The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2011, 02:20:56 PM
-
I've posted this model before, but these questions about the Southern Hemisphere keep coming up. There is an alternative FET map which addresses some concerns about the South Celestial Pole and travel times.
(http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3735/trueearthpu3.png)
In the above model there are two spinning celestial systems suspended over the earth. One is centered over the North Pole and the other is centered over Antarctica. When observers on South America, Africa, or Australia look Southwards they will see the Southern Celestial System.
The magnetic field lines blossom outwards from the North Pole as well as the South Pole. Imagine that the distorted longitude lines on the above map are magnetic field lines which the compass aligns with. In the North the compass will align with the field lines and take the user around the North Pole while traveling Eastwards or Westwards. Likewise, in the South the compass will align with the field lines and take the user around the South Pole while traveling Eastwards or Westwards.
There is still an Ice Wall in this model, but is it not Antarctica. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters surrounding the earth will naturally freeze.
-
Interesting. However, wouldn't areas of land near the "edge" (such as hawaii) be greatly disorted and streched out?
-
Explain the motions of the sun in this model. Oh thats right, you cant.
-
Interesting. However, wouldn't areas of land near the "edge" (such as hawaii) be greatly disorted and streched out?
Of course Hawaii wouldn't be stretched out, nor would Australia be in the weird shape that it's in. This map is just visualizing the general idea.
Explain the motions of the sun in this model. Oh thats right, you cant.
Well, just plot the movements of the sun onto this new map.
Throughout the year the sun is traveling North-South between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. In this model for half of the year the sun is traveling around the North Pole and for half of the year the sun is traveling around the South Pole. At some point the sun "switches gears" and begins traveling on the opposing celestial system. This gives long Northern Summers, short Northern Winters, and vice-versa in the South. This also explains the midnight sun in Antarctica.
How and why the sun switches gears is, of course, unknown. This mystery can be included amongst the many mysteries of the heavens.
-
i like this new map
good job, master lord willmore would be proud
ps, can we at leastchange the name "spotlight" to "acts like a spotlight" in the FAQ
-
Interesting. However, wouldn't areas of land near the "edge" (such as hawaii) be greatly disorted and streched out?
Of course Hawaii wouldn't be stretched out, nor would Australia be in the weird shape that it's in. This map is just visualizing the general idea.
Explain the motions of the sun in this model. Oh thats right, you cant.
Well, just plot the movements of the sun onto this new map.
Throughout the year the sun is traveling North-South between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. In this model for half of the year the sun is traveling around the North Pole and for half of the year the sun is traveling around the South Pole. At some point the sun "switches gears" and begins traveling on the opposing celestial system. This gives long Northern Summers, short Northern Winters, and vice-versa in the South. This also explains the midnight sun in Antarctica.
How and why the sun switches gears is, of course, unknown. It can be included amongst the many mysteries of the heavens.
I said explain the motions of the sun, not describe them. What you describe is not what is observed by people.
You will of course also explain how the sun is able to travel at constant speed on this map, how it goes from one track to another overnight while observers on the ground notice only a barely perceptible difference in its location in the sky from one day to the next, and how an observer in the sea on the equator on near there would not see it pass to their left on one day and to their right on the other on the day it switches tracks. Do your best, I will get the popcorn.
-
Great...where's The Hobbit being filmed?
-
So which is the map you believe in?
-
What exactly is involved in becoming a FE cartographer.
It seems like you imagine a concept and then place it on a circle?
What would I know though, surveying has nothing to do with maps............
-
So by your description, places between 90 degrees west to 90 degrees east on the international date line side have the sun only visible to the southern hemisphere from September equinox to March equinox, and visible only to the northern hemisphere from the March equinox to the September equinox.
Also your compass won't help you circumnavigate east west. East west is always perpendicular to north and south. Notice how in the distorted areas, latitude and longitude lines are not perpendicular, so your compass will follow the longitude, and give you false latitude, leading you off the edge if you're trying to go east or west.
-
I said explain the motions of the sun, not describe them. What you describe is not what is observed by people. You will of course also explain how the sun is able to travel at constant speed on this map, how it goes from one track to another overnight while observers on the ground notice only a barely perceptible difference in its location in the sky from one day to the next, and how an observer in the sea on the equator on near there would not see it pass to their left on one day and to their right on the other on the day it switches tracks. Do your best, I will get the popcorn.
You can't say what observers on the equator experience on the day the sun switches gears. These are third world countries on the equator. Who is to notice if the sun rises slightly to the right and sets slightly to the left?
The people there are more concerned with spearing zebras for dinner, knitting loincloths, and coming to terms with a permanent body oder. They are not interested in studying alternative world models.
So by your description, places between 90 degrees west to 90 degrees east on the international date line side have the sun only visible to the southern hemisphere from September equinox to March equinox, and visible only to the northern hemisphere from the March equinox to the September equinox.
That would depend on how big you're imaging the sun's area of light to be.
I don't have data on the area of land the sun affects. I couldn't say.
Also your compass won't help you circumnavigate east west. East west is always perpendicular to north and south. Notice how in the distorted areas, latitude and longitude lines are not perpendicular, so your compass will follow the longitude, and give you false latitude, leading you off the edge if you're trying to go east or west.
East-west travel will work on that map. The magnetic field lines blossoms and radiate outwards from the North and South Poles. Wherever you are the compass will align with the field lines. If you are in South Africa and move eastwards continuously your compass will take you in a circle around the South Pole, as the magnetic field lines will change as you move.
-
You can't say what observers on the equator experience on the day the sun switches gears. These are third world countries on the equator. Who is to notice if the sun rises slightly to the right and sets slightly to the left?
The people there are more concerned with spearing zebras for dinner, knitting loincloths, and coming to terms with a permanent body oder. They are not interested in studying alternative world models.
What evidence do you have of this ridiculous theory? There are many extremely advanced cities close to the equator, which have professionals in many fields, including surveyors and astronomers.
(http://www.eco-business.com/wp-content/uploads/photologue/photos/singapore.jpg)
Singapore
(http://administracion.uniandes.edu.co/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/bogota/101168-1-esl-CO/bogota.jpg)
Bogota
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jidi3Z2Kdlk/S9sG6byeQ6I/AAAAAAAAAro/_Mymu_uNTxY/s320/jakarta-at-night.jpg)
Jakarta
I especially like the one of Jakarta, you can see the early cave paintings, the dwellers have written in their own feces
-
You can't say what observers on the equator experience on the day the sun switches gears. These are third world countries on the equator. Who is to notice if the sun rises slightly to the right and sets slightly to the left?
The people there are more concerned with spearing zebras for dinner, knitting loincloths, and coming to terms with a permanent body oder. They are not interested in studying alternative world models.
That is pretty much the most miserable piece of garbage I've seen in a long time outside RM.
I am sure that the people of Brazil would consider themselves spearing zebras. They may not be as 'high end' as your little seat but they have a very large aerospace industry - have the second largest amount of airports in the world (second to the united states) and in the top ten for economies.
I would also like to point out that the Inuit on North America (spearing seals for dinner, stitching leather mukluks etc) have a very advanced view of astronomy - as mentioned by your fellow FE peers.
East-west travel will work on that map. The magnetic field lines blossom and radiate outwards from the North and South Poles. Wherever you are the compass will align with the field lines. If you are in South Africa and move eastwards continuously your compass will take you in a circle around the South Pole, as the magnetic field lines will change as you move.
And what of the much more common gyrocompass? Unaffected by magnetism the Gyrcompass will point to true north/south it is not dependent on it as it is fixed to a celestial point.
Berny
Awaiting Ski
And ninjad by Theodolite in his view of your ridiculous Ethnocentric views
-
Now on to your curved lines of Longitude. I dont have the figures in front of me, but I know for a fact that the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have been completely surveyed using a township and range system. They have traversed and posted the entire provinces into 1 mile squares. There is a difference between the width of the provinces at South end, and the North end. In the south there are more 1 mile squares then there are in the north. The amount is on scale with the round earth lines of longitude, your map would significantly skew these readings, and does not match up to documented real world surveys.
(Actually, no flat earth matches up to the surveys that have been conducted in every country of the world)
-
So by your description, places between 90 degrees west to 90 degrees east on the international date line side have the sun only visible to the southern hemisphere from September equinox to March equinox, and visible only to the northern hemisphere from the March equinox to the September equinox.
That would depend on how big you're imaging the sun's area of light to be.
Well for New Zealand during June, it would have to reach across the entire earth.
I don't have data on the area of land the sun affects. I couldn't say.
Also your compass won't help you circumnavigate east west. East west is always perpendicular to north and south. Notice how in the distorted areas, latitude and longitude lines are not perpendicular, so your compass will follow the longitude, and give you false latitude, leading you off the edge if you're trying to go east or west.
East-west travel will work on that map. The magnetic field lines blossoms and radiate outwards from the North and South Poles. Wherever you are the compass will align with the field lines. If you are in South Africa and move eastwards continuously your compass will take you in a circle around the South Pole, as the magnetic field lines will change as you move.
Yes, but read my post again especially the bolded part. Also, magnetic field lines will always cross the equator at perpendicular lines. So if you are travelling along the equator, there will be no sudden change in direction for north and south, and you will be led straight into the ice wall. Keep in mind that the lines in your map are distorted angular coordinates for a sphere, and do not represent a magnetic field.
-
You can't say what observers on the equator experience on the day the sun switches gears. These are third world countries on the equator. Who is to notice if the sun rises slightly to the right and sets slightly to the left?
The people there are more concerned with spearing zebras for dinner, knitting loincloths, and coming to terms with a permanent body oder. They are not interested in studying alternative world models.
how about the US and Japanese navies during world war 2? You actually think they were travelling around the circumference of the entire known world?
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/KL-Skyline_Night_HDR.JPG/800px-KL-Skyline_Night_HDR.JPG)
Dont forget this ancient stone age community
Kuala Lumpur
-
I am reporting Tom Bishop for his blatant racism.
-
"Coming to terms with a permanent body oder"
Do not insult me and countless other civilized human beings. I am half Filipino.
-
So what happens when somone from new zealand takes a flight to los-angelis VIA Hawaii. It seems like the trip would take much longer than it does since it would involve following the border of the enitre disk.
-
So what happens when somone from new zealand takes a flight to los-angelis VIA Hawaii. It seems like the trip would take much longer than it does since it would involve following the border of the enitre disk.
You're right - I just remembered I went to Fiji - 6 hours Toronto to Vancouver, 6 hours Vancouver to Hawaii and about 6 hours Hawaii to Fiji. I swam with sharks.
Berny
Saw 2 films with Hugh Grant and 2 films with Julia Roberts. 1 With Claire Danes. The only good one was an Australian Artsy film that had none of the above.
-
So what happens when somone from new zealand takes a flight to los-angelis VIA Hawaii. It seems like the trip would take much longer than it does since it would involve following the border of the enitre disk.
There aren't any direct flights between Hawaii and New Zealand, but the flights that will take you there involve sitting in a plane for almost thirty hours.
(http://i55.tinypic.com/2m5dob7.gif)
-
You are implying with that ticket that there are no flights from hawaii to new zealand that do not go through san fransisco?
-
You are implying with that ticket that there are no flights from hawaii to new zealand that do not go through san fransisco?
I couldn't find any direct flights from hawaii to new zealand. It shouldn't be assumed that there are direct flights between every airport on earth.
-
(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8660/hawaiitonz.jpg)
26.5hrs total, 12hrs 50 mins of which is spent in sydney waiting for a flight
Google earth distance from honolulu to sydney: 8100km
Sydney to auckland: 2100km
Total distance flown 10,200km
Flight time 13hrs 40mins 13.6666hrs
Average flight speed 750 km/hr
Obviously the flight speed would have to be faster, as some time is wasted at either end.
I will not even attempt to guess as to the scale of the FE map, or which one applies. None of them will come close to 10,200km though im sure
-
(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8660/hawaiitonz.jpg)
26.5hrs total, 12hrs 50 mins of which is spent in sydney waiting for a flight
Google earth distance from honolulu to sydney: 8100km
Sydney to auckland: 2100km
Total distance flown 10,200km
Flight time 13hrs 40mins 13.6666hrs
Average flight speed 750 km/hr
Obviously the flight speed would have to be faster, as some time is wasted at either end.
Does the flight use any jet streams to reach its destination? Pilots often use jet streams on international flights to save on time and fuel.
Also, please keep in mind that this is a calculator for a future flight, not a record of past flight. We don't know whether this flight will be delayed due to faulty beliefs about the earth's shape.
-
Record the speed at 0.9 mach if you need, I am positive it will not work on your map.
This is a normal international flight. Quantas has a satisfactory record of arriving on time.
-
Record the speed at 0.9 mach if you need, I am positive it will not work on your map.
This is a normal international flight. Quantas has a satisfactory record of arriving on time.
I know you have not been on this site long - but you are falling down one of TB's clever traps. He will get you so frustrated in arguing the most baseless points that in reality he's able to skip the actual points that have all been ignored.
He is actually pretty good at it - I pulled up the Quantas flights earlier but stopped posting because of previous attempts that resorted to pusher birds(Pongo), conspiracy pilots and sleeping gas(Crustinator) and Thork who takes a realistic flight plan and then keeps you in holding patterns for hours on end.
Also anything requiring historical records is automatically suspect by TB unless it proves a point he likes - he also has the ability to invoke and reject bendy light on a whim. And using any predicting almanac is useless to him no matter what effective results are used.
Berny
Sees where this thread is going
-
Record the speed at 0.9 mach if you need, I am positive it will not work on your map.
- Jetstreams can reach speeds well over 200 mph (source) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/weatherwise/glossary/j.shtml)
This is a normal international flight. Quantas has a satisfactory record of arriving on time.
Anyone who has been to an airport knows that flight delays are quite common.
-
Record the speed at 0.9 mach if you need, I am positive it will not work on your map.
- Jetstreams can reach speeds well over 200 mph (source) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/weatherwise/glossary/j.shtml)
This is a normal international flight. Quantas has a satisfactory record of arriving on time.
Anyone who has been to an airport knows that flight delays are quite common.
I am not sure of what purpose you thought this post would serve. You have repeated what I have just said.
Quantas has a satisfactory record of late arrivals. If every flight on a certain route was always late by 100%........
actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach
-
actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach
Since mach is a measure of airspeed and not groundspeed, your assertion is positively false.
-
actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach
Since mach is a measure of airspeed and not groundspeed, your assertion is positively false.
I was avoiding the topic of groundspeed. I did not want to hear him babble about conspiracy instruments. Sticking to airspeed is more or less accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion. RE states the distance at 10,000km. His image implies that it is in the 20-30,000 mile range (32,000-48,000km) the order of magnitude of differences between these figures makes airspeed vs groundspeed (less than 50% error) insignificant
I should keep a ratio of how many repsonses are semantics vs actual information
-
actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach
Since mach is a measure of airspeed and not groundspeed, your assertion is positively false.
I was avoiding the topic of groundspeed. I did not want to hear him babble about conspiracy instruments. Sticking to airspeed is more or less accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion. RE states the distance at 10,000km. His image implies that it is in the 20-30,000 mile range (32,000-48,000km) the order of magnitude of differences between these figures makes airspeed vs groundspeed (less than 50% error) insignificant
I should keep a ratio of how many repsonses are semantics vs actual information
If it wasn't for semantics, FES would rarely have an argument.
-
SEMANTICS VICTORY
-
actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach
Since mach is a measure of airspeed and not groundspeed, your assertion is positively false.
I was avoiding the topic of groundspeed. I did not want to hear him babble about conspiracy instruments. Sticking to airspeed is more or less accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion. RE states the distance at 10,000km. His image implies that it is in the 20-30,000 mile range (32,000-48,000km) the order of magnitude of differences between these figures makes airspeed vs groundspeed (less than 50% error) insignificant
I should keep a ratio of how many repsonses are semantics vs actual information
Why/how would you be avoiding the topic of groundspeed when that is, in fact, what you are disputing?
-
actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach
Since mach is a measure of airspeed and not groundspeed, your assertion is positively false.
I was avoiding the topic of groundspeed. I did not want to hear him babble about conspiracy instruments. Sticking to airspeed is more or less accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion. RE states the distance at 10,000km. His image implies that it is in the 20-30,000 mile range (32,000-48,000km) the order of magnitude of differences between these figures makes airspeed vs groundspeed (less than 50% error) insignificant
I should keep a ratio of how many repsonses are semantics vs actual information
Why/how would you be avoiding the topic of groundspeed when that is, in fact, what you are disputing?
I am conceding that the airspeed can be whatever value favors his theory, it can be best case scenario at all times in both directions. My point is that even if you increase or decrease the aircrafts speed by 50%, the trip will still take an amount of time that is closer to the estimated RE flight time than it is to the proposed FE flight time.
eg: i am saying the distance is 10,000km. he has declined to comment, so lets estimate that the distance is 40,000km.
if the aircraft is travelling 1000km/hr my scenario would take 10 hrs, his would take 40. even if you increase the speed to 1500 km/hr, his scenario will still take well over 20 hours.
-
eg: i am saying the distance is 10,000km. he has declined to comment, so lets estimate that the distance is 40,000km.
We know no such thing.
if the aircraft is travelling 1000km/hr my scenario would take 10 hrs, his would take 40. even if you increase the speed to 1500 km/hr, his scenario will still take well over 20 hours.
And one could travel at well over 1500 km/hr groundspeed and not approach Mach. Again, I cannot imagine that you know the distance to be 40,000 kilometers.
-
40,000 is my arbitraty guess, take a look at his map and make your own guess. I was way on the low end. Hawaii is in the top left corner, and new zealand is in the bottom right corner.
The RE distance from LA to south aftica is 16.7k km
The disctance we are discussing apprears to be roughly 2.5 that distance, hence 40,000km
At 20,000 feet (6,096 meters), the speed of sound is 660 miles per hour (1,062 kilometers per hour). The higher you go, the lower it is. So like I have said twice now, I am allowing for an extreme increase of 500 km/hr for some fantasy super tailwind.
All of my figures are reasonable enough to make the comparison. The booked flights match my RE numbers, and are off from his numbers by multiples
-
There is an alternative FET map which addresses some concerns about ... travel times.
Which one would that be?
-
I said explain the motions of the sun, not describe them. What you describe is not what is observed by people. You will of course also explain how the sun is able to travel at constant speed on this map, how it goes from one track to another overnight while observers on the ground notice only a barely perceptible difference in its location in the sky from one day to the next, and how an observer in the sea on the equator on near there would not see it pass to their left on one day and to their right on the other on the day it switches tracks. Do your best, I will get the popcorn.
You can't say what observers on the equator experience on the day the sun switches gears. These are third world countries on the equator. Who is to notice if the sun rises slightly to the right and sets slightly to the left?
The people there are more concerned with spearing zebras for dinner, knitting loincloths, and coming to terms with a permanent body oder. They are not interested in studying alternative world models.
Er, not slightly to the right or left, it goes off in a completely different direction overnight! Duh.
BTW I find your comments about equatorial countries to be rude, racist, prejudiced and against the agreed rules of board use.
-
Quantas has a satisfactory record of late arrivals. If every flight on a certain route was always late by 100%........
http://travelconsumerdaily.com/story.php?id=604
According to this source about 85% of Quantas flights are on time:
"Of the major domestic airlines, Qantas achieved the highest level of on-time departures for 2010 at 85.6%, followed by Virgin Blue at 83.0%, Jetstar at 80.7% and Tiger Airways at 71.7%."
15% of all flights delayed is quite large when you consider the hundreds of flights Quantas runs every day.
Also, according to the DOT, the average on-time arrival rate is 75% among the 16 largest carriers.
http://www.gadling.com/2011/06/08/airline-industry-best-and-worst-of-april-2011/
"Overall, the airline industry posted an average on-time arrival rate of 75.5 percent. This means that a quarter of the time, they miss the mark. It's almost as easy as being a weather man!"
1 in 4 flights were delayed. Weather conditions, or a slight misunderstanding of the earth's shape?
-
3 in 4 flights were not delayed, thus disproving your map.
-
3 in 4 flights were not delayed, thus disproving your map.
My map doesn't necessitate that 4/4 worldwide flights be delayed, only some.
-
Direct flight from auckland to Honululu
Found this in a one minute search
Departure Status Details
Airport: (AKL) Auckland International Airport
City: Auckland, NZ
Scheduled: 11:00 AM - Sat 16-Jul-2011
Estimated: 11:00 AM - Sat 16-Jul-2011
Terminal: I
Local Time: 4:15 AM - Sat 16-Jul-2011
Current Airport Delays Learn More
Delay Index: Very Low Delays
Trend: No change
Change: 0.0%
Updated: 16:00 UTC
Date: Fri 15-Jul-2011
0.0 - Very Low
Current Weather Conditions Check Forecast
Temperature: 50° F (10° C)
Wind: S 12 mph
Visibility: 4 miles
Rain
Air New ZealandNZ 10
Arrival Arrival Status Details
Airport: (HNL) Honolulu International Airport
City: Honolulu, HI, US
Scheduled: 9:45 PM - Fri 15-Jul-2011
Estimated: 9:58 PM - Fri 15-Jul-2011 (runway)
Estimated to land on runway 13 min later than scheduled at gate
Local Time: 6:15 AM - Fri 15-Jul-2011
-
How will that flight arrive a day before it departs? ???
And again, those are flight calculators for future flights, not flight histories. We don't know whether that flight will be delayed due to a faulty premise of a ball world.
-
I have flown in the US and landed in the local time before I departed in the departure time. That is what time zones are, are you saying there is no time zones between Hawaii and NZ?
on a disc earth and speherical, times zones can and do exist.
-
... If doing a DST calc is so easy in light of all the problems I have hi-lighted, be my guest. Ram it down my throat with some numbers. But until then, it is not pleading for ignorance to state this is an impossible calculation with so many variables when neither you nor me can provide numbers for it.
How can you calculate an A to B distance when pilots are flying approach plates like these?
(http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/odessa/lipq-sid.gif)
Using enroute 'highways' like these?
(http://www.united-virtual.com/classes/bdf.jpg)
Joining non direct highways like these?
(http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Breaking_News/RNP-1_files/Fig2.gif)
You do not fly direct. You follow the route you are given which the controllers choose and change for you based on traffic they already have.
(http://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/standroutes.jpg)
Look at it TheJackel! How in God's name am I supposed to calculate your distance? I'll never know which route you took on the day.
The question is, of course, how can you account for the fact that known airplane flight times follow the can be accurately predicted with an assumption of a spherical earth and cannot be with a flat earth?
You cannot use flight times to conclude that the earth is any shape. Flight times cannot be accurately attributed to any distance or journey. There are dozens of reasons why an aircraft will take the amount of time it does to make a journey.
The first reason is that you never fly direct to your destination.
1) You will always take off and land into wind. This means you may fly in the opposite direction to your intended travel on take off and then having gained enough altitude to be clear of the airport and usually city below, make a turn onto the SID (Mentioned below).
2) Landing is the same. You may have to fly past the airport round the back of it to approach the active runway using a STAR.
3) You must follow a SID when you leave an Airport and use a STAR when you approach one. These take you all over the place to avoid overflying cities for noise abaitment and for terrain clearance on take off and to position aircraft for traffic controllers to feed them in for final approach at the right times for landing. You are also tracking over beacons that are laid out in fields in the middle of nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Instrument_Departure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Terminal_Arrival_Route
4) You may well be placed in a hold. 4 minute race tracks in a stack. You join at the top and aircraft will be stacked every 1000 feet all the way down. When the controller wants another aircraft, he takes one from the bottom. You will not be able to factor in traffic density into your calculation, so cannot say how long you might hold for. You might not hold at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_(aviation)
5) Most routing, especially in remote places is going to be using routes that rely on beacons such as VOR's or NDB's. Following these again takes you out of your way.
6) When crossing oceans you will be forced by law to use a track system for aircraft separation. These change daily due to the weather and again traffic. You can't ever say which route you used on your flight as a passenger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks
Aircraft performance is another major factor
1) You cannot say how much your aircraft weighed on that day. This effects climb performance and cruise. Altitude effects speed.
2) As altitude effects speed you would need to know how high you flew that day. The higher the quicker, due to the widening difference in IAS and TAS.
3) Even the same aircraft types may have different engines. This again effects performance calcs for climb.
4) Temperature plays a large part. Warm air ruins performance. You need to know how hot it was. Temperature also effects Mach number. Commercial aircraft don't fly speeds, they fly on a mach number. As the local speed of sound will vary from day to day you can never be sure how fast you are actually flying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mach_number
5) Atmospheric pressure effects performance. A high pressure is going to hamper your climb out.
http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/flight-planning/aircraft-performance-3.php
6) Wind will effect flight times. Get a good 50 mph head wind and it is going to make some difference to having done the same journey with a 50 mph tailwind. Wind at 30,000 ft is fast.
7) Weight also makes a large difference to cruise performance. Higher loads mean requiring more lift. For this you fly slightly more nose up (Makes a massive distance on a long journey) to get a better angle of attack. This in turn means you are on the end of more drag.
8 ) You rarely descend straight in. You usually perform a let down procedure. You can't predict accurately when you will begin your descent because that will depend on the controller and his traffic volumes.
Check the link below, its interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_plan
9) When descending to low level you are bound to a 250 kt speed limit. This depends on the airspace structure.
Economic factors. (The pilot's influence)
1) Should your aircraft be running late (i.e you took off late) the pilot will go faster. He'll burn extra fuel to avoid a costly late penalty.
2) Should you be ahead of schedule (Maybe you got lucky with an unexpectedly strong tailwind) he'll slow down to save fuel.
I would rigorously argue that with all of those factors and more, one would easily have enough room for manoeuvre to prove the earth was round, flat, shaped like a pygmy goat or is inside-out.
Flight times prove nothing.
[/thread]
-
I have flown in the US and landed in the local time before I departed in the departure time. That is what time zones are, are you saying there is no time zones between Hawaii and NZ?
on a disc earth and speherical, times zones can and do exist.
Read your post. The times are given in both your time and local times. According to both the flight leaves a day later than it arrives. There is clearly something wrong with the data.
But again, we don't know whether a flight from Orbitz.com or wherever will arrive on time. Those are little more than calculators based on an incorrect model of the earth.
Also, see Thork's post above.
-
... If doing a DST calc is so easy in light of all the problems I have hi-lighted, be my guest. Ram it down my throat with some numbers. But until then, it is not pleading for ignorance to state this is an impossible calculation with so many variables when neither you nor me can provide numbers for it.
How can you calculate an A to B distance when pilots are flying approach plates like these?
(http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/odessa/lipq-sid.gif)
Using enroute 'highways' like these?
(http://www.united-virtual.com/classes/bdf.jpg)
Joining non direct highways like these?
(http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Breaking_News/RNP-1_files/Fig2.gif)
You do not fly direct. You follow the route you are given which the controllers choose and change for you based on traffic they already have.
(http://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/standroutes.jpg)
Look at it TheJackel! How in God's name am I supposed to calculate your distance? I'll never know which route you took on the day.
The question is, of course, how can you account for the fact that known airplane flight times follow the can be accurately predicted with an assumption of a spherical earth and cannot be with a flat earth?
You cannot use flight times to conclude that the earth is any shape. Flight times cannot be accurately attributed to any distance or journey. There are dozens of reasons why an aircraft will take the amount of time it does to make a journey.
The first reason is that you never fly direct to your destination.
1) You will always take off and land into wind. This means you may fly in the opposite direction to your intended travel on take off and then having gained enough altitude to be clear of the airport and usually city below, make a turn onto the SID (Mentioned below).
2) Landing is the same. You may have to fly past the airport round the back of it to approach the active runway using a STAR.
3) You must follow a SID when you leave an Airport and use a STAR when you approach one. These take you all over the place to avoid overflying cities for noise abaitment and for terrain clearance on take off and to position aircraft for traffic controllers to feed them in for final approach at the right times for landing. You are also tracking over beacons that are laid out in fields in the middle of nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Instrument_Departure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Terminal_Arrival_Route
4) You may well be placed in a hold. 4 minute race tracks in a stack. You join at the top and aircraft will be stacked every 1000 feet all the way down. When the controller wants another aircraft, he takes one from the bottom. You will not be able to factor in traffic density into your calculation, so cannot say how long you might hold for. You might not hold at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_(aviation)
5) Most routing, especially in remote places is going to be using routes that rely on beacons such as VOR's or NDB's. Following these again takes you out of your way.
6) When crossing oceans you will be forced by law to use a track system for aircraft separation. These change daily due to the weather and again traffic. You can't ever say which route you used on your flight as a passenger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks
Aircraft performance is another major factor
1) You cannot say how much your aircraft weighed on that day. This effects climb performance and cruise. Altitude effects speed.
2) As altitude effects speed you would need to know how high you flew that day. The higher the quicker, due to the widening difference in IAS and TAS.
3) Even the same aircraft types may have different engines. This again effects performance calcs for climb.
4) Temperature plays a large part. Warm air ruins performance. You need to know how hot it was. Temperature also effects Mach number. Commercial aircraft don't fly speeds, they fly on a mach number. As the local speed of sound will vary from day to day you can never be sure how fast you are actually flying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mach_number
5) Atmospheric pressure effects performance. A high pressure is going to hamper your climb out.
http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/flight-planning/aircraft-performance-3.php
6) Wind will effect flight times. Get a good 50 mph head wind and it is going to make some difference to having done the same journey with a 50 mph tailwind. Wind at 30,000 ft is fast.
7) Weight also makes a large difference to cruise performance. Higher loads mean requiring more lift. For this you fly slightly more nose up (Makes a massive distance on a long journey) to get a better angle of attack. This in turn means you are on the end of more drag.
8 ) You rarely descend straight in. You usually perform a let down procedure. You can't predict accurately when you will begin your descent because that will depend on the controller and his traffic volumes.
Check the link below, its interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_plan
9) When descending to low level you are bound to a 250 kt speed limit. This depends on the airspace structure.
Economic factors. (The pilot's influence)
1) Should your aircraft be running late (i.e you took off late) the pilot will go faster. He'll burn extra fuel to avoid a costly late penalty.
2) Should you be ahead of schedule (Maybe you got lucky with an unexpectedly strong tailwind) he'll slow down to save fuel.
I would rigorously argue that with all of those factors and more, one would easily have enough room for manoeuvre to prove the earth was round, flat, shaped like a pygmy goat or is inside-out.
Flight times prove nothing.
[/thread]
Another attempt to mislead people with irrelevant information.
You are proving the point that it takes more time to reach a destination then it should take if you took the most direct route.
Thus. you quoting long flight times does not mean that the earth must be flat. Also, even if 15% of the flights between hawaii and sydney are delays, 85% are on time, which means that in normal conditions their math is correct.
As an alleged commercial pilot, you are approaching the realm of being a liar by not commenting on the fact that most delays are due to traffic jams at airports, having weather in your way, or having a strong headwind.
-
I have flown in the US and landed in the local time before I departed in the departure time. That is what time zones are, are you saying there is no time zones between Hawaii and NZ?
on a disc earth and speherical, times zones can and do exist.
Read your post. The times are given in both your time and local times. According to both the flight leaves a day later than it arrives. There is clearly something wrong with the data.
But again, we don't know whether a flight from Orbitz.com or wherever will arrive on time. Those are little more than calculators based on an incorrect model of the earth.
Also, see Thork's post above.
Actually, those websites are merely vendors, offering services that are for sale.
There are no calculations involved. Each flight number is repeated on a schedule. The times listed are the ones that are achieved regularily.
Also, once again, I will correct you misquoting something with malicious intent.
"Times are given in local time"
You misquoted this to say "Times are given in your local time"
As a business person who flies, it is useful to know what time it is when you land, where you land.
Back to my original statement. I have estimated the distance according to your artwork (referred to by you as a map) from the top left corner (hawaii) to the lower right corner(new zealand) to be 40,000km. Do you have another value you believe it to be, and measurements you have made on this drawing that support the figure?
-
Now who is ignoring what is presented in favour of predetermined beliefs? For a huge amount of reasons (and by the way I covered headwinds, traffic and weather conditions, if you bothered to read, not only this post but the threads the links I gave you, came from) you cannot use flight times to calculate earth's shape. That is a fact.
You will need to come up with something else to prove earth's shape.
Slightly off topic, but would you be interested in an alcoholic tomato drink? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49567.msg1217162#msg1217162)
-
Now who is ignoring what is presented in favour of predetermined beliefs? For a huge amount of reasons (and by the way I covered headwinds, traffic and weather conditions, if you bothered to read, not only this post but the threads the links I gave you, came from) you cannot use flight times to calculate earth's shape. That is a fact.
You will need to come up with something else to prove earth's shape.
Slightly off topic, but would you be interested in an alcoholic tomato drink? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49567.msg1217162#msg1217162)
You have provided some information in this post, but your conclusion is disputed. Your reasoning ability might prevent you from calculating things with this many variables, and that is ok, it isnt really relevant to your job as a pilot. You just make sure your instruments give the correct readings at the correct times, and follow your checklists, you dont truly need to understand what you are looking at or where you are going (aside from watching for solid objects in the air)
Too many times on this forum is the conclusion "You cannot use X to determine the shape of the earth"
My rewording: " we, as layman, do not understand how to use X to determine the shape of the earth"
All of your babble aside, everything you reference involves adding to the total flight time. I am focusing on the minimum possible flight time.
If a plane flies from hawaii to sydney, and it takes 12 hours to reach there, then we can determine a maximum possible distance. If any of your factors are applied, they would decrease the maximum possible distance.
As your FE theories all involve the distance between vastly (400%) further then the real distances, then in a best case scenario it would still take much much longer to arrive. And if any of the stuff you babble about occurs, then it will take even longer.
My calculations stand. At a maximum speed of 1500 km/hr in 12 hours you could fly 18,000km at maximum, if none of the stuff you mention occurs. Indirect flightpatchs add distance, weather adds distance, ..............etc ad naseum
you dont like 1500 km,hr? Maybe there are magical 500 mph winds down there? Call it 2000 km/hr 24,000 km max then. Still doesnt come near to matching your artwork
-
Actually you plug all the details into the FMS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system)
It works it all out. The FMS must know the shape of the earth, but their source code is a closely guarded secret. Now you know why. That kind of info would be dynamite in the public domain.
I assume you are not interested in TomartiniTM?
-
Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.
-
Actually you plug all the details into the FMS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system)
It works it all out. The FMS must know the shape of the earth, but their source code is a closely guarded secret. Now you know why. That kind of info would be dynamite in the public domain.
I assume you are not interested in TomartiniTM?
Try a ceaser
-
Now who is ignoring what is presented in favour of predetermined beliefs? For a huge amount of reasons (and by the way I covered headwinds, traffic and weather conditions, if you bothered to read, not only this post but the threads the links I gave you, came from) you cannot use flight times to calculate earth's shape. That is a fact.
You will need to come up with something else to prove earth's shape.
Slightly off topic, but would you be interested in an alcoholic tomato drink? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49567.msg1217162#msg1217162)
You have provided some information in this post, but your conclusion is disputed. Your reasoning ability might prevent you from calculating things with this many variables, and that is ok, it isnt really relevant to your job as a pilot. You just make sure your instruments give the correct readings at the correct times, and follow your checklists, you dont truly need to understand what you are looking at or where you are going (aside from watching for solid objects in the air)
Too many times on this forum is the conclusion "You cannot use X to determine the shape of the earth"
My rewording: " we, as layman, do not understand how to use X to determine the shape of the earth"
All of your babble aside, everything you reference involves adding to the total flight time. I am focusing on the minimum possible flight time.
If a plane flies from hawaii to sydney, and it takes 12 hours to reach there, then we can determine a maximum possible distance. If any of your factors are applied, they would decrease the maximum possible distance.
As your FE theories all involve the distance between vastly (400%) further then the real distances, then in a best case scenario it would still take much much longer to arrive. And if any of the stuff you babble about occurs, then it will take even longer.
My calculations stand. At a maximum speed of 1500 km/hr in 12 hours you could fly 18,000km at maximum, if none of the stuff you mention occurs. Indirect flightpatchs add distance, weather adds distance, ..............etc ad naseum
you dont like 1500 km,hr? Maybe there are magical 500 mph winds down there? Call it 2000 km/hr 24,000 km max then. Still doesnt come near to matching your artwork
Any FE'rs have any comments?
-
Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.
??? Are you ok? Maybe you should relax a bit? Have some time away from the upper fora? Meet the rest of the Flat Earth Society?
I have a degree in aerospace engineering and a commercial pilots license. What do you think I spent all those years learning?
Any FE'rs have any comments?
I would rigorously argue that with all of those factors and more, one would easily have enough room for manoeuvre to prove the earth was round, flat, shaped like a pygmy goat or is inside-out.
Flight times prove nothing.
-
Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.
Have you considered the possibility that he is simply willfully misrepresenting what he knows?
-
Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.
Have you considered the possibility that he is simply willfully misrepresenting what he knows?
That's a bloody outrageous accusation! I demand a retraction. >:(
-
Perhaps you shouldn't have publicly admitted to trolling on several occasions.
-
Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.
Have you considered the possibility that he is simply willfully misrepresenting what he knows?
Oh yes. My comment was designed to make him state his qualifications or lack of in the area he was using as evidence, to enable me to tell if he was genuinely ignorant or merely trolling. It turns out its the latter in this case. Im several steps ahead of him at all times.
-
Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.
Have you considered the possibility that he is simply willfully misrepresenting what he knows?
Oh yes. My comment was designed to make him state his qualifications or lack of in the area he was using as evidence, to enable me to tell if he was genuinely ignorant or merely trolling. It turns out its the latter in this case. Im several steps ahead of him at all times.
I have never hidden what I do. You could have asked me any time. You didn't need to design a cunning trap. ::)
Im several steps ahead of him at all times.
Quoted 4 truth.
-
Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.
Have you considered the possibility that he is simply willfully misrepresenting what he knows?
Oh yes. My comment was designed to make him state his qualifications or lack of in the area he was using as evidence, to enable me to tell if he was genuinely ignorant or merely trolling. It turns out its the latter in this case. Im several steps ahead of him at all times.
I have never hidden what I do. You could have asked me any time. You didn't need to design a cunning trap. ::)
Im several steps ahead of him at all times.
Quoted 4 truth.
Yes, I could have asked you. I trust your word as much as you trust that of Buzz Aldrin.
-
But again, we don't know whether a flight from Orbitz.com or wherever will arrive on time.
Sorry to be pedantic, but I think the point has more to do with how long the flight takes than whether or not arrives or leaves on time.
Those are little more than calculators based on an incorrect model of the earth.
Do you have evidence that the flight times are calculated based on a model of the earth rather than based on past history? Seriously asking because I would think it would serve the airlines better to look at how long the flight took in the past than to calculate a flight time, regardless of the shape of the earth.
-
But again, we don't know whether a flight from Orbitz.com or wherever will arrive on time.
Sorry to be pedantic, but I think the point has more to do with how long the flight takes than whether or not arrives or leaves on time.
The point is we don't know whether the flight estimates on Orbitz.com will come to fruition.
You can plot a map for a road trip on Google Maps from Point A to Point B and get a travel estimate, but that data relies on the distances on the map being correct and not hitting traffic. You can't blindly say that Google Maps is accurate for all destinations on earth. You're building an estimate. Maybe the roads have changed. Maybe a road no longer exists. You won't know what the actual time will be until you do the road trip in person.
Do you have evidence that the flight times are calculated based on a model of the earth rather than based on past history? Seriously asking because I would think it would serve the airlines better to look at how long the flight took in the past than to calculate a flight time, regardless of the shape of the earth.
What source do you have showing that they build the estimates based on past history?
-
Do you have evidence that the flight times are calculated based on a model of the earth rather than based on past history? Seriously asking because I would think it would serve the airlines better to look at how long the flight took in the past than to calculate a flight time, regardless of the shape of the earth.
What source do you have showing that they build the estimates based on past history?
I didn't claim that they are built on past history. I just stated an opinion that I think it would serve them better. You're the one who claimed that the times are based on calculations based on incorrect models of the earth. I was just looking to see if you had evidence to back up this claim.
* edit
-
Or, you could go to the websites of the airports in question, and track the flights as they happen to see if they arrive on time.
-
I know you have not been on this site long - but you are falling down one of TB's clever traps. He will get you so frustrated in arguing the most baseless points that in reality he's able to skip the actual points that have all been ignored.
He is actually pretty good at it - I pulled up the Quantas flights earlier but stopped posting because of previous attempts that resorted to pusher birds(Pongo), conspiracy pilots and sleeping gas(Crustinator) and Thork who takes a realistic flight plan and then keeps you in holding patterns for hours on end.
Also anything requiring historical records is automatically suspect by TB unless it proves a point he likes - he also has the ability to invoke and reject bendy light on a whim. And using any predicting almanac is useless to him no matter what effective results are used.
Berny
Sees where this thread is going
I gave fair warning and we're now gone from the map to the logistical nightmare of flights and flight times.
Actually you plug all the details into the FMS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system)
It works it all out. The FMS must know the shape of the earth, but their source code is a closely guarded secret. Now you know why. That kind of info would be dynamite in the public domain.
I assume you are not interested in TomartiniTM?
So what happens when you're cruising along at 20,000 fleet and your FSM dies?
More importantly how did they fly before the age of FSM?
And even more importantly - no matter how many documents you point out - companies using and relying on aircraft successfully manage their times and get everything going where they're supposed to.
Berny
No. If it has tomatoes in it its a Caesar with pickles and extra Tabasco.
-
So what happens when you're cruising along at 20,000 fleet and your FSM dies?
It can die? Don't even joke about something like that. :-\
-
Pick a flight number. Look at it on different days. Its always the same deperture and arrival time. Just like a bus in a town. It flies a route, back and forth
-
Pick a flight number. Look at it on different days. Its always the same deperture and arrival time. Just like a bus in a town. It flies a route, back and forth
Because regardless of how the aircraft is doing, the pilot makes it so. Running late. Go faster. To early, slow down. No pilot wants to incur late penalties for his company. That will get you coffee and a chat with your Line manager on your day off. There won't be any biscuits. Its not that kind of meeting. >:(
Too early and you may get thrown into the hold. You are unlikely to get out on time. You were put there for being naughty.
So the speed and distances can vary wildly. The time will more than likely be the same every time as the pilot tries to ensure this, but it has contingency built in for him.
Flight times prove nothing.
-
So, while this discussion on flight times is most entertaining and a waste of time, How is the Sun able to shine all the way from the top of the map to New Zealand at the bottom during the month of June?
-
So, while this discussion on flight times is most entertaining and a waste of time, How is the Sun able to shine all the way from the top of the map to New Zealand at the bottom during the month of June?
Does the sun shine much on New Zealand during summer in the North? No. When it is summer in the North it is winter in the South and the days are very short. Vice versa when it is summer in the South.
-
So, while this discussion on flight times is most entertaining and a waste of time, How is the Sun able to shine all the way from the top of the map to New Zealand at the bottom during the month of June?
Does the sun shine much on New Zealand during summer in the North? No. When it is summer in the North it is winter in the South and the days are very short. Vice versa then it is summer in the South.
I suggest you actually try plotting the areas of sunlight at different times of day and year on the map. I think you will find it gives some surprisingly impossible patterns. I notice you have not yet addressed the problem of how the sun gets from the west side of the map to the east side while still travelling at the same speed it did during the rest of the day. Because thats a real corker of a problem, and a solution is beyond you.
-
I suggest you actually try plotting the areas of sunlight at different times of day and year on the map. I think you will find it gives some surprisingly impossible patterns.
Where do you suppose I get this daylight data from, the false Round Earth model?
I notice you have not yet addressed the problem of how the sun gets from the west side of the map to the east side while still travelling at the same speed it did during the rest of the day. Because thats a real corker of a problem, and a solution is beyond you.
I never described the sun as teleporting from one side of the map to the other. The sun is circling around the North Pole for six months out of the year and then it circles the South Pole for six months out of the year, thus giving us our seasons.
-
Your only explanation for airlines crossing 40,000km in 12 hours is its a conspiracy? Are you implying that a 747 can fly 3333 km/h?
i now consider 40,000 a published figure. It was published on this site for peer review by FE theorists and it was not disputed.
And no, I did not type that with a straight face
-
Your only explanation for airlines crossing 40,000km in 12 hours is its a conspiracy?
Who said that?
-
Your only explanation for airlines crossing 40,000km in 12 hours is its a conspiracy?
Who said that?
Please try and keep up, its not a complicated thread
Pick a flight number. Look at it on different days. Its always the same deperture and arrival time. Just like a bus in a town. It flies a route, back and forth
Because regardless of how the aircraft is doing, the pilot makes it so. Running late. Go faster. To early, slow down. No pilot wants to incur late penalties for his company. That will get you coffee and a chat with your Line manager on your day off. There won't be any biscuits. Its not that kind of meeting. >:(
Too early and you may get thrown into the hold. You are unlikely to get out on time. You were put there for being naughty.
So the speed and distances can vary wildly. The time will more than likely be the same every time as the pilot tries to ensure this, but it has contingency built in for him.
Flight times prove nothing.
Your deliberately unobservant reply is not worth an entire post in reply
-
Your only explanation for airlines crossing 40,000km in 12 hours is its a conspiracy?
Who said that?
Please try and keep up, its not a complicated thread
Pick a flight number. Look at it on different days. Its always the same deperture and arrival time. Just like a bus in a town. It flies a route, back and forth
Because regardless of how the aircraft is doing, the pilot makes it so. Running late. Go faster. To early, slow down. No pilot wants to incur late penalties for his company. That will get you coffee and a chat with your Line manager on your day off. There won't be any biscuits. Its not that kind of meeting. >:(
Too early and you may get thrown into the hold. You are unlikely to get out on time. You were put there for being naughty.
So the speed and distances can vary wildly. The time will more than likely be the same every time as the pilot tries to ensure this, but it has contingency built in for him.
Flight times prove nothing.
I didn't see anything about a conspiracy mentioned.
-
So what happens when you're cruising along at 20,000 fleet and your FSM dies?
It can die? Don't even joke about something like that. :-\
Everything can die.... What if you run out of gas - does the little air-turbine power that on top of all the avionics?
@Theodolite
Didn't I just warn you about TB sucking you in?
Berny
Don't you subscribe to the Boyscout motto while flying - be prepared for everything?
-
The following places, which contain educated people who are capable of telling if it is day or night, are reporting daylight at this moment.
The area with the lines through it are dark at the moment
The lines are rough, but I am sure you are smart enough to tell what it is
(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/3735/trueearthpu3.png)
July 17, 2011 1545 PDT
-
The following places, which contain educated people who are capable of telling if it is day or night, are reporting daylight at this moment.
Really? Who are they reporting to? Are people calling you and telling you about the position of the sun or the amount of daylight they are receiving?
How did you come up with those lines anyway, from a false Round Earth model?
-
The following places, which contain educated people who are capable of telling if it is day or night, are reporting daylight at this moment.
Really? Who are they reporting to? Are people calling you and telling you about the position of the sun or the amount of daylight they are receiving?
Before we get into the topic of sources, I think you still havent answered who drew this map, and what data they used
I just heard Shao Khan say "Finish Him!"
As we are all scientists here, and we know you can only disprove theories, find me any data that contradicts my information, and publish it here for review. I guaranty that every city within those areas report the conditions I am implying.
BTW, this is how science is done. Kind of the opposite of how you guys operate.
-
I suggest you actually try plotting the areas of sunlight at different times of day and year on the map. I think you will find it gives some surprisingly impossible patterns.
Where do you suppose I get this daylight data from, the false Round Earth model?
I notice you have not yet addressed the problem of how the sun gets from the west side of the map to the east side while still travelling at the same speed it did during the rest of the day. Because thats a real corker of a problem, and a solution is beyond you.
I never described the sun as teleporting from one side of the map to the other. The sun is circling around the North Pole for six months out of the year and then it circles the South Pole for six months out of the year, thus giving us our seasons.
Get sunrise and set times from meterological web sites around the internet. It is public domain information and furthermore is 100% accurate. My friend who is a keen photographer frequently does this, wherever he is in the world, to find sunset times for photographic purposes. There is also ephemeris info which will tell you exactly where on the horizon the sun will rise and set, and if you could ever be bothered to plot that on your map I would love to see how you explain it.
Of course you didnt describe the sun teleporting, that would be an admission that your model is rubbish. Imagine the scenario... it is the 21st of September and someone in the pacific on the equator is watching the sun set in the west. The sun is sinking at the normal sun speed... but wait! Wait! The Japanese need to see it rising in just a minute! Hells bells, its on the wrong side of the disc! Quick somebody, drag it round to the other side of the earth so the eastern countries can see it!
-
The following places, which contain educated people who are capable of telling if it is day or night, are reporting daylight at this moment.
The area with the lines through it are dark at the moment
Speaking of intelligent people, don't you think people from Australia would tell the rest of the world that the only compasses that work there look like this?
(http://s400.photobucket.com/albums/pp86/avillarrealpouw/compass_pocket3.jpg)
As I think you already mentioned, North and East are not perpendicular, but you may not have seen how non-perpendicular they are.
And the situation is almost as bad in the West Coast of the USA, where Tom Bishop says he lives.
-
quote author=EnigmaZV link=topic=30588.msg762220#msg762220 date=1249099444]
To be honest, I'm not a big supporter of that geographic model anyway, but I lack the time and computer skills to do an animation of my own.
If I recall, he likes the idea that Antarctica as a continent exists, which isn't such a bad idea. Here are a few rough animations of the sun's orbit:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/enigmazv/summersolstice.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/enigmazv/equinox.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/enigmazv/wintersolstice.gif)
Note that this is simply an azimuthal projection and does not accurately represent the Flat Earth or the orbit of the sun.
[/quote]
Eat that, Bishop.
-
Dont forget, there needs to be a massive indent at the north or south end, depending on where winter is (similar to my rough sketch)
-
Actually i'm with Tom on this one. He finally managed to explain that huge mountain of ice in the pacific ocean, near equator. That one has been confusing me for years.
Beyond the rays of the sun the waters surrounding the earth will naturally freeze.
(http://www.upload.ee/image/1497665/lol.png)
I believe it's the same icewall, which sank the Titanic in 1997.
-
So, while this discussion on flight times is most entertaining and a waste of time, How is the Sun able to shine all the way from the top of the map to New Zealand at the bottom during the month of June?
Does the sun shine much on New Zealand during summer in the North? No. When it is summer in the North it is winter in the South and the days are very short. Vice versa then it is summer in the South.
I never said summer. Please reread my post.
So, how does the Sun shine in new Zealand during its winter, when the sun is on the opposite side of the Earth? I'm sure we would have heard of a 6 month period of total darkness. Especially for the seamen who sailed that ocean during the second world war... such as my grandfather? Or even people who may have flown to such countries such as Thork, or Wardogg?
-
I think we can safely assume that Thork doesnt travel far from his home town.
Failing to understand the shape of the earth is kind of a career stopper
-
As we are all scientists here, and we know you can only disprove theories, find me any data that contradicts my information, and publish it here for review. I guaranty that every city within those areas report the conditions I am implying.
BTW, this is how science is done. Kind of the opposite of how you guys operate.
"Prove me wrong" isn't how science operates. If you're coming here with unsourced daylight times you need to reveal your source. Did you make your image with the aid of historic logs or with the aid of a calculator based on a Round Earth model?
Get sunrise and set times from meterological web sites around the internet. It is public domain information and furthermore is 100% accurate.
Those are calculators. They predict what the sunrise and sunset times will be if the earth were a globe and RET were true. They operate under the pretense of a Round Earth.
Unless someone has traveled the world verifying the accuracy of the calculator we can only take it for what it is: a calculator which makes unverified predictions.
Of course you didnt describe the sun teleporting, that would be an admission that your model is rubbish. Imagine the scenario... it is the 21st of September and someone in the pacific on the equator is watching the sun set in the west. The sun is sinking at the normal sun speed... but wait! Wait! The Japanese need to see it rising in just a minute! Hells bells, its on the wrong side of the disc! Quick somebody, drag it round to the other side of the earth so the eastern countries can see it!
You have not provided evidence that this hypothetical scenario has occurred.
You guys seem to believe that random people are always paying close attention the the events of the heavens and constantly comparing them to Round Earth predictions. They wouldn't know to do that. They already operate under the assumption that Round Earth Theory is true. No one is out there testing it. No one considers that RET is false.
This is why the Flat Earth Sociey exists: to dispel those misbeliefs which everyone takes for granted.
quote author=EnigmaZV link=topic=30588.msg762220#msg762220 date=1249099444]
To be honest, I'm not a big supporter of that geographic model anyway, but I lack the time and computer skills to do an animation of my own.
If I recall, he likes the idea that Antarctica as a continent exists, which isn't such a bad idea. Here are a few rough animations of the sun's orbit:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/enigmazv/summersolstice.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/enigmazv/equinox.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/enigmazv/wintersolstice.gif)
Note that this is simply an azimuthal projection and does not accurately represent the Flat Earth or the orbit of the sun.
Again, the data is from a calculator based on a hypothetical model, not logs or observations which were seen in reality.
An animator could make such a daylight map for the patterns of light as seen on a torus earth. Would it demonstrate that the earth is a torus? No. It would be a hypothetical pattern which is unbacked by observational evidence, exactly as your animated patterns are here.
-
An animator could make such a daylight map for the patterns of light as seen on a torus earth. Would it demonstrate that the earth is a torus? No. It would be a hypothetical pattern which is unbacked by observational evidence, exactly as your animated patterns are here.
You ignore my account of a friend using predictive ephemeris to find sunset times in different places of the world to photograph sunsets, and finding they are correct.
It is the work of moments for anyone here to look up a predicted sunset/sunrise time for wherever they are in the world and then zetetically observe it to see if the prediction matches reality. If you wish to dispute the accuracy of predictive algorithms you must first demonstrate that they do not match reality by recording data from various places in the world. This is an easy task if we can get everyone on this forum to work together on this as we have a wide global distribution. Your "herp derp, they are computed predictions therefore cannot be correct, durrr" mantra is nothing but an assumption until you can show that.
-
As we are all scientists here, and we know you can only disprove theories, find me any data that contradicts my information, and publish it here for review. I guaranty that every city within those areas report the conditions I am implying.
BTW, this is how science is done. Kind of the opposite of how you guys operate.
"Prove me wrong" isn't how science operates. If you're coming here with unsourced daylight times you need to reveal your source. Did you make your image with the aid of historic logs or with the aid of a calculator based on a Round Earth model?
Get sunrise and set times from meterological web sites around the internet. It is public domain information and furthermore is 100% accurate.
Those are calculators. They predict what the sunrise and sunset times will be if the earth were a globe and RET were true. They operate under the pretense of a Round Earth.
Unless someone has traveled the world verifying the accuracy of the calculator we can only take it for what it is: a calculator which makes unverified predictions.
Again, the data is from a calculator based on a hypothetical model, not logs or observations which were seen in reality.
An animator could make such a daylight map for the patterns of light as seen on a torus earth. Would it demonstrate that the earth is a torus? No. It would be a hypothetical pattern which is unbacked by observational evidence, exactly as your animated patterns are here.
Hey, here's a little experiment I came up with:
I put a paper clip hanging from a string over a pan of water. In the water, I had a piece of paper just floating at the surface.
This creates a vertical rod (the string) hanging over a flat surface (the water.)
Then I measured the length of the shadow by marking the ends of the shadow with holes from a paperclip.
I measured the length of the string.
I used a straightedge to trace the direction of the shadow onto a piece of paper which I had aligned with true North using a compass and correction (for the difference of magnetic and true.).
(http://i54.tinypic.com/ifbec8.jpg)
(http://oi54.tinypic.com/2iiirt1.jpg)
Also The next two pictures were big, so I linked instead of posting them:
http://i51.tinypic.com/xawfhs.jpg (http://i51.tinypic.com/xawfhs.jpg)
From this, I calculated the sun's position in the sky. I then compared the results to a calculator based on the RE model using my (Lat, Long) coordinates and the time that I gathered the data.
(at http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/azel.html)
And behold, in the lower left corner of the sheet with my calculations, My calculations and the RE model predictions are very similar:
58.31 vs. 58.99(RE calculated) degrees from the horizon,
218 vs. 217.23(RE calculated) from true north.
http://i55.tinypic.com/2w7oaj8.jpg (http://i55.tinypic.com/2w7oaj8.jpg)
Pretty darn good results there for the RE calculator.
Now, I live in Western Washington. I suggest that you repeat this experiment at your own home, use the RE calculator and compare the results to yours.
-
Well done Brother Momentia, for using proper zetetic principles to put Bob Bishop in his place. I applaud your experiment.
-
Hey, here's a little experiment I came up with:
A good indicator that one is reading a globby's post, amirite?
-
great post, you are are great zetetist.
unlike the FAQQERS, who just present youtube videos as their evidence,
great job, wish I was able to photograph my sunrise (flock of seagulls) experiment
-
Again, the data is from a calculator based on a hypothetical model, not logs or observations which were seen in reality.
Such absurdity, but nonetheless, clearly no one has noticed anything wrong with the calculators but even if they're off by up to an hour, your map is suggesting huge errors, and for a spotlight sun... well... I want to see your predictive sun path, please.
-
notice how no FEers acknowledge the genuine and accurate experiment posted by momentia
-
notice how no FEers acknowledge the genuine and accurate experiment posted by momentia
I feel as if we are witnessing a historically significant occasion for TFES here...a momentious occasion!
-
notice how no FEers acknowledge the genuine* and accurate* experiment posted by momentia
* - citation needed
-
notice how no FEers acknowledge the genuine* and accurate* experiment posted by momentia
* - citation needed
Oh dang, looks like moose forgot to provide a link to my post with original procedure, experiment data, and results. Moose, you can't expect pizza to use a scroll bar to find the post. She needs a link.
Here's all my data:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1219713#msg1219713 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1219713#msg1219713)
I suggest you repeat the experiment, or perhaps get a more technically inclined friend to do it for you. Have a good week.
-
Is any FEer going to reply regarding the distance of 40.000km? Seems that you guys have been avoiding this purposely as you don't have an answer to Theodolite's question.
Apart from that, I still don't see the distance between Arg-Nz (by sea) is even remotely close to what it actually is (6000 miles).
ALSO, the map you provided in this thread - please make up your minds, what MAP IS YOUR OFFICIAL MAP??
As you claim the Earth to be flat, lets see your real map?
-
To bad on a disk earth there is no way to have a magnetic field. You need a core for that, most FEers have said its just rock. You also have to spin, and that has also been rejected by the flat earthers. This process is explained by the Dynamo Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory). It cannot be a giant bar magnet because the prime merdian would be totally screwed up.*
*Take your pick. (http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&q=Magnetic+Field+of+a+bar+magnet&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1440&bih=785)
-
To bad on a disk earth there is no way to have a magnetic field. You need a core for that, most FEers have said its just rock.
Who said it's just rock?
-
The few times I've seen it "explained" they said it was rocks/stone/whatever. Nothing of an Iron core.
-
The few times I've seen it "explained" they said it was rocks/stone/whatever. Nothing of an Iron core.
Can you provide an example? There may be some exceptions of whom I'm unaware but I believe the consensus is that the Earth has an iron core.
-
notice how no FEers acknowledge the genuine* and accurate* experiment posted by momentia
* - citation needed
Oh dang, looks like moose forgot to provide a link to my post with original procedure, experiment data, and results. Moose, you can't expect pizza to use a scroll bar to find the post. She needs a link.
Here's all my data:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1219713#msg1219713 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1219713#msg1219713)
I don't see how linking the experiment whose truthfulness and genuinity I have contested addresses the fact that I contested it.
I will now do exactly what you did:
- The Earth is flat.
- If you disagree, please see above point.
-
notice how no FEers acknowledge the genuine* and accurate* experiment posted by momentia
* - citation needed
Oh dang, looks like moose forgot to provide a link to my post with original procedure, experiment data, and results. Moose, you can't expect pizza to use a scroll bar to find the post. She needs a link.
Here's all my data:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1219713#msg1219713 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1219713#msg1219713)
I don't see how linking the experiment whose truthfulness and genuinity I have contested addresses the fact that I contested it.
I will now do exactly what you did:
- The Earth is flat.
- If you disagree, please see above point.
I see no method and no physical evidence.
I did an experiment and provided both method and physical evidence.
All I can say is that sun position calculators are correct in my region, and I highly suspect that they are accurate elsewhere.
All you can do is say that I falsified my data, which I did not do. I provided pictures to document as much as possible. If you are not willing to trust some results and do not do the experiment for yourself, I see little point for you to be discussing it.
-
The few times I've seen it "explained" they said it was rocks/stone/whatever. Nothing of an Iron core.
Can you provide an example? There may be some exceptions of whom I'm unaware but I believe the consensus is that the Earth has an iron core.
Not really, I just saw it here before I signed up and don't remember where.
-
the consensus is that the Earth has an iron core.
Would that be liquid iron?
-
All you can do is say that I falsified my data, which I did not do.
Don't tell me what I can and cannot say. It's pretty dishonest, and you don't want to be dishonest if you want to be credible.
I am saying your experiment is an absolute non sequitur - it does not relate to the thread.
-
(http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3735/trueearthpu3.png)
In the above model there are two spinning celestial systems suspended over the earth. One is centered over the North Pole and the other is centered over Antarctica. When observers on South America, Africa, or Australia look Southwards they will see the Southern Celestial System.
What do they see when they look straight up? I'm also curious about what those along the equator see when they look up. Would they see the north and south stars moving away from eachother the further one travels along the equator from the 'middle'?
-
All you can do is say that I falsified my data, which I did not do.
Don't tell me what I can and cannot say. It's pretty dishonest, and you don't want to be dishonest if you want to be credible.
I am saying your experiment is an absolute non sequitur - it does not relate to the thread.
As we are all scientists here, and we know you can only disprove theories, find me any data that contradicts my information, and publish it here for review. I guaranty that every city within those areas report the conditions I am implying.
BTW, this is how science is done. Kind of the opposite of how you guys operate.
"Prove me wrong" isn't how science operates. If you're coming here with unsourced daylight times you need to reveal your source. Did you make your image with the aid of historic logs or with the aid of a calculator based on a Round Earth model?
Get sunrise and set times from meterological web sites around the internet. It is public domain information and furthermore is 100% accurate.
Those are calculators. They predict what the sunrise and sunset times will be if the earth were a globe and RET were true. They operate under the pretense of a Round Earth.
Unless someone has traveled the world verifying the accuracy of the calculator we can only take it for what it is: a calculator which makes unverified predictions.
Of course you didnt describe the sun teleporting, that would be an admission that your model is rubbish. Imagine the scenario... it is the 21st of September and someone in the pacific on the equator is watching the sun set in the west. The sun is sinking at the normal sun speed... but wait! Wait! The Japanese need to see it rising in just a minute! Hells bells, its on the wrong side of the disc! Quick somebody, drag it round to the other side of the earth so the eastern countries can see it!
You have not provided evidence that this hypothetical scenario has occurred.
You guys seem to believe that random people are always paying close attention the the events of the heavens and constantly comparing them to Round Earth predictions. They wouldn't know to do that. They already operate under the assumption that Round Earth Theory is true. No one is out there testing it. No one considers that RET is false.
This is why the Flat Earth Sociey exists: to dispel those misbeliefs which everyone takes for granted.
quote author=EnigmaZV link=topic=30588.msg762220#msg762220 date=1249099444]
To be honest, I'm not a big supporter of that geographic model anyway, but I lack the time and computer skills to do an animation of my own.
If I recall, he likes the idea that Antarctica as a continent exists, which isn't such a bad idea. Here are a few rough animations of the sun's orbit:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/enigmazv/summersolstice.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/enigmazv/equinox.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/enigmazv/wintersolstice.gif)
Note that this is simply an azimuthal projection and does not accurately represent the Flat Earth or the orbit of the sun.
Again, the data is from a calculator based on a hypothetical model, not logs or observations which were seen in reality.
An animator could make such a daylight map for the patterns of light as seen on a torus earth. Would it demonstrate that the earth is a torus? No. It would be a hypothetical pattern which is unbacked by observational evidence, exactly as your animated patterns are here.
Tom Bishop questioned the validity of RE solar position calculators. I did an experiment and determined that RE calculations were valid, at least in my location, and invited him to continue similar experiments. I believe this was highly relevant. From what I could tell in your previous posts, you questioned that my experiments were "genuine and accurate" (you said citation needed.) In response, I said I documented my experiment as best I could and that you were free to call me a liar or a bad experimenter, but otherwise would have to trust my results. You never questioned the method, and since you said you doubted the truthfulness, I assumed you might think I falsified data. If you think you can say more about my experiment, go ahead, but it WAS relevant to the discussion at the time, and was done as carefully and precisely as I could.
Anyways, about Tom's map, I see no evidence for it. One (of many) things I can say against it is that lines of longitude are non-symetrical. I.e. there is significant difference between lines of longitude. This would imply that longitude would be easily determinable from position of celestial objects. However, this is not the case. Longitude was only roughly estimated by dead reckoning before the invention of clocks that worked at sea. For RE, or even pole centric FE, this makes sense because longitude lines are radially symmetric, and the earth (or heavens in FE) turn once a day, so there are no celestial clues as to ones longitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude#Problem_of_longitude
-
What do they see when they look straight up? I'm also curious about what those along the equator see when they look up. Would they see the north and south stars moving away from eachother the further one travels along the equator from the 'middle'?
Yes. That's exactly what they see.
(http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2007/12/08/0001225009/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpg)
(http://www.twanight.org/newTWAN/guests_photos/5001390.jpg)
At the equator one sees the stars in the gears coming together and then spreading apart.
-
(http://www.astrosurf.com/sguisard/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-West-1200x800-cp8.jpg)
from: http://www.astrosurf.com/sguisard/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html
At the equator, one sees semicircular trails around a north south line as predicted in RE. The photos at this site demonstrate the symmetry between the paths of stars north and south of the equator.
However, there is other evidence that longitudinal lines are symmetrical. As in you couldn't determine your longitude accurately at sea without a clock to reference.
-
The photos at this site demonstrate the symmetry between the paths of stars north and south of the equator.
No it doesn't. The images are being warped by an image editing program to make them symmetrical. You can see the warping when looking at the clouds and the land.
-
Tom Bishop questioned the validity of RE solar position calculators.
What you were replying to was questioning the validity of sunrise and sunset estimations as proof of a round Earth. You even quoted it in your post.
-
What do they see when they look straight up? I'm also curious about what those along the equator see when they look up. Would they see the north and south stars moving away from eachother the further one travels along the equator from the 'middle'?
Yes. That's exactly what they see.
At the equator one sees the stars in the gears coming together and then spreading apart.
If both gear centres are positioned above the flat earth, then both would be visible from anywhere on earth. In both of your posted images, stars are revolving around one "gear" that is well above the horizon, and one that is undeniably "below" the horizon. Suggesting that the other gear, which is supposedly above one pole, is actually underneath the earth relative to the observer.
Your stars "coming together and spreading apart" explanation doesn't account for the fact that the angular distance between the stars does not change regardless of the location observed from, especially with this new map, where one hemisphere of the pacific ocean is on the other side of the world from the other half, yet still see stars revolving above the other half, when the northern hemisphere atlantic can't even see the centre of the southern gear.
-
If both gear centres are positioned above the flat earth, then both would be visible from anywhere on earth.
You forgot about the rules of perspective as described in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Perspective doesn't allow one to see forever into the distance. I suggest you read the book we keep telling you to read..
-
If both gear centres are positioned above the flat earth, then both would be visible from anywhere on earth.
You forgot about the rules of perspective as described in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Perspective doesn't allow one to see forever into the distance. I suggest you read the book we keep telling you to read..
While I disagree with some of his rules, this gear theory is in conflict with both of our understandings of perspective regarding this new map. From the north pacific ocean, one can supposedly see even further to the stars above the south pacific ocean. A distance that is further than the south pole is from the atlantic side of the northern hemisphere. Also, Rowbotham describes objects as disappearing into the horizon, not underneath it. And you don't need rowbotham to know that a circular path when viewed from an angle turns into an ellipse. Which is something that is not observed in the stars' apparent motions.
-
Tom Bishop questioned the validity of RE solar position calculators.
What you were replying to was questioning the validity of sunrise and sunset estimations as proof of a round Earth. You even quoted it in your post.
Those are calculators. They predict what the sunrise and sunset times will be if the earth were a globe and RET were true. They operate under the pretense of a Round Earth.
Unless someone has traveled the world verifying the accuracy of the calculator we can only take it for what it is: a calculator which makes unverified predictions.
You guys seem to believe that random people are always paying close attention the the events of the heavens and constantly comparing them to Round Earth predictions. They wouldn't know to do that. They already operate under the assumption that Round Earth Theory is true. No one is out there testing it. No one considers that RET is false.
He was doubting the accuracy of the calculators. I didn't travel the world, which is why I invited others to verify RE solar calculators for their location.
And tom, the distortion is capture the maximum amount of sky as possible, and is equal in the north and south direction.
Here's a picture close to the equator with less distortion:
(http://www.twanight.org/newTWAN/photos/3002915.jpg)
-
What do they see when they look straight up? I'm also curious about what those along the equator see when they look up. Would they see the north and south stars moving away from eachother the further one travels along the equator from the 'middle'?
Yes. That's exactly what they see.
(http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2007/12/08/0001225009/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpg)
(http://www.twanight.org/newTWAN/guests_photos/5001390.jpg)
At the equator one sees the stars in the gears coming together and then spreading apart.
Wide-angle lense photography sure helps doesn't it?
What shape are these celestial gears again? If they're round, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc, most of the Pacific, and the northwest part of South America won't have any stars to view, unless these gears overlap, in which case, the paths of the stars would be overlapping along the equator.
Or maybe the stars don't follow a circular path. Maybe they go out far enough so those areas have stars at night, but then they make a sharp turn back the other way. I'm sure that would have been noticeable by now though over the centuries.
-
No it doesn't. The images are being warped by an image editing program to make them symmetrical. You can see the warping when looking at the clouds and the land.
Yes, the same thing that "warped" the two you posted.
-
Wow This thread has followed some twists and turns.
Flight times:
FE stance: Flight times are irrelevant to the shape of the earth.
This is true. Flight times ALONE are meaningless to the shape of the earth.
RE stance: There is such a vast difference in the known daily flight times of documented flight and what would be needed to match up on the FE Maps proposed on this site that the maps proposed on this site can not work, and are not even good starting points for FET.
This is true. All proposed FE maps are full of problems and flight time compared from RE maps to any FE maps are just another peice of evidence against FE.
A model for the activity of the sun, and other celestial bodies
FE stance:RE fails to accuratley predict these things
RE stance:This is false. There are a miriad of ways to predict these thing in RE and there are countles tools and methods that are used every day with high precision.
TB's map as proposed in his OP
Its worse than the distorted UN map that has been used for years. you get good idea and thinking outside the box points for sure, but it fails harder that Tsunami does at plotting the south pole on a FE map.
I woudl like to see an animation like the ones momential made on toms new map posted for the regular FE map. I think it would show a much simpler version of day and night light arround the surface of the earth. though one has to dismiss the "D" shape inherant to the whole idea of how light land on the surface of the earth to make the model comply with observed reality. I woudl also like to see that animation side by side with a "O" shaped spot and /or a prediction of lunar and solar eclipse paths on the FE map. That may be too much to ask though.
-
Wow This thread has followed some twists and turns.
Flight times:
FE stance: Flight times are irrelevant to the shape of the earth.
This is true. Flight times ALONE are meaningless to the shape of the earth.
RE stance: There is such a vast difference in the known daily flight times of documented flight and what would be needed to match up on the FE Maps proposed on this site that the maps proposed on this site can not work, and are not even good starting points for FET.
This is true. All proposed FE maps are full of problems and flight time compared from RE maps to any FE maps are just another peice of evidence against FE.
A model for the activity of the sun, and other celestial bodies
FE stance:RE fails to accuratley predict these things
RE stance:This is false. There are a miriad of ways to predict these thing in RE and there are countles tools and methods that are used every day with high precision.
TB's map as proposed in his OP
Its worse than the distorted UN map that has been used for years. you get good idea and thinking outside the box points for sure, but it fails harder that Tsunami does at plotting the south pole on a FE map [citation needed].
I woudl like to see an animation like the ones momential made on toms new map posted for the regular FE map. I think it would show a much simpler version of day and night light arround the surface of the earth. though one has to dismiss the "D" shape inherant to the whole idea of how light land on the surface of the earth to make the model comply with observed reality. I woudl also like to see that animation side by side with a "O" shaped spot and /or a prediction of lunar and solar eclipse paths on the FE map. That may be too much to ask though.
-
Why would that need a citation? A tsunami has little to no chance of plotting a point on a map. It would tear that map apart if it tried ;)
-
Wow This thread has followed some twists and turns.
Flight times:
FE stance: Flight times are irrelevant to the shape of the earth.
This is true. Flight times ALONE are meaningless to the shape of the earth.
RE stance: There is such a vast difference in the known daily flight times of documented flight and what would be needed to match up on the FE Maps proposed on this site that the maps proposed on this site can not work, and are not even good starting points for FET.
This is true. All proposed FE maps are full of problems and flight time compared from RE maps to any FE maps are just another peice of evidence against FE.
A model for the activity of the sun, and other celestial bodies
FE stance:RE fails to accuratley predict these things
RE stance:This is false. There are a miriad of ways to predict these thing in RE and there are countles tools and methods that are used every day with high precision.
TB's map as proposed in his OP
Its worse than the distorted UN map that has been used for years. you get good idea and thinking outside the box points for sure, but it fails harder that Tsunami does at plotting the south pole on a FE map [citation needed].
I woudl like to see an animation like the ones momential made on toms new map posted for the regular FE map. I think it would show a much simpler version of day and night light arround the surface of the earth. though one has to dismiss the "D" shape inherant to the whole idea of how light land on the surface of the earth to make the model comply with observed reality. I woudl also like to see that animation side by side with a "O" shaped spot and /or a prediction of lunar and solar eclipse paths on the FE map. That may be too much to ask though.
My mistake that sentance should have said "....it fails harder than Tsunami does at plotting the south pole base on a FE map"
Here is your citation: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49767.80
Please reference reply #85, then read the rest of the thread where you get destroyed over your placement of it and you argue that you cant provide the maths you used becaused it involved fractions.
-
My mistake that sentance should have said "....it fails harder than Tsunami does at plotting the south pole base on a FE map"
Here is your citation: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49767.80
Please reference reply #85, the read the rest of the thread where you get destroyed over your placement of it and you argue that you cant provide the maths you used becaused it involved fractions.
Does that mean we can eat his delicious looking chicken now?
-
What do they see when they look straight up? I'm also curious about what those along the equator see when they look up. Would they see the north and south stars moving away from eachother the further one travels along the equator from the 'middle'?
Yes. That's exactly what they see.
(http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2007/12/08/0001225009/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpg)
(http://www.twanight.org/newTWAN/guests_photos/5001390.jpg)
At the equator one sees the stars in the gears coming together and then spreading apart.
Interesting, though. Have you not considered that this is the result of a perspective shot from inside a sphere? I set up the scenario in a 3D program, and got a similar pattern with the lines of latitude of a sphere.
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/3Dsphricalhyperbolas.jpg)
-
Interesting, though. Have you not considered that this is the result of a perspective shot from inside a sphere?
The earth is not a sphere.
-
Interesting, though. Have you not considered that this is the result of a perspective shot from inside a sphere?
The earth is not a sphere.
Brilliant rebuttal. You have my vote Mr. President.
-
Why has no one mentioned as to how people in Australia and other distorted countries on the map not have noticed the gigantic distances, I can complete a drive to Melbourne from Warrnambool (Australian Cities) in under three hours, on that map it would take a huge amount longer than that.
-
Why has no one mentioned as to how people in Australia and other distorted countries on the map not have noticed the gigantic distances, I can complete a drive to Melbourne from Warrnambool (Australian Cities) in under three hours, on that map it would take a huge amount longer than that.
Because you don't know how to read the scale on maps?
-
yea sorry I am drunk :-[
-
yea sorry I am drunk :-[
Its ok. Admitting you are wrong is a feat that takes over a 1000 posts for most RErs. You have done well. Enjoy your drink.
-
Interesting, though. Have you not considered that this is the result of a perspective shot from inside a sphere?
The earth is not a sphere.
Tom, can you please answer this question.
-
My mistake that sentance should have said "....it fails harder than Tsunami does at plotting the south pole base on a FE map"
Here is your citation: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49767.80
Please reference reply #85, the read the rest of the thread where you get destroyed over your placement of it and you argue that you cant provide the maths you used becaused it involved fractions.
Does that mean we can eat his delicious looking chicken now?
His chicken is epic, it would go great with your moonshrimp.
-
Interesting, though. Have you not considered that this is the result of a perspective shot from inside a sphere?
The earth is not a sphere.
You just held that straw man right up for everyone to see, didn't you. I'm not talking about the earth, but about the sky.
Check out those last three words in the quote. "inside a sphere." How can you think I'm talking about the earth? I've never advocated hollow earth theory, and the post I was responding to was clearly about how stars move in the sky.
-
Why has no one mentioned as to how people in Australia and other distorted countries on the map not have noticed the gigantic distances, I can complete a drive to Melbourne from Warrnambool (Australian Cities) in under three hours, on that map it would take a huge amount longer than that.
Because you don't know how to read the scale on maps?
When has an FE'er ever provided a scale for one of their FE maps?
-
Why has no one mentioned as to how people in Australia and other distorted countries on the map not have noticed the gigantic distances, I can complete a drive to Melbourne from Warrnambool (Australian Cities) in under three hours, on that map it would take a huge amount longer than that.
Because you don't know how to read the scale on maps?
When has an FE'er ever provided a scale for one of their FE maps?
Please link a post where you have ever asked for a scale. O0
-
To Thork: instead of arguing ad lib, just provide us with a map!
-
Why has no one mentioned as to how people in Australia and other distorted countries on the map not have noticed the gigantic distances, I can complete a drive to Melbourne from Warrnambool (Australian Cities) in under three hours, on that map it would take a huge amount longer than that.
Because you don't know how to read the scale on maps?
When has an FE'er ever provided a scale for one of their FE maps?
Please link a post where you have ever asked for a scale. O0
Are you suggesting that a map can be accurate without a scale?
-
Does the scale even matter when the relative distances between known points on the map are just plain wrong?
-
I've posted this before, but these questions about the Southern Hemisphere keep coming up. There is an alternative FET map which addresses some concerns about the South Celestial Pole and travel times.
(http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3735/trueearthpu3.png)
In the above model there are two spinning celestial systems suspended over the earth. One is centered over the North Pole and the other is centered over Antarctica. When observers on South America, Africa, or Australia look Southwards they will see the Southern Celestial System.
The magnetic field lines blossom outwards from the North Pole as well as the South Pole. Imagine that the distorted longitude lines on the above map are magnetic field lines which the compass aligns with. In the North the compass will align with the field lines and take the user around the North Pole while traveling Eastwards or Westwards. Likewise, in the South the compass will align with the field lines and take the user around the South Pole while traveling Eastwards or Westwards.
There is still an Ice Wall in this model, but is it not Antarctica. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters surrounding the earth will naturally freeze.
The map I have provided for the past five years here (the one shown above), is finally being recognized.
However, it is completely and absolutely incompatible with the data provided by the FES in official faq.
It cannot be defended, with a 32 mile diameter Sun, or with a 3000 mile distance Earth-Sun.
It is very important for the FE to understand that the flat earth theory can and should be presented without resorting to Samuel Rowbotham's Earth is not a Globe (exactly what I have done in my alternative faq). Earth is not a Globe is an important historical reference, but we have at our disposal modern arguments/proofs which can explain the theory much better. S. Rowbotham did make several important omissions/mistakes in his presentation, which now hurt badly the facts offerred in the official faq.
Since the honorable FE does trust my arguments somewhat (the map used here), it should also take into consideration the other facts presented in my alternative flat earth theory, mainly the aether/ether theory.
The ring laser gyroscope argument used by the RE cannot be dealt with/answered in the context of the catastrophic UA acceleration/infinite earth hypotheses; only by using the aether/ether proofs, we can correctly describe the phenomenon.
-
This map is still completely wrong with distances, though.
-
This map is still completely wrong with distances, though.
I don't know. The distances on this map look better than the other maps I have seen. However, the biggest discrepency that I see on this map is the distance across, or lack of, the Pacific ocean. It does, however, make a lot of the other southern hemisphere problems less obvious.
One question, though. Where is the ice wall on this map? I thought this was one of the most important parts of the FET. Otherwise, the water would run over the edge.
-
This map is still completely wrong with distances, though.
We have amply dealt with all the necessary distances and arguments with this map, the corrrect one , many times before. Please read through my messages, and you will find it is so...the RE used any and all points they could think of, and still I was able to prevail...but, it cannot be used with the 32 mile diameter Sun, or with a 3000 mile distance from Earth to the Sun...
THERE IS NO ICE WALL, NO SUCH THING. The FE should give up this bullshit argument, as it does hurt badly the official theory.
We have the Schumann cavity, the aether discovered by Airy in his famous experiment...
-
Distances are wrong, some cointries are distorted (ie Australia), transpacific travel doen't work, what are the islands below Antarctica, etc, etc.
Your map doen't work.
-
This map is still completely wrong with distances, though.
We have amply dealt with all the necessary distances and arguments with this map, the corrrect one , many times before. Please read through my messages, and you will find it is so...the RE used any and all points they could think of, and still I was able to prevail...but, it cannot be used with the 32 mile diameter Sun, or with a 3000 mile distance from Earth to the Sun...
THERE IS NO ICE WALL, NO SUCH THING. The FE should give up this bullshit argument, as it does hurt badly the official theory.
We have the Schumann cavity, the aether discovered by Airy in his famous experiment...
I agree with you about the 32 mile sun. I still do not see how any size sun at any distance could light only half of the disk, though.
If there is no ice wall, then something would have to prevent the water from running over the edge of the disk. Do you think it could be the winds (aether or other winds) blowing past that accomplishes this?
-
What evidence do you have of this ridiculous theory? There are many extremely advanced cities close to the equator, which have professionals in many fields, including surveyors and astronomers.
(http://www.eco-business.com/wp-content/uploads/photologue/photos/singapore.jpg)
Singapore
(http://administracion.uniandes.edu.co/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/bogota/101168-1-esl-CO/bogota.jpg)
Bogota
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jidi3Z2Kdlk/S9sG6byeQ6I/AAAAAAAAAro/_Mymu_uNTxY/s320/jakarta-at-night.jpg)
Jakarta
I especially like the one of Jakarta, you can see the early cave paintings, the dwellers have written in their own feces
All with perfectly flat horizons. Ah, the irony.
Tell ya what. If you can resolve the light difference in norther parts of Russia, where the day is actually extended beyond midnight, keeping a dim bright light through out most of the Russian night, I'll give you the chance to prove you're not a complete Twat Pie.
I thank you.
-
This map is decent but it got few problems, one of which is that Australia is way too big. I like the fact that you can travel south of Antarctica though. That will explain Admiral Byrd's findings. Never the less Levee is correct, there is no ice wall. Infinite earth model is the only model that can work for flat earth theory. I was thinking for a long time about the geography of the new earth that the Lord God will create soon, but I have given up on this idea cause no one really knows such details. One thing this is for certain; The infinite earth is what's coming, no other model will work. What is my reasoning? Spheres represent limitations and lacking, infinite earth represents no limits and no shortages of anything.
One more thing about the map posted above: On this map if you are on the north pole, the only way to reach Antarctica is by traveling south through Atlantic side, If you choose to travel south via Pacific from the North Pole you won't get to Antarctica and clearly its not the case.
-
The speed of the sun is also variable in this map. Do a plot and work it out.
-
Infinite Earth Order?
Sorry, but this world is very finite.
If any plane flies directly "south" over the Antarctic land towards the so called geographic "south pole", they would all find the laws of physics no longer apply.
Their gas would no longer "catch fire", and the engines would collapse, along with the plane itself.
This world is very finite. But it's suspended by etherial waves, in the shape of a cylinder.
It's upper and lower "anchors" that are above and below this Earth's surface, are actually within the undergrounds of Real Material Worlds.
So this world is just an etherial projection of a flat world, suspended between two actualy physical flat worlds, that are much larger than any mind can comprehend, compared to the small land masses supposedly existing here.
I do have one question to you people then. IS there a chance of a Secret Continent, existing? Like in a large ocean, like the Pacific, or even Indian?
I have always wondered about that ....
-
Your theory is very confusing silver. I need you to explain your theory a little better. Are you saying that our world is round of flat? And what do you mean suspended between two large flat worlds? Are we a sphere and flat plain at the same time? I don't get it. I personally speculated that beyond north and south poles there is more land, may be some other dimension. You did make an interesting point that beyond the poles laws of physics change and planes would crash. Admiral Byrd reported instruments failure in his expedition beyond the poles, he was however assisted by UFO's into safe landing. People say its hollow earth but I never bough into this theory at all.
As far as secret continents go, I don't believe they exist now, however Atlantis and Lemuria did exist before.
-
Apparently creating a map for the Flat Earth Theory consists of blatantly copying a RET map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_azimuthal_equal-area_projection) and making up a Flat Earth story to go with it. Your story doesn't need to be internally consistent because you can say it's "just visualizing the general idea"*, and you don't need to explain why anything occurs according to your story because you can just say it's one of "the many mysteries of the heavens"*.
*both from Tom's second post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1216835#msg1216835)
Using this process, I propose this additional alternative FET map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Goode_homolosine_projection_SW.jpg).
In the above model, there are six spinning Celestial Systems, two in the North and four in the South. The magnetic field lines curve along the peninsulas so that a person following a compass north will gradually turn to the south and vice versa. If the resulting paths appear incorrect, that's okay -- this map is just visualizing the general idea.
There are four Antarctic Islands, which is why "Antarctica" can supposedly be reached and circumnavigated south of both South America and Australia. There is still an Ice Wall in this model, but it is not any of the Antarctic Islands. It's still encircling the disc beyond the rays of the sun. The four gaps in the map aren't edges; they represent areas of the ocean with extraordinarily strong currents. The reasons for these currents and their odd shapes are unknown and can be included amongst the many mysteries of the heavens.
This (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Flammarion.jpg/400px-Flammarion.jpg) remains the only "map" the FES has ever produced that is not inherently based upon spherical geometry.
-
Come on, cut them some slack. Do you have any idea how hard it is to map a flat geography on a flat plane?
-
Come on, cut them some slack. Do you have any idea how hard it is to map a flat geography on a flat plane?
That's a great point. They can, however, measure the distance from the Equator to the NP, as Tom does in his inane calculation of the distance to the Sun. One has to wonder what determines what they can and cannot do. Is it just convenience?
-
Come on, cut them some slack. Do you have any idea how hard it is to map a flat geography on a flat plane?
Can't re-size from 1:1 scale remember? 'Bendy scaling' screws it all up.