The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: LolaTheRabbit on June 05, 2012, 10:21:35 PM
-
The time it takes to go from Perth, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa is about 11 hours, 15 minutes according to this tourism website: http://www.sa-venues.com/travel-times.htm
That is 5173 miles.
(http://www.sa-venues.com/maps/images/worldflites.gif)
Using The US as a scale for the FE map, I have calculated the approximate FE distance from Perth to Johannesburg to be 11100 Miles:
(http://i.imgur.com/s1hT0.png)
Using the same airplane going the same speed would take about 24 hours to go from perth to johannesburg on a FE. But it doesn't, because the earth is a sphere. How does the FET explain this?
-
Lola, if there is one thing I have learned from reading the useless banter FE proponents put forth it is that anything and everything that can disprove FE is magically disproven by FE.
It should be in their FAQ like this...
Q: How can someone disprove FE?
A: you cannot, anything that disproves FE is disproven by FE and regarded as a part of either a conspiracy to fool the masses, a hoax, or simply impossible to do on our flat Earth. All evidence provided against FE will prohibit a swift change to our ideas to cover the sudden evidence and shall label that evidence as a hoax or not realistic with current FE physics. Anything sad about one map of FE will warrant a swift creation of a new map to cover the flaws in the old (no cartographers necessary).
-
Lola, if there is one thing I have learned from reading the useless banter FE proponents put forth it is that anything and everything that can disprove FE is magically disproven by FE.
It seems that way! ::)
I would like to know how this is justified by the FE'ers.
Also, the flight times above the equator have the same distance/time ratio as below the equator. (ie The flight from Washington D.C. to London, England is 3687.6 miles and takes 7 hr. 39 min .... The Flight from RE Perth to Johannesburg is 5173 miles and takes 11 hr. 15min.) So they aren't lying about the distance from Perth to Johannesburg.
-
Have you ever been on an international flight? They're always a lot longer than the carrier estimates, for the obvious reason you just pointed out. The conspiracy has handed out globe earths left and right, aircraft companies never had any reason to disregard them and automatically adds time to account for this discrepancy. It is usually attributed to minute things like air currents. Who would actually claim it is because the distances are incorrect? They would be called crazy and made fun of, much like the people of this forum. After all, how can you not make fun of them when you were conditioned from birth to laugh at the very thought of the earth not being round?
-
Have you ever been on an international flight? They're always a lot longer than the carrier estimates
Do you have documented proof that an intercontinental flight has never arrived on time?
On a FE they would arrive double the estimated time. Like the Perth to S. Africa would take 24 hrs.
Plus, on the Perth to S. Africa flight you don't pass over India, like on the FE map, just saying.
-
Flight times. My favorite. In the "northern hemisphere" they prove a flat-earth and in the "southern hemisphere" they disprove a flat-earth... or so they say. I believe that the closer you are the the rim, and the higher you are in the air, the the more and more you are effected by what I call associative time dilation. To you, it seems like you are on an eight hour flight, and to the observers on the ground, you are on an eight hour flight. But in actuality, time for you is moving much faster than people on the ground. Once you descend, your time-frame aligns with the terrestrial observers and neither is the wiser. Both parties feel like eight hours have passed, but the proximity to the rim of the earth and the height you are flying at, where the atmolayer's protection is the weakest, cause your time to move faster.
I am currently formulating experiments to test this hypothesis.
-
the proximity to the rim of the earth and the height you are flying at, where the atmolayer's protection is the weakest, cause your time to move faster.
That doesn't explain why the actual distance traveled is significantly less than what is expected if using a FE map. Do people who live closer to the rim, like in southern chile, experience faster time?
-
Flight times. My favorite. In the "northern hemisphere" they prove a flat-earth and in the "southern hemisphere" they disprove a flat-earth... or so they say. I believe that the closer you are the the rim, and the higher you are in the air, the the more and more you are effected by what I call associative time dilation. To you, it seems like you are on an eight hour flight, and to the observers on the ground, you are on an eight hour flight. But in actuality, time for you is moving much faster than people on the ground. Once you descend, your time-frame aligns with the terrestrial observers and neither is the wiser. Both parties feel like eight hours have passed, but the proximity to the rim of the earth and the height you are flying at, where the atmolayer's protection is the weakest, cause your time to move faster.
I am currently formulating experiments to test this hypothesis.
Utter nonsense.
Why don't you interview pilots and they'll explain simple concepts that you seem to be unable to grasp.
-
I see that you two failed to understand the concept of height + proximity and perspective respectively.
-
The same thing can be applied to ships, who never leave the surface of the earth. thus never affected by this 'associative time dilation' that happens when you get high. No pun intended.
-
I would like to add to the vessel destination times you mention Lola. Most vessel do a great deal of things that would alter their time to destination. Everything from foul weather, unplanned course changes, currents, speed changes, and many more factors go into vessels times. I know on my boat when I am calculating time to turn or what have you it is just a number based off of our current speed/heading and can not account for the factors I listed above.
You can calculate the time for say San Fran to Mito, Japan is just need a speed and distance. Keep in mind to get very accurate you would need to factor in course changes and such since a straight set heading might not be possible, but it might I do not know.
-
I see that you two failed to understand the concept of height + proximity and perspective respectively.
Interview some pilots, work, read books about flight and you'll understand.
-
Have you ever been on an international flight? They're always a lot longer than the carrier estimates, for the obvious reason you just pointed out.
I have been in lots of international flights, and they are precise to within some 10 minutes. Since several years ago, when airliners were required to reserve a landing slot before taking off, the time of actual flight has been very consistent, even though the waiting time before departing is sometimes stretched to hours.
And your use of the word "always" is totally wrong or totally ill intended. If every single international flight South of the United States or Europe had a delay of hours, your babble would have some sense. But with just one flight that departs and lands on time your whole theory collapses.
And airlines usually have better than 90% on-time history.
-
Have you ever been on an international flight? They're always a lot longer than the carrier estimates, for the obvious reason you just pointed out.
I have been in lots of international flights, and they are precise to within some 10 minutes. Since several years ago, when airliners were required to reserve a landing slot before taking off, the time of actual flight has been very consistent, even though the waiting time before departing is sometimes stretched to hours.
And your use of the word "always" is totally wrong or totally ill intended. If every single international flight South of the United States or Europe had a delay of hours, your babble would have some sense. But with just one flight that departs and lands on time your whole theory collapses.
And airlines usually have better than 90% on-time history.
Please quote a source for that figure.
According to the Department of Transportation, 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 world-wide flights were delayed. Weather conditions, or a slight misunderstanding of the earth's shape?
-
Please put forth a source for flight times being misrepresented based on the shape of Earth, Tom.
If you ask for a source for a claim then claim something yourself without a source...what is the word im looking for here... hypocrite? yeah that is it.
-
You can attribute it to weather conditions if you'd like. I'm simply saying that flight delays are incredibly common. Have you never had your flight delayed at an international airport? You can be sitting there half a day waiting for your plane to arrive.
-
flight delays are common, but not to the extent that one would contribute it to the Earth not being round. generally I have seen most long flight delays as a direct result of foul weather. I can see that there is a snow storm in Anchorage so therefor my flight is delayed..pretty easy.
Does that prove anything, probably not. It does not show the shape of the Earth period so I guess flight delays cannot prove either.
-
Tom's answer is really a way of saying: I don't have a clue, but I so want to be right that I'm ready to say anything.
-
@lolatherabbit. Here is a problem just for you - just for fun. (Lola is new. Let her/him have this one, all you perma noobs.)
It is over 10,000 miles from Melborne to New York
http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/New+York,+NY/to/Melbourne,+Australia
(http://i49.tinypic.com/hry6ih.png)
Why do airlines tell you the flight is 5 hours and 2 mins there, and 6 hours 32 back?
Here you go. Link to airline data. (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/airsearch?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=JFK&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=MLB&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=06/06/12&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=06/08/12&search=Search&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=o_bb_car&gcid=2639-OGMLB>kw=DNJFK&lpid=plair)
10,000 miles in 5 hours is a speed of 2000 miles per hour! :o Three times the speed of sound. Faster than Concorde!
So how much attention should I give to flight times?
-
@lolatherabbit. Here is a problem just for you - just for fun. (Lola is new. Let her/him have this one, all you perma noobs.)
It is over 10,000 miles from Melborne to New York
http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/New+York,+NY/to/Melbourne,+Australia
(http://i49.tinypic.com/hry6ih.png)
Why do airlines tell you the flight is 5 hours and 2 mins there, and 6 hours 32 back?
Here you go. Link to airline data. (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/airsearch?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=JFK&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=MLB&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=06/06/12&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=06/08/12&search=Search&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=o_bb_car&gcid=2639-OGMLB>kw=DNJFK&lpid=plair)
10,000 miles in 5 hours is a speed of 2000 miles per hour! :o Three times the speed of sound. Faster than Concorde!
So how much attention should I give to flight times?
Think again.
-
@lolatherabbit. Here is a problem just for you - just for fun. (Lola is new. Let her/him have this one, all you perma noobs.)
It is over 10,000 miles from Melborne to New York
http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/New+York,+NY/to/Melbourne,+Australia
(http://i49.tinypic.com/hry6ih.png)
Why do airlines tell you the flight is 5 hours and 2 mins there, and 6 hours 32 back?
Here you go. Link to airline data. (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/airsearch?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=JFK&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=MLB&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=06/06/12&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=06/08/12&search=Search&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=o_bb_car&gcid=2639-OGMLB>kw=DNJFK&lpid=plair)
10,000 miles in 5 hours is a speed of 2000 miles per hour! :o Three times the speed of sound. Faster than Concorde!
So how much attention should I give to flight times?
Think again.
Your user Id isn't lolatherabbit. Go away.
-
@lolatherabbit. Here is a problem just for you - just for fun. (Lola is new. Let her/him have this one, all you perma noobs.)
It is over 10,000 miles from Melborne to New York
http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/New+York,+NY/to/Melbourne,+Australia
(http://i49.tinypic.com/hry6ih.png)
Why do airlines tell you the flight is 5 hours and 2 mins there, and 6 hours 32 back?
Here you go. Link to airline data. (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/airsearch?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=JFK&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=MLB&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=06/06/12&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=06/08/12&search=Search&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=o_bb_car&gcid=2639-OGMLB>kw=DNJFK&lpid=plair)
10,000 miles in 5 hours is a speed of 2000 miles per hour! :o Three times the speed of sound. Faster than Concorde!
So how much attention should I give to flight times?
Think again.
Your user Id isn't lolatherabbit. Go away.
Look again at the link and think. You can do it.
-
I reiterate. Go away. This isn't a problem meant for some dumb ass who is still arguing the earth is round 1700 posts later. Let someone else solve the problems.
-
I reiterate. Go away. This isn't a problem meant for some dumb ass who is still arguing the earth is round 1700 posts later. Let someone else solve the problems.
Don't you think there's an error in the site?
-
@lolatherabbit. Here is a problem just for you - just for fun. (Lola is new. Let her/him have this one, all you perma noobs.)
It is over 10,000 miles from Melborne to New York
Why do airlines tell you the flight is 5 hours and 2 mins there, and 6 hours 32 back?
Here you go. Link to airline data. (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/airsearch?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=JFK&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=MLB&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=06/06/12&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=06/08/12&search=Search&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=o_bb_car&gcid=2639-OGMLB>kw=DNJFK&lpid=plair)
That is for a flight to Florida, not Australia. Another site I saw actually showed total flight time from NY to Australia (not including layover times) and they were around 21-24 hours depending on the airline.
-
@lolatherabbit. Here is a problem just for you - just for fun. (Lola is new. Let her/him have this one, all you perma noobs.)
It is over 10,000 miles from Melborne to New York
Why do airlines tell you the flight is 5 hours and 2 mins there, and 6 hours 32 back?
Here you go. Link to airline data. (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/airsearch?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=JFK&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=MLB&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=06/06/12&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=06/08/12&search=Search&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=o_bb_car&gcid=2639-OGMLB>kw=DNJFK&lpid=plair)
That is the stop time (I.E. your layover time, or how long you have to wait between flights). Look at the local depart and arrive times to determine total flight time. Also, another site I saw actually showed total flight time (not including layover times) and they were around 21-24 hours depending on the airline.
10,000 miles in 5 hours is a speed of 2000 miles per hour! :o Three times the speed of sound. Faster than Concorde!
So how much attention should I give to flight times?
I you help Thork too much, he won't make the effort and won't do any progress.
-
That is the stop time (I.E. your layover time, or how long you have to wait between flights). Look at the local depart and arrive times to determine total flight time. Also, another site I saw actually showed total flight time (not including layover times) and they were around 21-24 hours depending on the airline.
Sorry, no. Those are the flight times. Not layover times. Only with 2 stops does the time increase. The first one illustrates this. Take off is 6:55PM. Land is 11:57PM. 5 hours 2 mins later.
I reiterate. Go away. This isn't a problem meant for some dumb ass who is still arguing the earth is round 1700 posts later. Let someone else solve the problems.
Don't you think there's an error in the site?
What part of 'go away' are you struggling with? This site is for lots of users. Not just you.
-
Sorry, no. Those are the flight times. Not layover times. Only with 2 stops does the time increase. The first one illustrates this. Take off is 6:55PM. Land is 11:57PM. 5 hours 2 mins later.
Sorry, just looked again and you are correct. However, the destination was in Florida, USA, not Australia. Look again. I had to open the flight details to notice it.
-
That is the stop time (I.E. your layover time, or how long you have to wait between flights). Look at the local depart and arrive times to determine total flight time. Also, another site I saw actually showed total flight time (not including layover times) and they were around 21-24 hours depending on the airline.
Sorry, no. Those are the flight times. Not layover times. Only with 2 stops does the time increase. The first one illustrates this. Take off is 6:55PM. Land is 11:57PM. 5 hours 2 mins later.
I reiterate. Go away. This isn't a problem meant for some dumb ass who is still arguing the earth is round 1700 posts later. Let someone else solve the problems.
Don't you think there's an error in the site?
What part of 'go away' are you struggling with? This site is for lots of users. Not just you.
There doesn't seem to be any direct flight from JFK to Melbourne. May be you should do another search.
-
Ah, I really want to answer this! flight calculations might be different from marine navigation, but it is the same concept in travel time calculations! I will leave it to Lola though...
What does one stop mean? Is that a lay over? is that factored into the actual flight time? Do they give total time of actual travel?
you would need total time of actual air travel plus the exact distance to get the speed of the aircraft. After that you can use the distance and speed to figure out the time and include time zone changes and such. There seems to be a great deal of variables in air travel so I will look some up.
I will just leave it to Lola, give her a chance, but if there is no response today I will solve it in the morning .
-
@lolatherabbit. Here is a problem just for you - just for fun. (Lola is new. Let her/him have this one, all you perma noobs.)
It is over 10,000 miles from Melborne to New York
http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/New+York,+NY/to/Melbourne,+Australia
(http://i49.tinypic.com/hry6ih.png)
Why do airlines tell you the flight is 5 hours and 2 mins there, and 6 hours 32 back?
Here you go. Link to airline data. (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/airsearch?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=JFK&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=MLB&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=06/06/12&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=06/08/12&search=Search&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=o_bb_car&gcid=2639-OGMLB>kw=DNJFK&lpid=plair)
10,000 miles in 5 hours is a speed of 2000 miles per hour! :o Three times the speed of sound. Faster than Concorde!
So how much attention should I give to flight times?
According to travelmath, that first site you linked, it's 18 hours and 32 minutes using an average flight speed of 485.76 knots. Reversed, it says the same thing. Since your second link was totally wrong, I googled average flight times from Melbourne to New York. Results generally gave 25 hours, a perfectly acceptable deviance after factoring in weather conditions, aircraft/engine differences, and layover.
-
Have you ever been on an international flight? They're always a lot longer than the carrier estimates, for the obvious reason you just pointed out.
I have been in lots of international flights, and they are precise to within some 10 minutes. Since several years ago, when airliners were required to reserve a landing slot before taking off, the time of actual flight has been very consistent, even though the waiting time before departing is sometimes stretched to hours.
And your use of the word "always" is totally wrong or totally ill intended. If every single international flight South of the United States or Europe had a delay of hours, your babble would have some sense. But with just one flight that departs and lands on time your whole theory collapses.
And airlines usually have better than 90% on-time history.
Please quote a source for that figure.
According to the Department of Transportation, 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 world-wide flights were delayed. Weather conditions, or a slight misunderstanding of the earth's shape?
Wrong again Tom the on time rate is around 83% depending on what month you look at 84% for year to date
http://www.transtats.bts.gov/OT_Delay/ot_delaycause1.asp?pn=1&periodfrom=24145%20&periodto=24147
also listed are the causes
-
@lolatherabbit. Here is a problem just for you - just for fun. (Lola is new. Let her/him have this one, all you perma noobs.)
It is over 10,000 miles from Melborne to New York
http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/New+York,+NY/to/Melbourne,+Australia
(http://i49.tinypic.com/hry6ih.png)
Why do airlines tell you the flight is 5 hours and 2 mins there, and 6 hours 32 back?
Here you go. Link to airline data. (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/airsearch?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=JFK&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=MLB&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=06/06/12&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=06/08/12&search=Search&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=o_bb_car&gcid=2639-OGMLB>kw=DNJFK&lpid=plair)
10,000 miles in 5 hours is a speed of 2000 miles per hour! :o Three times the speed of sound. Faster than Concorde!
So how much attention should I give to flight times?
Sorry, I couldn't find anything showing the flight being 6 hrs. I did find this, http://au.edreams.com/engine/ItinerarySearch/search?searchMainProductTypeName=FLIGHT&tripTypeName=ROUND_TRIP&departureLocation=MEL&arrivalLocation=NYC&numAdults=1&numChilds=0&numInfants=0&departureTime=0000&returnTime=0000&departureDate=07/08/2012&returnDate=17/08/2012&utm_source=airfares-AU&utm_medium=metasearch&utm_campaign=airfares-AU-metasearch-MEL-JFK&utm_content=null&mktportal=defaultMetasearch&buyPath=31
The time going from NY back tho australia is probably 'longer' because australia a day ahead. Time zones.
Anyways you could use any means of transportation to get from S. Africa to Australia, That is not the point. All I am saying is that The FE map shows that two places are 11100 miles apart, when really theyre only about 5000miles
-
@lolatherabbit. Here is a problem just for you - just for fun. (Lola is new. Let her/him have this one, all you perma noobs.)
It is over 10,000 miles from Melborne to New York
http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/New+York,+NY/to/Melbourne,+Australia
(http://i49.tinypic.com/hry6ih.png)
Why do airlines tell you the flight is 5 hours and 2 mins there, and 6 hours 32 back?
Here you go. Link to airline data. (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/airsearch?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=JFK&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=MLB&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=06/06/12&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=06/08/12&search=Search&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=o_bb_car&gcid=2639-OGMLB>kw=DNJFK&lpid=plair)
10,000 miles in 5 hours is a speed of 2000 miles per hour! :o Three times the speed of sound. Faster than Concorde!
So how much attention should I give to flight times?
According to travelmath, that first site you linked, it's 18 hours and 32 minutes using an average flight speed of 485.76 knots. Reversed, it says the same thing. Since your second link was totally wrong, I googled average flight times from Melbourne to New York. Results generally gave 25 hours, a perfectly acceptable deviance after factoring in weather conditions, aircraft/engine differences, and layover.
I mistakenly used the max cruise speed for the 767. The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour. In other words, it would be longer than 18 hours.
-
Your time table of five hrs travel time from melborne is wrong because you entered melborne FL not Australia
-
Your time table of five hrs travel time from melborne is wrong because you entered melborne FL not Australia
Bravo Thork!
-
flight delays are common, but not to the extent that one would contribute it to the Earth not being round. generally I have seen most long flight delays as a direct result of foul weather. I can see that there is a snow storm in Anchorage so therefor my flight is delayed..pretty easy.
Does that prove anything, probably not. It does not show the shape of the Earth period so I guess flight delays cannot prove either.
The problem with Tom Bishop's argument is that for it to stand we would have to have a perfect 0% record of on-time flights for every single international or long range route in the Southern hemisphere that is not North-South.
Even if they get on time one single time they have to have flown at speeds of Mach 1.5 to 2, and maybe even faster, and a commercial airliner just cannot fly faster than Mach 0.95, no matter what you do to it.
The fact that most long range flights in the Southern Hemisphere get on time does not preclude a flat Earth, but it totally demolishes every flat Earth map in this forum. And the day Tom Bishop brings a map that has a reasonable distance between Australia and South America and Africa we will be able to demolish it also, maybe in less than 5 minutes.
-
Anyone who believes in a flat earth in 2012, heck even 1812 or 1612, is an idiot who dogmatically clings to a super-ultra-convoluted set of rationalizations and ret-cons that violate Occam's Razor a thousand times over by postulating worldwide conspiracies on a staggering level, so deep that we ought to signs of it everywhere, while providing absolutely no objectively verifiable evidence that has been peer-reviewed that could differentiate their magical scheme of things from the reality of a round earth.
Every possible version of a flat earth map fails, because well, you simply can't do a perfect projection of shape, distance, and continuity of a sphere onto a 2D image. If the earth were flat, we should have a perfect 2D map that has absolutely no troubles of projection at all, such as the Mercator projection, etc., but instead an image which perfectly preserves the features of the earth and is basically an exact miniature replica of the earth. Yet after hundreds or thousands of years of people traveling around the globe diligently making maps as accurately as they possibly can, not a single 2D map has been produced that has been perfectly shaped in all aspects. I wonder why that is..
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
What? It most certainly is. A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
What? It most certainly is.
Incorrect.
A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
Precisely.
-
1 nautical mile/hour/hour.....
-
OK. Where are the flight times?
Could brother Thork, in his infinite wisdom, provide us, earthlings, with some examples?
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
What? It most certainly is. A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
So you agree then that knots/hour is not a unit of speed?
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
What? It most certainly is. A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
So you agree then that knots/hour is not a unit of speed?
Could be a measure of acceleration.
-
Yes it could.
-
Ban the metric system!
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
What? It most certainly is. A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
So you agree then that knots/hour is not a unit of speed?
You are joking...right? If not I am going to be very angry and kill a kitten! >o<
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
What? It most certainly is. A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
So you agree then that knots/hour is not a unit of speed?
You are joking...right? If not I am going to be very angry and kill a kitten! >o<
In which Navy is knots/hour a unit of speed?
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
What? It most certainly is. A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
So you agree then that knots/hour is not a unit of speed?
You are joking...right? If not I am going to be very angry and kill a kitten! >o<
In which Navy is knots/hour a unit of speed?
Oh I don't know.. all of them? What do you think we use to measure our speed? how many wales we pass each hour? do you think we guess how fast we are going based on how many cigarets bos'n smokes on watch?
So tell me.. how do we measure speed on the water?
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
What? It most certainly is. A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
So you agree then that knots/hour is not a unit of speed?
You are joking...right? If not I am going to be very angry and kill a kitten! >o<
In which Navy is knots/hour a unit of speed?
Oh I don't know.. all of them? What do you think we use to measure our speed? how many wales we pass each hour? do you think we guess how fast we are going based on how many cigarets bos'n smokes on watch?
So tell me.. how do we measure speed on the water?
I thought you were in the Navy. And a Boatswains Mate, at that. Yet, I, having never been in the Navy, have to tell you how to measure speed on water? Please, tell me you are joking.
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
What? It most certainly is. A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
So you agree then that knots/hour is not a unit of speed?
You are joking...right? If not I am going to be very angry and kill a kitten! >o<
A knot is one nautical mile per hour. So knots per hour makes no sense in the context you are using it. The /hour is redundant because knots are a measure of speed. You need a /hour for miles because a mile is a measure of distance, but a knot is not a distance, its a unit of speed.
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
What? It most certainly is. A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
So you agree then that knots/hour is not a unit of speed?
You are joking...right? If not I am going to be very angry and kill a kitten! >o<
In which Navy is knots/hour a unit of speed?
Oh I don't know.. all of them? What do you think we use to measure our speed? how many wales we pass each hour? do you think we guess how fast we are going based on how many cigarets bos'n smokes on watch?
So tell me.. how do we measure speed on the water?
I'm currently in a car traveling 60 mph/hour. What is wrong with that statement, other than it not being metric?
-
A knot is equal to 1 nautical mile per hour.
Precisely.
Therefore, 1 knot/hour =
1 nautical mile/hour/hour.....
Which
Could be a measure of acceleration.
But
not a unit of speed.
So you agree then that knots/hour is not a unit of speed?
-
Ok now people, you have to remember I am not a college grad or anything like that. I really am confused when you keep saying that a knot is not how I measure the speed of my vessel. That is just wrong.
I can tell you right now that anytime the OOD/CONN or anyone higher up asks what speed we are making I tell them, for example, "25 knots, sir"
That is how we measure speed underway... I am not sure what you guys are talking about with the whole knots/hour thing. If I am making 5 knot then I can travel 5 nm in one hour... I am still making 5 knots.... that is my speed... and I then can travel 5 nm in one hour... I am still going 5 knots....
So one more time...
I am making 10 knots
I can travel 10 nm in one hour
My speed is still 10 knots...
-
So one more time...
I am making 10 knots
I can travel 10 nm in one hour
My speed is still 10 knots...
Yes, but not 10 knots/hour.
Let me know if you need more Naval terminology explained to you.
-
So one more time...
I am making 10 knots
I can travel 10 nm in one hour
My speed is still 10 knots...
Yes, but not 10 knots/hour.
Whoa whoa whoa there cowboy...
Are you saying 10knots/hour means that the person is not making way at 10 knots?
Ok ok whoa whoa! stop the presses I think I got it.
A knot is not how I measure distance it is speed. If you change it to 10nm/hour that would make more sense, as you could then get the speed of course as 10 knots. So yes, 10knots/hour does not make sense for speed. Sorry that tolk me a while really did not hit me till now.
-
So one more time...
I am making 10 knots
I can travel 10 nm in one hour
My speed is still 10 knots...
Yes, but not 10 knots/hour.
Whoa whoa whoa there cowboy...
Are you saying 10knots/hour means that the person is not making way at 10 knots?
Yes, now you have it.
-
So one more time...
I am making 10 knots
I can travel 10 nm in one hour
My speed is still 10 knots...
Yes, but not 10 knots/hour.
Let me know if you need more Naval terminology explained to you.
you know jack squat about naval terminology. :P
^ that was me making a joke by the way.
-
So one more time...
I am making 10 knots
I can travel 10 nm in one hour
My speed is still 10 knots...
Yes, but not 10 knots/hour.
Whoa whoa whoa there cowboy...
Are you saying 10knots/hour means that the person is not making way at 10 knots?
Yes, now you have it.
Well you have to remember that it wouldn't be called 10 knots/hour it would be considered 10nm/hour in realistic terms. If I told my bos'n we are going 10knots an hour he would slap me. I actually do not think anyone uses the term "an hour" after telling someone how fast we are going.
-
Don't worry, you will get the hang of flat earth physics. I have faith in you.
Well you have to remember that it wouldn't be called 10 knots/hour it would be considered 10nm/hour in realistic terms. If I told my bos'n we are going 10knots an hour he would slap me. I actually do not think anyone uses the term "an hour" after telling someone how fast we are going.
Incorrect. If you start at a dead stop and accelerated to exactly 10 knots in exactly 1 hour, it would be perfectly correct to say, "We are traveling at 10 knots with an acceleration of 10 knots/hour".
-
Don't worry, you will get the hang of flat earth physics. I have faith in you.
Well you have to remember that it wouldn't be called 10 knots/hour it would be considered 10nm/hour in realistic terms. If I told my bos'n we are going 10knots an hour he would slap me. I actually do not think anyone uses the term "an hour" after telling someone how fast we are going.
Incorrect. If you start at a dead stop and accelerated to exactly 10 knots in exactly 1 hour, it would be perfectly correct to say, "We are traveling at 10 knots with an acceleration of 10 knots/hour".
I understand that. you are right and I misunderstood the conversation so my bad. :-\
What does my speed in knots or acceleration have to do with flat Earth physics! ahhhhhh ???
-
So one more time...
I am making 10 knots
I can travel 10 nm in one hour
My speed is still 10 knots...
Yes, but not 10 knots/hour.
Whoa whoa whoa there cowboy...
Are you saying 10knots/hour means that the person is not making way at 10 knots?
Yes, now you have it.
Well you have to remember that it wouldn't be called 10 knots/hour it would be considered 10nm/hour in realistic terms. If I told my bos'n we are going 10knots an hour he would slap me. I actually do not think anyone uses the term "an hour" after telling someone how fast we are going.
Because the "per hour" part is automatically implied with the word "knot". Seriously, I can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid, although I recognize that it's most likely a little of both.
-
So one more time...
I am making 10 knots
I can travel 10 nm in one hour
My speed is still 10 knots...
Yes, but not 10 knots/hour.
Whoa whoa whoa there cowboy...
Are you saying 10knots/hour means that the person is not making way at 10 knots?
Yes, now you have it.
Well you have to remember that it wouldn't be called 10 knots/hour it would be considered 10nm/hour in realistic terms. If I told my bos'n we are going 10knots an hour he would slap me. I actually do not think anyone uses the term "an hour" after telling someone how fast we are going.
Because the "per hour" part is automatically implied with the word "knot". Seriously, I can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid, although I recognize that it's most likely a little of both.
no shit the per hour is a part of saying "we are going 10 knots" now please do not comment on something Jroa already corrected me on, while I agreed with his correction that he gave me. I agreed I misunderstood the conversation and made a mistake.
Thanks for your dumb clarification. Move along kid.
-
The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.
That is not a unit of speed.
You're right, that was a rather stupid mistake on my part. Apologies, but I do hope my message was clear.
I think I somehow confused knots and klicks in terms of what they measured. Extremely embarrassing, and I'm sorry.
-
Do we agree that the southern hemisphere on a FE map is completely erroneus?
-
Do we agree that the southern hemisphere on a FE map is completely erroneus?
Without a doubt.
-
I believe I've waited enough time for responses. ::)
Victory for RE.
-
I believe I've waited enough time for responses. ::)
Victory for RE.
Absolutely. When I first heard about this I did the same thing and checked flight times from the horses' mouths for flights corresponding near enough equal distant from the equator. I did Johannesburg to Perth for the Southern hemisphere and Cairo to Shanghai for the northern hemisphere. Now the Cairo flight is approx 500 km further above the equator than Johannesburg is below the equator, but Shanghai is further away from Cairo than Perth is from Johannesburg so it roughly evens out. Airlines were Egyptair and a South African one (forgot the name).
Here they are:
West to East
Cairo to Shanghai
Distance: 8125 km
Time difference: -6 hours
Depart: 23.40
Arrive: 15.20
Time for flight: 9.40
Johannesburg to Perth
Distance: 8303 km
Time difference: -6 hours
Depart:22.35
Arrive: 13.25
Time for flight: 9.50 hours
East to west
Shanghai to Cairo
Time difference: +6
Depart: 00.30
Arrive: 5.30
Time for flight: 11 hours
Perth to Johannesburg
Time difference: +6
Depart: 23.50
Arrive:5.20
Time for flight: 11.30 hours
The debate is over. There is no flat earth, at least for all practical purposes.
Now, let's dissolve these threads and change it into a new theory instead shall we? Or are we going to be extremely stubborn mules? I suspect the latter.
I was about to do the same for South and North America, but after the above there is no need to. The only way FE would now work is if you start completely rearranging the UN map which makes the FE unworkable.
Good luck boys. I know you'll need it. ;D
-
All this is evidence of is that the maps currently representing the geography of this earth-plane are innaccurate. This is not new, the maps are merely a representation of an idea.
-
All this is evidence of is that the maps currently representing the geography of this earth-plane are innaccurate. This is not new, the maps are merely a representation of an idea.
So The Flat Earth Society doesn't even have a map. Nice to know...
-
All this is evidence of is that the maps currently representing the geography of this earth-plane are innaccurate. This is not new, the maps are merely a representation of an idea.
So The Flat Earth Society doesn't even have a map. Nice to know...
Thousands of cartographers and not one published flat Earth map? Now that is strange...right? What would be the point to go through all the trouble of making mercatur projection charts if the Earth is actually already flat?
-
Take a space ship, and go to space, and LOOK AT THE EARTH. Fly around the earth. You all say "oh I can see that the Earth is flat because when I go outside it is, my eyes don't lie." I triple dog dare you to come back and tell me you saw a flat earth with your eyes that don't lie.
-
Take a space ship, and go to space, and LOOK AT THE EARTH. Fly around the earth. You all say "oh I can see that the Earth is flat because when I go outside it is, my eyes don't lie." I triple dog dare you to come back and tell me you saw a flat earth with your eyes that don't lie.
the FE fellas along with everyone els on this forum does not have the money or the resources to travel to space. So let's make a better point next time. I am all for proving to them the Earth is round, but making points like that really wont do a thing.
-
Take a space ship, and go to space, and LOOK AT THE EARTH.
Much easier said than done.
-
What are you guys talking about? I take spaceship rides every weekend!
-
What are you guys talking about? I take spaceship rides every weekend!
This is the strict moderation of flat earth debate at work here, folks.
-
What are you guys talking about? I take spaceship rides every weekend!
This is the strict moderation of flat earth debate at work here, folks.
I'm sorry, is the occasional sarcastic comment against the rules? It's not like it wasn't on-topic.
-
You know if the earth was truly flat, the map would be easy ::)
-
the "official" map of the "lit portion of the disc" is flawed.
I am working on a new map that would explain flight times.
This map also does not contain an "ice wall".
-
You know if the earth was truly flat, the map would be easy ::)
Of course it would be. After all, round-Earth-assuming cartographers got things right the first time, didn't they?
(http://images.steven-mcdonald.id.au/oldearthmap)
-
How would you know how right/not right that is, considering that the true flat earth has yet to be mapped in all its glory?
-
How would you know how right/not right that is, considering that the true flat earth has yet to be mapped in all its glory?
One does not need to know what a correct map would look like in order to determine that a given map is incorrect. For example, North America and Australia are now known to be nothing like the shapes depicted in that map.
-
How do you know they don't look like that, on a true map of the earth? It sounds like you're buying into globularist propaganda.
-
How would you know how right/not right that is, considering that the true flat earth has yet to be mapped in all its glory?
One does not need to know what a correct map would look like in order to determine that a given map is incorrect. For example, North America and Australia are now known to be nothing like the shapes depicted in that map.
According to that theory...Antarctica is now well known to exist to be nothing like the shapes depicted in FE model.
-
How would you know how right/not right that is, considering that the true flat earth has yet to be mapped in all its glory?
One does not need to know what a correct map would look like in order to determine that a given map is incorrect. For example, North America and Australia are now known to be nothing like the shapes depicted in that map.
your lack of intelligence when it comes to the area of charts is disgusting. You have no idea what you are talking about and you do not know the reasoning for past charts. You disgrace the very name of charts, please do not comment on anything chart related...ever.
-
How do you know they don't look like that, on a true map of the earth?
The residents of Seattle don't require gills to survive.
According to that theory...Antarctica is now well known to exist to be nothing like the shapes depicted in FE model.
That was not a theory, but a statement of fact. However, your post is both incorrect and irrelevant, so it hardly matters.
your lack of intelligence when it comes to the area of charts is disgusting. You have no idea what you are talking about and you do not know the reasoning for past charts. You disgrace the very name of charts, please do not comment on anything chart related...ever.
If you have something to contribute to the discussion, please do so. Otherwise, take your preaching and personal attacks elsewhere.
-
The residents of Seattle don't require gills to survive.
Obviously the entirety of North America isn't included on that map for reasons that are unknowable because you provided no background information on it. Don't be silly.
-
your lack of intelligence when it comes to the area of charts is disgusting. You have no idea what you are talking about and you do not know the reasoning for past charts. You disgrace the very name of charts, please do not comment on anything chart related...ever.
If you have something to contribute to the discussion, please do so. Otherwise, take your preaching and personal attacks elsewhere.
[/quote]
Make more intelligent posts regarding charts and I will hold my tongue. Until then, please do not attempt to claim that past charts depict the Earth as flat or round or anything for that matter. They are simply charts made by sailors, most likely quarter masters, that did their best at charting what they see and in no way reflect the shape of the Earth.
Present day we have cartographers that are able to use resources such as satellite imaging to create accurate mercator projection charts with wich we navigate by. The charts used present day are extremely more accurate then ones used in the past. All chart references of the past are irrelevant because of the huge error in the visual charting of oceans and coastal areas.
-
The residents of Seattle don't require gills to survive.
Do you have any evidence to support this?
-
Flight times. My favorite. In the "northern hemisphere" they prove a flat-earth and in the "southern hemisphere" they disprove a flat-earth... or so they say. I believe that the closer you are the the rim, and the higher you are in the air, the the more and more you are effected by what I call associative time dilation. To you, it seems like you are on an eight hour flight, and to the observers on the ground, you are on an eight hour flight. But in actuality, time for you is moving much faster than people on the ground. Once you descend, your time-frame aligns with the terrestrial observers and neither is the wiser. Both parties feel like eight hours have passed, but the proximity to the rim of the earth and the height you are flying at, where the atmolayer's protection is the weakest, cause your time to move faster.
I am currently formulating experiments to test this hypothesis.
You can waste your time experimenting if you want...but time dilation doesn't account for the fact that the plane will use almost twice as much fuel. My father works in airline planning and were this nearly doubled distance the case, it would be obvious to everyone because of the extra fuel and cost..
-
You can attribute it to weather conditions if you'd like. I'm simply saying that flight delays are incredibly common. Have you never had your flight delayed at an international airport? You can be sitting there half a day waiting for your plane to arrive.
Time isn't really the issue. If distances were off by as much as FE would suggest the gross underestimate of fuel need to make the trip would be extremely apparent to anyone with half a brain involved in flight planning.
-
Have you ever been on an international flight? They're always a lot longer than the carrier estimates, for the obvious reason you just pointed out.
I have been in lots of international flights, and they are precise to within some 10 minutes. Since several years ago, when airliners were required to reserve a landing slot before taking off, the time of actual flight has been very consistent, even though the waiting time before departing is sometimes stretched to hours.
And your use of the word "always" is totally wrong or totally ill intended. If every single international flight South of the United States or Europe had a delay of hours, your babble would have some sense. But with just one flight that departs and lands on time your whole theory collapses.
And airlines usually have better than 90% on-time history.
Please quote a source for that figure.
According to the Department of Transportation, 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/ (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 world-wide flights were delayed. Weather conditions, or a slight misunderstanding of the earth's shape?
It is not that 1 on 4 flights were delayed, just that 1 in 4 were not on time. This could mean early as well. I myself have been on international flights below the equator that arrived ahead of schedule.
And this 75% was for April 2011 only. It is quite possible that other months the on time rate was different, even 90%. What you would want to do, is find data for on-time rates across a wide range of years, not a single month. Then we could show that above the equator, flights on average arrive ahead of schedule, whereas below the equator, flights arrive too late.
This would help support FE. Sadly, the linked article does not.
-
It is not that 1 on 4 flights were delayed, just that 1 in 4 were not on time. This could mean early as well. I myself have been on international flights below the equator that arrived ahead of schedule.
And this 75% was for April 2011 only. It is quite possible that other months the on time rate was different, even 90%. What you would want to do, is find data for on-time rates across a wide range of years, not a single month. Then we could show that above the equator, flights on average arrive ahead of schedule, whereas below the equator, flights arrive too late.
This would help support FE. Sadly, the linked article does not.
You may also consider planes departing late. :) The arrival delay is the sum of the delays, not only the travel time one...
To be fair, you should also take a look at the return trip, assuming that the flight paths are identical (they are often different)
I've found a useful tool to gather informations :
http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByAirport.do (http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByAirport.do)
Please select "On-time performance ratings" item.
You can get ratios and more interesting, mean delay times. You should note for instance, for a LHR-JFK travel and the two last months, that the best result is worth 80%.
In fact the real interesting value should be the delay between crew-planned flight times and the actual ones. Unfortunately this is not a public information.
This raises another previously raised question: As the fuel is one of the most watched parameters on a plane,how such alleged discrepancies are unnoticed every day on every single flight?
-
Flight times. My favorite. In the "northern hemisphere" they prove a flat-earth and in the "southern hemisphere" they disprove a flat-earth... or so they say. I believe that the closer you are the the rim, and the higher you are in the air, the the more and more you are effected by what I call associative time dilation. To you, it seems like you are on an eight hour flight, and to the observers on the ground, you are on an eight hour flight. But in actuality, time for you is moving much faster than people on the ground. Once you descend, your time-frame aligns with the terrestrial observers and neither is the wiser. Both parties feel like eight hours have passed, but the proximity to the rim of the earth and the height you are flying at, where the atmolayer's protection is the weakest, cause your time to move faster.
I am currently formulating experiments to test this hypothesis.
You can waste your time experimenting if you want...but time dilation doesn't account for the fact that the plane will use almost twice as much fuel. My father works in airline planning and were this nearly doubled distance the case, it would be obvious to everyone because of the extra fuel and cost..
Not really, the prices come already with great inflation. Since each ticket costs a few hundred simoleans, multiply the price by 200 (number of people) and you get many thousands of dollars total.
The flight computers just automatically alter the speed, and the continents are warped in a lot of ways.
This explains everything.
-
Flight times. My favorite. In the "northern hemisphere" they prove a flat-earth and in the "southern hemisphere" they disprove a flat-earth... or so they say. I believe that the closer you are the the rim, and the higher you are in the air, the the more and more you are effected by what I call associative time dilation. To you, it seems like you are on an eight hour flight, and to the observers on the ground, you are on an eight hour flight. But in actuality, time for you is moving much faster than people on the ground. Once you descend, your time-frame aligns with the terrestrial observers and neither is the wiser. Both parties feel like eight hours have passed, but the proximity to the rim of the earth and the height you are flying at, where the atmolayer's protection is the weakest, cause your time to move faster.
I am currently formulating experiments to test this hypothesis.
You can waste your time experimenting if you want...but time dilation doesn't account for the fact that the plane will use almost twice as much fuel. My father works in airline planning and were this nearly doubled distance the case, it would be obvious to everyone because of the extra fuel and cost..
Not really, the prices come already with great inflation. Since each ticket costs a few hundred simoleans, multiply the price by 200 (number of people) and you get many thousands of dollars total.
The flight computers just automatically alter the speed, and the continents are warped in a lot of ways.
This explains everything.
Hehe, he is trying to be serious, and you are mocking him. It is cruel.