equal velocity would affect air travel going the opposite direction. This would reek havoc on those flights. I mean flying into winds that could speed a plane up by hundreds of miles per hour would be suicide. I mean if they can speed the plane up by more the 200 mph, they can slow it down by just as much.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml)
Well you learn something new everyday.
-
Tailwind FTW!!
Now you're saying a tailwind is capable of pushing a plane from 500 mph to over 776 mph, with no one on board hearing the sonic boom it created?
notice that sonic boom has to do with the relative speed of an object with respect to the surrounding air.
Sigh. Even is such a tail wind were possible, that would mean a headwind of equal velocity would affect air travel going the opposite direction. This would reek havoc on those flights. I mean flying into winds that could speed a plane up by hundreds of miles per hour would be suicide. I mean if they can speed the plane up by more the 200 mph, they can slow it down by just as much.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml)
Fair enough, but then you understand that changes everything we currently know about wind currents. See, because for tailwind to be the explanation of the flight times in the southern hemisphere, you have to make them go not only east to west at a constant speed, but also, west to east. This way planes going in both directions can use them on every trip. See, that's the problem with tailwinds, you can't always catch them. Sometimes, you get hit with a headwind. You also, have to look at the FES map and then explain why these magic tailwinds do not affect any flights in the northern hemisphere. And then you have to explain why the airlines, who have this love of money, aren't using them to make ALL of their flights shorter, thus allowing them to make more flights, and thus more money. See, that's the problem with the whole FET bullshit. There's so much more bullshit you have to come up with just to make the first piece of bullshit work.
-
Tailwind FTW!!
Now you're saying a tailwind is capable of pushing a plane from 500 mph to over 776 mph, with no one on board hearing the sonic boom it created?
notice that sonic boom has to do with the relative speed of an object with respect to the surrounding air.
Sigh. Even is such a tail wind were possible, that would mean a headwind of equal velocity would affect air travel going the opposite direction. This would reek havoc on those flights. I mean flying into winds that could speed a plane up by hundreds of miles per hour would be suicide. I mean if they can speed the plane up by more the 200 mph, they can slow it down by just as much.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml)
I don't get why you're posting this...are you saying that the flight data compiled on numerous sites is accurate?
-
Tailwind FTW!!
Now you're saying a tailwind is capable of pushing a plane from 500 mph to over 776 mph, with no one on board hearing the sonic boom it created?
notice that sonic boom has to do with the relative speed of an object with respect to the surrounding air.
Sigh. Even is such a tail wind were possible, that would mean a headwind of equal velocity would affect air travel going the opposite direction. This would reek havoc on those flights. I mean flying into winds that could speed a plane up by hundreds of miles per hour would be suicide. I mean if they can speed the plane up by more the 200 mph, they can slow it down by just as much.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml)
Unfortunately FET is currently unable to give accurate distances between locations in the southern hemiplane, so it's impossible to calculate what velocity tailwinds would be required to explain observed flight times.
-
The timetables of airlines are completely accurate. What I'm disputing is their alleged speeds, which are, for the most part, controlled by onboard computers.
-
The timetables of airlines are completely accurate. What I'm disputing is their alleged speeds, which are, for the most part, controlled by onboard computers.
Without knowing how far apart airports in the southern hemiplane really are, it's impossible to know what kind of speeds are required to meet those timetables.
-
The timetables of airlines are completely accurate. What I'm disputing is their alleged speeds, which are, for the most part, controlled by onboard computers.
How is anyone able to service the planes if they function differently than expected? You have to at least concede that the conspiracy spreads to all airplane mechanics if you're going to assert this.
-
Plus you wouldn't see planes the shape of flying buses in the Southern Hemisphere if they do not travel at the speeds they say.
-
If the claim is being put forward that flight time accuracy proves the earth is round, this has certainly been debated many times before.
If you want to further the argument, you will have to lay out your claim point by point.
-
Good to see you again, old friend.
The timetables of airlines are completely accurate. What I'm disputing is their alleged speeds, which are, for the most part, controlled by onboard computers.
How is anyone able to service the planes if they function differently than expected? You have to at least concede that the conspiracy spreads to all airplane mechanics if you're going to assert this.
Aeroplanes do function as expected. You realise that the actual mechanical engineering of an aircraft doesn't prescribe a single speed, that there is actually a range of possible speeds?
-
Because they navigate earth every single day with a Round Earth model, and it works. It's indisputable. We would either hear about the mistakes or you have to at least concede that the Flat Earth model requires that most pilots and air traffic controllers be in on the conspiracy.
Birds like to fly in the wake of fast-moving vessels, often close enough to nudge the vessel itself. The collective force of a lot of birds all nudging the vessel causes it to move faster.
This is one account for why travel times appear distorted. No need to bring pilots and air traffic controllers into the fold.
-
Because they navigate earth every single day with a Round Earth model, and it works. It's indisputable. We would either hear about the mistakes or you have to at least concede that the Flat Earth model requires that most pilots and air traffic controllers be in on the conspiracy.
Birds like to fly in the wake of fast-moving vessels, often close enough to nudge the vessel itself. The collective force of a lot of birds all nudging the vessel causes it to move faster.
This is one account for why travel times appear distorted. No need to bring pilots and air traffic controllers into the fold.
You seriously just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you? If that's the case, don't you think people would have reported a huge fucking flock of birds pushing a 747? I know if I was on a flight and looked out the window to see a shit load of birds pushing the plane, I'd not only tell someone, I'd take some pictures. I take it you have pictures of the phenomena? I mean, if it's as common as you suggest.
See, this is why I posted my theory that this whole FET thing is just a lie. You have no actual way to prove any of it, so you have to make things up as you go along.
-
Planes don't have a wake that is flyable behind, it's a mess of turbulence.
As for the speeds, ofcourse they can obtain multiple speeds, but they are not, and are nowhere near, the speeds that is required for FET.
-
You seriously just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you? If that's the case, don't you think people would have reported a huge fucking flock of birds pushing a 747? I know if I was on a flight and looked out the window to see a shit load of birds pushing the plane, I'd not only tell someone, I'd take some pictures. I take it you have pictures of the phenomena? I mean, if it's as common as you suggest.
Sadly, due to the ease and accessibility of modern photo-editing software, photo's aren't submittable as evidence.
-
You seriously just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you? If that's the case, don't you think people would have reported a huge fucking flock of birds pushing a 747? I know if I was on a flight and looked out the window to see a shit load of birds pushing the plane, I'd not only tell someone, I'd take some pictures. I take it you have pictures of the phenomena? I mean, if it's as common as you suggest.
Sadly, due to the ease and accessibility of modem photo-editing software, photo's aren't submittable as evidence.
So what do you offer as evidence of thousands of huge flocks of birds, only in the southern hemisphere, mind you, pushing jumbo jets, that proves your little BS claim?
-
Sadly, due to the ease and accessibility of modem photo-editing software, photo's aren't submittable as evidence.
And thus the conspiracy gets larger.
Everyone and their dog now edit out the birds in photos of planes flying.
-
Look at how easily things can be edited out of pics now...it's scary.
-
Look at how easily things can be edited out of pics now...it's scary.
But why would the little grandma taking a flight want to edit out the birds she sees?
Hell, she probably still uses film, how does one fix the negative?
People have the means to do this, but they lack the motive.
The only people with motive for this are the people in the conspiracy.
Just because photos can be edited, doesn't mean people wouldn't say things about the flock of 500 birds up the planes ass.
I've yet to see a commercial plane break the sound barrier, as would be required for Southern Hemisphere travel.
-
Planes don't have a wake that is flyable behind, it's a mess of turbulence.
As for the speeds, ofcourse they can obtain multiple speeds, but they are not, and are nowhere near, the speeds that is required for FET.
What speed is required for FET?
-
Planes don't have a wake that is flyable behind, it's a mess of turbulence.
As for the speeds, ofcourse they can obtain multiple speeds, but they are not, and are nowhere near, the speeds that is required for FET.
What speed is required for FET?
If I take the North pole at the center, atleast 4x the speeds they fly at currently.
-
Planes don't have a wake that is flyable behind, it's a mess of turbulence.
As for the speeds, ofcourse they can obtain multiple speeds, but they are not, and are nowhere near, the speeds that is required for FET.
What speed is required for FET?
If I take the North pole at the center, atleast 4x the speeds they fly at currently.
Why?
-
Because it's observed that the distances are about 4x what the are compared to RE.
Time remains constant, distance increases, speed must also increase proportionally.
I thought even you would figure that.
-
Because it's observed that the distances are about 4x what the are compared to RE.
What distances?
-
Australia to South Africa
South Africa to South America
South America to New Zealand
You know where those are, right?
-
Australia to South Africa
South Africa to South America
South America to New Zealand
You know where those are, right?
A distance is usually path dependent.
-
Good thing they have flight paths then
(http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/to-South-Africa/flights-to-Johannesburg/Perth-Johannesburg.gif)
(http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/cheap-flights-from-Johannesburg/Johannesburg-Melbourne.jpg)
(http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/cheap-flights-from-Cape-Town/CPT-SYD.gif)
-
For Southern hemisphere flights thats probably in the right ball park, although obviously there has to be some account for the fact that we not know exactly where everything is. The best way to some constraints on this is to see if you can close the triangle. Take three popular air routes that form a large triangle. The large is important because it will tend to convolve out any uncertainties in flight speed, effects of acceleration/climbing to cruse altitude. I'd suggest something like New York - Buenos Aries - Sydney, something like that. If you assume that aircraft travel at about 500 mph, look at the flight times and see how far apart they are. If the resulting triangle doesn't close then the Earth isn't flat. Though its possible the errors would be to big even with those differences, particularly as I don'y know how close to the shortest route planes fly in practise, certainly jetstream cause them to adjust.
We can say something about where things are using natural phenomena, for example tracking migratory animals around the oceans. I guess marine biologists might be in on it. I think the tsunamis of recent years also provide some nice evidence. The last one in Chilli caused small tsunamis/anomalously high tides around the Pacific rim, the times of these can be quite accurately tracked by their trail of destruction/media coverage/surf report. Again I would argue that the times were indicative of a round Earth. Or at least a Pacific ocean where NewZealand was much closer to South America than Japan.
-
Good thing they have flight paths then
(http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/to-South-Africa/flights-to-Johannesburg/Perth-Johannesburg.gif)
(http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/cheap-flights-from-Johannesburg/Johannesburg-Melbourne.jpg)
(http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/cheap-flights-from-Cape-Town/CPT-SYD.gif)
How about Sydney to Santiago de Chile?
I'd suggest something like New York - Buenos Aries - Sydney, something like that.
Please find a nonstop flight from New York to Sydney.
-
Good thing they have flight paths then
(http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/to-South-Africa/flights-to-Johannesburg/Perth-Johannesburg.gif)
(http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/cheap-flights-from-Johannesburg/Johannesburg-Melbourne.jpg)
(http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/cheap-flights-from-Cape-Town/CPT-SYD.gif)
How about Sydney to Santiago de Chile?
I'd suggest something like New York - Buenos Aries - Sydney, something like that.
Please find a nonstop flight from New York to Sydney.
I'm sure you can get somewhere in South America from New York, if not try a European city, theres plenty
-
I'd suggest something like New York - Buenos Aries - Sydney, something like that.
Please find a nonstop flight from New York to Sydney.
I'm sure you can get somewhere in South America from New York, if not try a European city, theres plenty
Is this what I asked you? You said we need to make a triangle? Then we need to connect each city with the other two.
-
London - Tokyo - Sydney all exist, two of those I have done personally (although my Sydney flight stopped) I believe direct does exist possibly a fuel stop would have to be factored. Thats why I suggested new York,a bit closer to Australia, but its possible that a flight to South America doesn't exist. I would be preferable to do South America, Europe and Australia as this would give the largest lever arm
-
Because it's observed that the distances are about 4x what the are compared to RE.
Time remains constant, distance increases, speed must also increase proportionally.
I thought even you would figure that.
You're neglecting the use of so-called "great circle flying". Take the flight paths of planes and apply them to a map of the Flat Earth, you'll see that often when they claim to be taking a giant curve they're taking a straight line of equivalent distance.
-
London - Tokyo - Sydney all exist, two of those I have done personally (although my Sydney flight stopped) I believe direct does exist possibly a fuel stop would have to be factored. Thats why I suggested new York,a bit closer to Australia, but its possible that a flight to South America doesn't exist. I would be preferable to do South America, Europe and Australia as this would give the largest lever arm
Sydney is not in South America.
-
Ah yes the probably needed a semi-colon I was starting a new clause really, didn't notice it until I read it back. Though only on this forum would the semi-colon not be inserted mentally. What I really meant of course was "Thats why I suggested new York,a bit closer to Australia; but its possible that a flight to South America from New York".
-
Maybe even a full-stop. While the science here may be high school/fox science feature at best, the english practise is pretty good.
-
Maybe you don't know where Sydney is. Hence, it's not an English issue, but a Geography one.
-
I did waste a lot of time learning spanish for my trip to australia. It wasnt as much help as i thought it would be.
-
Australia does not exist. Your argument is wrong.
-
Well wherever it was, probably the best conference ever. Mind you after the best part of a day stuck in a giant firework expectations werent high. Maybe it was the island out of 'Lost'. The hotel spoke very good Engligh for a ... wait we only just covered this bit.
-
Because they navigate earth every single day with a Round Earth model, and it works. It's indisputable. We would either hear about the mistakes or you have to at least concede that the Flat Earth model requires that most pilots and air traffic controllers be in on the conspiracy.
Birds like to fly in the wake of fast-moving vessels, often close enough to nudge the vessel itself. The collective force of a lot of birds all nudging the vessel causes it to move faster.
This is one account for why travel times appear distorted. No need to bring pilots and air traffic controllers into the fold.
I just want to take a minute and point out AGAIN just how ludicrous this statement Pongo made is. He honestly suggested that there are huge flocks of birds, which no one ever notices, that hang out at airports, waiting for flights that fly east or west in the southern hemisphere only, so they can fly at altitudes no bird can reach and at speeds no bird has ever been documented achieving. All so they can push EVERY airplane that flies these routes. And all of this has never been documented in any way, at all! Now after making that sort of comment, there is absolutely no way I can ever take anything Pongo says as being anything more than the musings of an internet troll.
-
I almost didn't believe the quote. I checked back to see if that's what he actually said and, sure enough, there it was smiling at me like a toad at the bottom of a beer mug. He can't honestly believe that, can he?
-
It was just a variation on a comment that another member made and I sigged.
-
It was just a variation on a comment that another member made and I sigged.
Good times.
-
It's hard for me to tell what craziness people honestly believe and what they're just pretending to for laughs.
-
It was just a variation on a comment that another member made and I sigged.
And I would appreciate it if you sigged this one too.
-
It was just a variation on a comment that another member made and I sigged.
And I would appreciate it if you sigged this one too.
Good to see you do not disagree with my statement of just how ridiculous your comment was.
-
Because it's observed that the distances are about 4x what the are compared to RE.
Time remains constant, distance increases, speed must also increase proportionally.
I thought even you would figure that.
You're neglecting the use of so-called "great circle flying". Take the flight paths of planes and apply them to a map of the Flat Earth, you'll see that often when they claim to be taking a giant curve they're taking a straight line of equivalent distance.
Actually, for the Southern Hemisphere, they are making it even longer.
You fucked up good time then.
Need a diagram?
I'm actually starting to believe you might be simple.
ED: Here you go
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/6777/iiiiiic.png)
I: Shortest route (According to Flat Earth only)
II: Line of Latitude
III: Flight path (Shortest route according to Round Earth)
As we all know, this is why it works:
(http://images.roosterteeth.com/images/kynmites4b6c88ff00692.jpg)
(http://images.roosterteeth.com/images/kynmites4b6c890ce984b.jpg)
-
Because it's observed that the distances are about 4x what the are compared to RE.
Time remains constant, distance increases, speed must also increase proportionally.
I thought even you would figure that.
You're neglecting the use of so-called "great circle flying". Take the flight paths of planes and apply them to a map of the Flat Earth, you'll see that often when they claim to be taking a giant curve they're taking a straight line of equivalent distance.
Actually, for the Southern Hemisphere, they are making it even longer.
You fucked up good time then.
Need a diagram?
I'm actually starting to believe you might be simple.
Hence, I asked you to draw the flight path from Sydney to Santiago.
-
Because it's observed that the distances are about 4x what the are compared to RE.
Time remains constant, distance increases, speed must also increase proportionally.
I thought even you would figure that.
You're neglecting the use of so-called "great circle flying". Take the flight paths of planes and apply them to a map of the Flat Earth, you'll see that often when they claim to be taking a giant curve they're taking a straight line of equivalent distance.
Actually, for the Southern Hemisphere, they are making it even longer.
You fucked up good time then.
Need a diagram?
I'm actually starting to believe you might be simple.
Hence, I asked you to draw the flight path from Sydney to Santiago.
Will do.
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=syd-scl&PATH-COLOR=red&MARKER=1)
-
Because it's observed that the distances are about 4x what the are compared to RE.
Time remains constant, distance increases, speed must also increase proportionally.
I thought even you would figure that.
You're neglecting the use of so-called "great circle flying". Take the flight paths of planes and apply them to a map of the Flat Earth, you'll see that often when they claim to be taking a giant curve they're taking a straight line of equivalent distance.
Actually, for the Southern Hemisphere, they are making it even longer.
You fucked up good time then.
Need a diagram?
I'm actually starting to believe you might be simple.
Hence, I asked you to draw the flight path from Sydney to Santiago.
Will do.
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=syd-scl&PATH-COLOR=red&MARKER=1)
Notice the disclaimer on the website:
http://gc.kls2.com/faq.html (http://gc.kls2.com/faq.html)
This information may not be accurate or current and is not valid for navigation or flight planning. No warranty of fitness for any purpose is made or implied.
-
Flying eastbound, tail winds make it advantageous to fly a more southerly route even though it is longer. The great circle route is the same in either direction but is only used for the westbound, ORD-HKG flight, which would encounter substantial head winds if it flew the more southerly route.
It doesn't matter, any flight that has headwinds will fly via a great circle arc to it's destination.
This is what you cannot explain.
-
Here you go. I posted this in a thread you ignored. The flights are from Sydney to Buenos Aires, but I figure that's close enough.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/0_21_flat_earth.jpg)
-
Here you go. I posted this in a thread you ignored. The flights are from Sydney to Buenos Aires, but I figure that's close enough.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/0_21_flat_earth.jpg)
The current route is not the shortest path according to RE. Why is that?
-
Here you go. I posted this in a thread you ignored. The flights are from Sydney to Buenos Aires, but I figure that's close enough.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/0_21_flat_earth.jpg)
The current route is not the shortest path according to RE. Why is that?
Because the airlines are run by Satan worshiping eco-terrorists. Please try to keep up, will you?
-
In the Outer Hemiplane, Qantas (aka Satan-Q) and other great airline-satans misrepresent their flight route. What the fellows posting diagrams fail to understand is that the airlines are flying the straight route, not the curved route, in those cases. In the inner hemiplane, where commonly recognizable geographical features are more common, they do, in fact, comply with great circle flying. Nobody can tell the difference between two areas of homogenous ocean, but people can tell the difference between, say, Greenland and the ocean quite easily.
-
In the Outer Hemiplane, Qantas (aka Satan-Q) and other great airline-satans misrepresent their flight route. What the fellows posting diagrams fail to understand is that the airlines are flying the straight route, not the curved route, in those cases. In the inner hemiplane, where commonly recognizable geographical features are more common, they do, in fact, comply with great circle flying. Nobody can tell the difference between two areas of homogenous ocean, but people can tell the difference between, say, Greenland and the ocean quite easily.
So you don't think that passengers going from Sydney to Buenos Aires would notice that they were flying over much of South America and the United States when they should be flying over open ocean?
-
In the Outer Hemiplane, Qantas (aka Satan-Q) and other great airline-satans misrepresent their flight route. What the fellows posting diagrams fail to understand is that the airlines are flying the straight route, not the curved route, in those cases. In the inner hemiplane, where commonly recognizable geographical features are more common, they do, in fact, comply with great circle flying. Nobody can tell the difference between two areas of homogenous ocean, but people can tell the difference between, say, Greenland and the ocean quite easily.
So you don't think that passengers going from Sydney to Buenos Aires would notice that they were flying over much of South America and the United States when they should be flying over open ocean?
You beat me to it, buddy.
-
In the Outer Hemiplane, Qantas (aka Satan-Q) and other great airline-satans misrepresent their flight route. What the fellows posting diagrams fail to understand is that the airlines are flying the straight route, not the curved route, in those cases. In the inner hemiplane, where commonly recognizable geographical features are more common, they do, in fact, comply with great circle flying. Nobody can tell the difference between two areas of homogenous ocean, but people can tell the difference between, say, Greenland and the ocean quite easily.
Careful, James! By admitting that great circle routes exist you are declaring that we live in fact over a sphere! And we thought you were a real FE'er...
-
It all comes down to distance. How far the two points are in either theory. If we know the earth is flat(proven by ENaG) then the "routes" you suggested cannot be correct. The mapping process of flat earth should be our utmost priority. Its the only way to squash these rumors of great circles in the southern hemiplane not working. Obviously they do.
-
(proven by ENaG)
I'm pretty sure that makes it just you and Tom that believe that.
-
(proven by ENaG)
I'm pretty sure that makes it just you and Tom that believe that.
The truth is out there.
-
Forward motion doesn't stop with thrown objects when they reach the top of their arc, as ENaG would have you believe.
That book is more holey than righteous.
-
The truth is out there.
Cue closing credits and spooky music.