The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: sandmanMike on March 22, 2013, 07:37:31 AM
-
Just curious as to why space travel can not exist on FE?
-
The conspiracy (or at least the most credible one) states people truly believe the earth is round. That means if people went to space they would have realized it is flat and would have told everyone, since they aren't trying to hide anything about the shape, just that there is no space flight. Space flight may or may not be possible with this theory.
-
Ah, so there is no physical reason why space travel can not work. It's just believed it's not occurred.
-
Ah, so there is no physical reason why space travel can not work. It's just believed it's not occurred.
Given FE, and a universal accelerator, aether wind, whatever, I would suppose it is very dangerous is space anyways.
Also, the whole thing saying if we did go to space, we would have found the earth to be flat is bogus. It was admitted by many FErs that according to Electromagnetic Acceleration, the earth would appear to be round or curved if you were to go high enough.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54821.0.html#.UU1B8Rwp91l (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54821.0.html#.UU1B8Rwp91l)
Here is the thread. And here is a quote from one of their own.
If you believe in electromagnetic acceleration, you are in fact admitting that the earth appears to be curved. It's either bendy light, or the earth appears to be flat. You can't have them both because they're mutually exclusive positions.
Yes.
So, they admit that the earth looks curved (round). But they insert some unconfirmed dark energy that is makes light bend. A lot, I might add. Like, seriously, a ton of bendy light.
To recap, the smart FE people admit that the Earth looks round, but they want it to be flat. That's it folks. You can't debate anything in this situation.
-
Ah, so there is no physical reason why space travel can not work. It's just believed it's not occurred.
Opinions vary. Some say it's perfectly possible (and I'd be in favour of this), while others claim that sustained space travel is impossible.
Here are several threads from the past that should give you some understanding of the spectrum of views:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30274.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30274.0)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21857.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21857.0)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21620.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21620.0)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49604.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49604.0)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34448.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34448.0)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55590.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55590.0)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=57280.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=57280.0)
-
The horizon is curved at the edge of space because you are looking down at a circle, not because light bends.
-
The horizon is curved at the edge of space because you are looking down at a circle, not because light bends.
How do you explain the curvature in places that are not the edge of the sun's pool of light?
-
The horizon is curved at the edge of space because you are looking down at a circle, not because light bends.
How do you explain the curvature in places that are not the edge of the sun's pool of light?
Look at amateur edge-of-space photography for accurate pictures of the earth.
Example: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/ (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/)
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/09/thumb-660x495.jpg)
This could easily be the result of a high altitude camera looking down at a massive circle, and not necessarily a globe.
-
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/09/thumb-660x495.jpg)
This could easily be the result of a high altitude camera looking down at a massive circle, and not necessarily a globe.
No, it couldn't. If it were looking at a massive circle, then there would still be earth visible within the atmospheric glow as it fades to black.
-
The horizon is curved at the edge of space because you are looking down at a circle, not because light bends.
No, Tom. The majority of the "scientists" here on FE must use EA otherwise, it would always be daytime, everywhere. (granted, not full day, but it would never be dark anywhere)
Your explanation does not make sense in the least bit. EA, to me being just as valid as gravity, answers more questions than if light does not bend.
-
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/09/thumb-660x495.jpg)
This could easily be the result of a high altitude camera looking down at a massive circle, and not necessarily a globe.
No, it couldn't. If it were looking at a massive circle, then there would still be earth visible within the atmospheric glow as it fades to black.
You cannot see land features in the distance because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
The horizon is curved at the edge of space because you are looking down at a circle, not because light bends.
No, Tom. The majority of the "scientists" here on FE must use EA otherwise, it would always be daytime, everywhere. (granted, not full day, but it would never be dark anywhere)
Your explanation does not make sense in the least bit. EA, to me being just as valid as gravity, answers more questions than if light does not bend.
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent and the vanishing point is not an infinite distance away.
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun)
-
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/09/thumb-660x495.jpg)
This could easily be the result of a high altitude camera looking down at a massive circle, and not necessarily a globe.
No, it couldn't. If it were looking at a massive circle, then there would still be earth visible within the atmospheric glow as it fades to black.
The horizon does fade to black in that image.
He did not say the horizon does not fade to black.
-
Refresh.
-
Shouldn't this supposed globe have some kind of curve to it? To the eye is looks curved but my wifes lip stick that I stole to do the line with, shows a straight line, why is this?
(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/4590/earthline.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/earthline.jpg/)
-
Shouldn't this supposed globe have some kind of curve to it? To the eye is looks curved but my wifes lip stick that I stole to do the line with, shows a straight line, why is this?
(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/4590/earthline.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/earthline.jpg/)
The resolution is not very high, what is the distance between the center of the horizon in the picture and the line? What is the distance between the edges of the horizon in the picture and the line? Photographic evidence is not usually used on this website since it can be misleading.
-
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/09/thumb-660x495.jpg)
This could easily be the result of a high altitude camera looking down at a massive circle, and not necessarily a globe.
No, it couldn't. If it were looking at a massive circle, then there would still be earth visible within the atmospheric glow as it fades to black.
You cannot see land features in the distance because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Irrelevant. Since the camera is above the vast majority of the atmosphere, the transparency of the atmosphere should not be a limiting factor. Rather than an apparent horizon line with an atmospheric glow above it, perspective says that the atmosphere should recede at the same rate as the earth below it. This clearly does not happen in the photograph.
-
Personally I think space travel is possible. Moon trips? Possible, but never done.
-
So if all photographic and video evidence considered fake?
Does anyone know how effort it would take to create fakes of everything we have out there?
-
Irrelevant. Since the camera is above the vast majority of the atmosphere, the transparency of the atmosphere should not be a limiting factor. Rather than an apparent horizon line with an atmospheric glow above it, perspective says that the atmosphere should recede at the same rate as the earth below it. This clearly does not happen in the photograph.
At the edge of space the camera is still looking across thousands of miles of the atmosphere downwards towards the surface, and therefore looking through very thick amounts of atmosphere when looking at lands near the horizon line. This is why the features are indiscernible.
-
At the edge of space the camera is still looking across thousands of miles of the atmosphere downwards towards the surface, and therefore looking through very thick amounts of atmosphere when looking at lands near the horizon line. This is why the features are indiscernible.
So if you go far enough away then those edges would no longer be skewed by the horizon line correct?
-
At the edge of space the camera is still looking across thousands of miles of the atmosphere downwards towards the surface, and therefore looking through very thick amounts of atmosphere when looking at lands near the horizon line. This is why the features are indiscernible.
So if you go far enough away then those edges would no longer be skewed by the horizon line correct?
I don't understand your question.
-
When you say horizon line, you're referring to where the earth and sky meet and ground level correct?
As you increase in height, the area visible before the ground meets the sky increases, so if you increased your height enough you should be able to see the all the earth right?
-
When you say horizon line, you're referring to where the earth and sky meet and ground level correct?
As you increase in height, the area visible before the ground meets the sky increases, so if you increased your height enough you should be able to see the all the earth right?
Correct. If you increased your altitude you would be looking through less atmosphere when looking at distant lands.
-
Okay, that's all I was getting at. Was if we went high enough, we'd be able to see the entire earth, flat or round, with little to no atmopheric distortion.
-
Irrelevant. Since the camera is above the vast majority of the atmosphere, the transparency of the atmosphere should not be a limiting factor. Rather than an apparent horizon line with an atmospheric glow above it, perspective says that the atmosphere should recede at the same rate as the earth below it. This clearly does not happen in the photograph.
At the edge of space the camera is still looking across thousands of miles of the atmosphere downwards towards the surface, and therefore looking through very thick amounts of atmosphere when looking at lands near the horizon line. This is why the features are indiscernible.
Features don't need to be discernible. The atmosphere becomes translucent long before it becomes opaque. You should still be able to tell that there is earth in the translucent region. The photo shows no such translucent region.
-
Irrelevant. Since the camera is above the vast majority of the atmosphere, the transparency of the atmosphere should not be a limiting factor. Rather than an apparent horizon line with an atmospheric glow above it, perspective says that the atmosphere should recede at the same rate as the earth below it. This clearly does not happen in the photograph.
At the edge of space the camera is still looking across thousands of miles of the atmosphere downwards towards the surface, and therefore looking through very thick amounts of atmosphere when looking at lands near the horizon line. This is why the features are indiscernible.
Features don't need to be discernible. The atmosphere becomes translucent long before it becomes opaque. You should still be able to tell that there is earth in the translucent region. The photo shows no such translucent region.
In the photo you can see that the color of the lands is not consistent as they reach into the horizon. They become washed out by the atmosphere as they recede. This is a demonstration that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
-
Tom, I'm sure this has been addressed because it's a rather obvious question, but could you please let me know what you think of satellite photos of the antarctic? Take this composite for example:
http://mapas.owje.com/img/Mapa-de-la-Antartida-satelital-953.jpg (http://mapas.owje.com/img/Mapa-de-la-Antartida-satelital-953.jpg)
Do you believe that these photos are fraudulent?
-
Tom, I'm sure this has been addressed because it's a rather obvious question, but could you please let me know what you think of satellite photos of the antarctic? Take this composite for example:
http://mapas.owje.com/img/Mapa-de-la-Antartida-satelital-953.jpg (http://mapas.owje.com/img/Mapa-de-la-Antartida-satelital-953.jpg)
Do you believe that these photos are fraudulent?
That's not a single photo. It's a 3D model from World Wind.
http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/screenshots-bm.html (http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/screenshots-bm.html)
-
Tom, I'm sure this has been addressed because it's a rather obvious question, but could you please let me know what you think of satellite photos of the antarctic? Take this composite for example:
http://mapas.owje.com/img/Mapa-de-la-Antartida-satelital-953.jpg (http://mapas.owje.com/img/Mapa-de-la-Antartida-satelital-953.jpg)
Do you believe that these photos are fraudulent?
That's not a single photo. It's a 3D model from World Wind.
http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/screenshots-bm.html (http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/screenshots-bm.html)
Like I said, it's a composite image. I'm interested in how you think these images are put together. NASA claims they are from topological data and satellite imagery. For clarity sake that image probably wasn't the best example, so let's assume NASA published a photograph of the antarctic. Is it just completely made up, or is it stitched together from "edge of the earth" photos that NASA has access to?
-
In the photo you can see that the color of the lands is not consistent as they reach into the horizon. They become washed out by the atmosphere as they recede. This is a demonstration that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
The colors don't need to be consistent. If the earth is flat, then there will always be land under atmoplane. The atmoplane would recede and shrink into the horizon, not extend well above it.
-
Is it just completely made up, or is it stitched together from "edge of the earth" photos that NASA has access to?
I believe in the distinct continent model (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents), so I don't see the contradiction.
In the photo you can see that the color of the lands is not consistent as they reach into the horizon. They become washed out by the atmosphere as they recede. This is a demonstration that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
The colors don't need to be consistent. If the earth is flat, then there will always be land under atmoplane. The atmoplane would recede and shrink into the horizon, not extend well above it.
Please clarify your argument. We can clearly see the lands fading out into a blue fog. Any lands in the distance are hidden by atmosphere.
-
Is it just completely made up, or is it stitched together from "edge of the earth" photos that NASA has access to?
I believe in the distinct continent model (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents), so I don't see the contradiction.
Ah, cool. That's very interesting I hadn't seen that before. Do you have any links to sun movements that work with this model?
-
Is it just completely made up, or is it stitched together from "edge of the earth" photos that NASA has access to?
I believe in the distinct continent model (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents), so I don't see the contradiction.
Ah, cool. That's very interesting I hadn't seen that before. Do you have any links to sun movements that work with this model?
In the model there are two spinning celestial systems suspended over the earth. One is centered over the North Pole and the other is centered over the South Pole. When observers on South America, Africa, or Australia look Southwards towards the pole they will see the Southern Celestial System.
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, marking the switch between the warm and cold seasons. This gives long Northern Summers, short Northern Winters, and vice-versa in the South. This also explains the midnight sun in Antarctica.
-
This also explains the midnight sun in Antarctica.
I don't quite follow. The sun hovers above Antarctica during its summer?
-
Is it just completely made up, or is it stitched together from "edge of the earth" photos that NASA has access to?
I believe in the distinct continent model (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents), so I don't see the contradiction.
In the photo you can see that the color of the lands is not consistent as they reach into the horizon. They become washed out by the atmosphere as they recede. This is a demonstration that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
The colors don't need to be consistent. If the earth is flat, then there will always be land under atmoplane. The atmoplane would recede and shrink into the horizon, not extend well above it.
Please clarify your argument. We can clearly see the lands fading out into a blue fog. Any lands in the distance are hidden by atmosphere.
You still have not taken a crack at explaining how New Zealand is further from the Equator than Antarctica or Alaska further from the Equator than Baffin Island.
-
This also explains the midnight sun in Antarctica.
I don't quite follow. The sun hovers above Antarctica during its summer?
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun)
You still have not taken a crack at explaining how New Zealand is further from the Equator than Antarctica or Alaska further from the Equator than Baffin Island.
By whose measurements?
-
This also explains the midnight sun in Antarctica.
I don't quite follow. The sun hovers above Antarctica during its summer?
Yes.
Ok, so looking at the picture provided in the wiki (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Altmap.png), during northern hemisphere summer at high noon for Tasmania, the sun will be positioned roughly at the Arabian peninsula (I'm looking at the tropic of cancer position closest to the east coast of Australia). Similarly, at solar midnight during the southern winter, the sun would be positioned at the tropic of cancer farthest from Tasmania, south-west of Argentina.
Since these distances of the sun appear roughly equidistant from Tasmania, how can the sun be at an acute angle in the sky during mid-day of winter, but "below" the horizon for mid-night in summer? Is this to do with inaccuracy of the picture provided in the wiki?
-
I believe in the distinct continent model (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents), so I don't see the contradiction.
I'm curious: how accurate do you believe that map to be? Would you use it for navigation purposes?
-
This also explains the midnight sun in Antarctica.
I don't quite follow. The sun hovers above Antarctica during its summer?
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun)
You still have not taken a crack at explaining how New Zealand is further from the Equator than Antarctica or Alaska further from the Equator than Baffin Island.
By whose measurements?
Why don't we start with yours. How far are you claiming Auckland New Zealand is from the Equator?
-
This also explains the midnight sun in Antarctica.
I don't quite follow. The sun hovers above Antarctica during its summer?
Yes.
Ok, so looking at the picture provided in the wiki (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Altmap.png), during northern hemisphere summer at high noon for Tasmania, the sun will be positioned roughly at the Arabian peninsula (I'm looking at the tropic of cancer position closest to the east coast of Australia). Similarly, at solar midnight during the southern winter, the sun would be positioned at the tropic of cancer farthest from Tasmania, south-west of Argentina.
Since these distances of the sun appear roughly equidistant from Tasmania, how can the sun be at an acute angle in the sky during mid-day of winter, but "below" the horizon for mid-night in summer? Is this to do with inaccuracy of the picture provided in the wiki?
Tasmania is near the Antarctic circle. The sun is visible for 24 hours in the Antarctic circle's summertime. The perpetual daylight lasts for several months during the southern summer, depending on your latitude. If you are at the South Pole you will experience 6 months of perpetual daylight.
-
I believe in the distinct continent model (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents), so I don't see the contradiction.
I'm curious: how accurate do you believe that map to be? Would you use it for navigation purposes?
The map is not fully accurate, but more accurate than the traditional model. Yes, it is possible to use it for navigational purposes. The compass aligns with the magnetic field lines, which blossom outwards from the North and South Poles. In the Northern Hemisphere the North end of the compass will align with the field lines and anyone traveling Westwards will travel in a circle around the North Pole, since west is always at a right angle to North.
In the Southern hemisphere the field lines will align the South end of the compass towards the South Pole and anyone traveling Westwards will travel in a circle around the South Pole, since west is always at a right angle to South.
-
Why don't we start with yours. How far are you claiming Auckland New Zealand is from the Equator?
I never claimed to measure the distance between New Zealand to the Equator. Who measured it and what were the results?
-
Tasmania is near the Antarctic circle.
No, it isn't. Tasmania is more than 20 degrees of latitude north of the Antarctic circle.
-
Why don't we start with yours. How far are you claiming Auckland New Zealand is from the Equator?
I never claimed to measure the distance between New Zealand to the Equator. Who measured it and what were the results?
I am asking you to. You have a map, a map scale and a ruler? It's a Flat Earth so this should be simple. This map has to make some sort of prediction to be accurate so why not get the ball rolling!
-
I believe in the distinct continent model (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents), so I don't see the contradiction.
I'm curious: how accurate do you believe that map to be? Would you use it for navigation purposes?
The map is not fully accurate, but more accurate than the traditional model. Yes, it is possible to use it for navigational purposes. The compass aligns with the magnetic field lines, which blossom outwards from the North and South Poles. In the Northern Hemisphere the North end of the compass will align with the field lines and anyone traveling Westwards will travel in a circle around the North Pole, since west is always at a right angle to North.
In the Southern hemisphere the field lines will align the South end of the compass towards the South Pole and anyone traveling Westwards will travel in a circle around the South Pole, since west is always at a right angle to South.
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
-
Why don't we start with yours. How far are you claiming Auckland New Zealand is from the Equator?
I never claimed to measure the distance between New Zealand to the Equator. Who measured it and what were the results?
I am asking you to. You have a map, a map scale and a ruler? It's a Flat Earth so this should be simple. This map has to make some sort of prediction to be accurate so why not get the ball rolling!
How will using a ruler to measure the distance on a map tell me the true distance between New Zealand and the Equator?
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
-
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
You've answered a different question. Is navigation by that map more precise than navigation using the globe model?
-
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
Who verified the accuracy of that map? Also, if it's so accurate, why can't you use it to find the distance from Tasmania to the equator?
-
Tasmania is near the Antarctic circle. The sun is visible for 24 hours in the Antarctic circle's summertime. The perpetual daylight lasts for several months during the southern summer, depending on your latitude. If you are at the South Pole you will experience 6 months of perpetual daylight.
As Markjo already pointed out, Tasmania is thousands of kilometers from the antarctic circle, and the sun most definitely sets there in summer.
Additionally, the sun also most definitely rises in winter. Given the equidistance of the sun at night in summer and at mid-day in winter from the island of Tasmania using your model (or at least my understanding of it), how can you ratify the vastly different different observations (ie. in the former it's night time, and in the latter it's not).
I understand that the maps may be a draft, but this is not a difference of a few degrees due to a mapping discrepancy; it's literally the difference between night and day.
-
Google sure seems to think that the midnight sun is visible in Tasmania.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/63sscl.png)
-
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
You've answered a different question. Is navigation by that map more precise than navigation using the globe model?
You've stated that the map you've linked to is the most accurate we have to date. Please, answer this question: is navigation based on that map more precise, more accurate than navigation using the globe model?
-
Google sure seems to think that the midnight sun is visible in Tasmania.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/63sscl.png)
Google also thinks the world is round.
-
Google sure seems to think that the midnight sun is visible in Tasmania.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/63sscl.png)
Looked for the site and read it. May I suggest that the limited diligence of Anne Thornley-Brown in checking out geographical matters when writing that single sentence of that advertisement paper is no clear indication that the whole rest of web information on the midnight sun is wrong? Come on, man!
-
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
You've answered a different question. Is navigation by that map more precise than navigation using the globe model?
You've stated that the map you've linked to is the most accurate we have to date. Please, answer this question: is navigation based on that map more precise, more accurate than navigation using the globe model?
It's hard to say. There is no way to verify the globe model. You guys have presented no data and can name not one person who has measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator. It's a recurring theme around here.
Looked for the site and read it. May I suggest that the limited diligence of Anne Thornley-Brown in checking out geographical matters when writing that single sentence of that advertisement paper is no clear indication that the whole rest of web information on the midnight sun is wrong? Come on, man!
I've provided a source which says that the Midnight Sun is visible in Tasmania. What sources do you present that it is not visible?
-
Why don't we start with yours. How far are you claiming Auckland New Zealand is from the Equator?
I never claimed to measure the distance between New Zealand to the Equator. Who measured it and what were the results?
I am asking you to. You have a map, a map scale and a ruler? It's a Flat Earth so this should be simple. This map has to make some sort of prediction to be accurate so why not get the ball rolling!
How will using a ruler to measure the distance on a map tell me the true distance between New Zealand and the Equator?
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
I am asking you the distance per your map Tom. Pretty plainly. The 30 seconds it would take to do so has been far eclipsed by your evasion.
-
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
You've answered a different question. Is navigation by that map more precise than navigation using the globe model?
You've stated that the map you've linked to is the most accurate we have to date. Please, answer this question: is navigation based on that map more precise, more accurate than navigation using the globe model?
It's hard to say. There is no way to verify the globe model. You guys have presented no data and can name not one person who has measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator. It's a recurring theme around here.
Looked for the site and read it. May I suggest that the limited diligence of Anne Thornley-Brown in checking out geographical matters when writing that single sentence of that advertisement paper is no clear indication that the whole rest of web information on the midnight sun is wrong? Come on, man!
I've provided a source which says that the Midnight Sun is visible in Tasmania. What sources do you present that it is not visible?
https://www.google.com/ (https://www.google.com/) (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
-
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
You've answered a different question. Is navigation by that map more precise than navigation using the globe model?
You've stated that the map you've linked to is the most accurate we have to date. Please, answer this question: is navigation based on that map more precise, more accurate than navigation using the globe model?
It's hard to say. There is no way to verify the globe model. You guys have presented no data and can name not one person who has measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator. It's a recurring theme around here.
Looked for the site and read it. May I suggest that the limited diligence of Anne Thornley-Brown in checking out geographical matters when writing that single sentence of that advertisement paper is no clear indication that the whole rest of web information on the midnight sun is wrong? Come on, man!
I've provided a source which says that the Midnight Sun is visible in Tasmania. What sources do you present that it is not visible?
Using a slightly more reliable source, this page (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun#mw-mf-search) says the midnight sun occurs north of the arctic circle and south of the Antarctic circle. It then goes on to show a photo of the Antarctic circle and Tazmania is not south of it.
The distance between New Zealand and the Equator can be accurately measured using the system of latitudes and longitudes which has been an accurate and successful navigation tool for sailors and pilots to arrive at their destination for over a hundred years.
-
Google sure seems to think that the midnight sun is visible in Tasmania.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/63sscl.png)
That was an immature and derisive attempt at diverting attention from my question, and I think you know it. I am trying to understand your model within the constraints you have given me.
This would be a lot easier if you would make an effort not to be aloof and to state plainly what you are trying to say. First you said Tasmania was near the Antarctic circle, implying that you at least agreed it was not in the antarctic circle, hence presumably agreeing that the sun does set there in summer. If you wish to imply that latitudes north of the antarctic circle experience the midnight sun then please state this as part of your model. But be aware of the further implications that it raises.
For example, Tasmania is about 18 degrees north of the antarctic circle, which equates to about 2000km. If the sun does not set 18 degrees north of the antarctic circle in Summer, as in Tasmania, then does it also not set in summer at 18 degrees south of the arctic circle? The implication here would be that I and everyone living in Australia and Southern Argentina/Chile - and in the case of the northern arctic circle everyone north of Switzerland, the northern United States and Mongolia - are involved in some sort of cover up about when the sun sets and rises in our countries.
Surely this is not your implication. But if not, what are you saying? Please be succinct in your answer and have some respect when you provide citations. I have done you the courtesy of not providing patronizing citations for why the earth is round, and for you to copy a google search result snippet as evidence of anything is simply immature.
-
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
You've answered a different question. Is navigation by that map more precise than navigation using the globe model?
You've stated that the map you've linked to is the most accurate we have to date. Please, answer this question: is navigation based on that map more precise, more accurate than navigation using the globe model?
It's hard to say. There is no way to verify the globe model. You guys have presented no data and can name not one person who has measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator. It's a recurring theme around here.
I haven't said anything about New Zealand, the Equator, nor have I mentioned any distances.
You've stated that your map model is the most accurate we have. You've stated that it can be used for navigation. Globes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe) and map projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) based on globes are also used for navigation. I'll try this again:
Is navigation based on your map more accurate than navigation based on a globe or a map projection of a globe?
A) Yes, it is.
B) No, it isn't.
C) I don't know, because [...]
-
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
You've answered a different question. Is navigation by that map more precise than navigation using the globe model?
You've stated that the map you've linked to is the most accurate we have to date. Please, answer this question: is navigation based on that map more precise, more accurate than navigation using the globe model?
It's hard to say. There is no way to verify the globe model. You guys have presented no data and can name not one person who has measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator. It's a recurring theme around here.
I haven't said anything about New Zealand, the Equator, nor have I mentioned any distances.
You've stated that your map model is the most accurate we have. You've stated that it can be used for navigation. Globes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe) and map projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) based on globes are also used for navigation. I'll try this again:
Is navigation based on your map more accurate than navigation based on a globe or a map projection of a globe?
A) Yes, it is.
B) No, it isn't.
C) I don't know, because [...]
Quit C, start a poll!
-
Google sure seems to think that the midnight sun is visible in Tasmania.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/63sscl.png)
First of all, that isn't Google. She is a blogger for company that sets up corporate retreats. Secondly, she thinks that the midnight sun can be seen in Australia, so I wouldn't trust her with my vacation plans.
-
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
You've answered a different question. Is navigation by that map more precise than navigation using the globe model?
You've stated that the map you've linked to is the most accurate we have to date. Please, answer this question: is navigation based on that map more precise, more accurate than navigation using the globe model?
It's hard to say. There is no way to verify the globe model. You guys have presented no data and can name not one person who has measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator. It's a recurring theme around here.
I haven't said anything about New Zealand, the Equator, nor have I mentioned any distances.
You've stated that your map model is the most accurate we have. You've stated that it can be used for navigation. Globes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe) and map projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) based on globes are also used for navigation. I'll try this again:
Is navigation based on your map more accurate than navigation based on a globe or a map projection of a globe?
A) Yes, it is.
B) No, it isn't.
C) I don't know, because [...]
Quit C, start a poll!
Nah... I'd settle for an answer, from mr. Bishop, to that question. An answer that starts with Yes, No, or I don't know.
-
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
You've answered a different question. Is navigation by that map more precise than navigation using the globe model?
You've stated that the map you've linked to is the most accurate we have to date. Please, answer this question: is navigation based on that map more precise, more accurate than navigation using the globe model?
It's hard to say. There is no way to verify the globe model. You guys have presented no data and can name not one person who has measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator. It's a recurring theme around here.
I haven't said anything about New Zealand, the Equator, nor have I mentioned any distances.
You've stated that your map model is the most accurate we have. You've stated that it can be used for navigation. Globes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe) and map projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) based on globes are also used for navigation. I'll try this again:
Is navigation based on your map more accurate than navigation based on a globe or a map projection of a globe?
A) Yes, it is.
B) No, it isn't.
C) I don't know, because [...]
As I said, the distances on the globe are unverified. For example, no one here can seem to tell me who measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator.
If you guys can't tell me what the distance is how can I tell you which map is the most accurate?
-
Nah... I'd settle for an answer, from mr. Bishop, to that question. An answer that starts with Yes, No, or I don't know.
Provide me a source with all of the distance log data and I'll tell you which is the most accurate.
-
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
If you guys can't tell me what the distance is how can I tell you which map is the most accurate?
Thanks.
-
I don't see the relevance. Those quotes are talking about two different subjects.
-
I don't see the relevance. Those quotes are talking about two different subjects.
Of course you don't ;D
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
I haven't said anything about New Zealand, the Equator, nor have I mentioned any distances.
You've stated that your map model is the most accurate we have. You've stated that it can be used for navigation. Globes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe) and map projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) based on globes are also used for navigation. I'll try this again:
Is navigation based on your map more accurate than navigation based on a globe or a map projection of a globe?
A) Yes, it is.
B) No, it isn't.
C) I don't know, because [...]
As I said, the distances on the globe are unverified. For example, no one here can seem to tell me who measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator.
If you guys can't tell me what the distance is how can I tell you which map is the most accurate?
Bolding added for emphasis.
-
I don't see the relevance. Those quotes are talking about two different subjects.
Of course you don't ;D
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
I haven't said anything about New Zealand, the Equator, nor have I mentioned any distances.
You've stated that your map model is the most accurate we have. You've stated that it can be used for navigation. Globes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe) and map projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) based on globes are also used for navigation. I'll try this again:
Is navigation based on your map more accurate than navigation based on a globe or a map projection of a globe?
A) Yes, it is.
B) No, it isn't.
C) I don't know, because [...]
As I said, the distances on the globe are unverified. For example, no one here can seem to tell me who measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator.
If you guys can't tell me what the distance is how can I tell you which map is the most accurate?
Bolding added for emphasis.
I guess he meant the most accurate flat earth map we have. Could that be? We meaning FEs, not earthlings. Come on, why does nobody tell him the distance between New Zealand and the equator?
-
I don't see the relevance. Those quotes are talking about two different subjects.
Of course you don't ;D
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
I haven't said anything about New Zealand, the Equator, nor have I mentioned any distances.
You've stated that your map model is the most accurate we have. You've stated that it can be used for navigation. Globes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe) and map projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) based on globes are also used for navigation. I'll try this again:
Is navigation based on your map more accurate than navigation based on a globe or a map projection of a globe?
A) Yes, it is.
B) No, it isn't.
C) I don't know, because [...]
As I said, the distances on the globe are unverified. For example, no one here can seem to tell me who measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator.
If you guys can't tell me what the distance is how can I tell you which map is the most accurate?
Bolding added for emphasis.
Auckland lies at 36.85 degrees S. each degree is roughly 111kms. Auckland, New Zealand is approximately 4090.35 kms south of the Equator.
-
I don't see the relevance. Those quotes are talking about two different subjects.
Of course you don't ;D
So, for the sake of clarity on this, navigating by that map would be more precise than navigating using the globe model?
This map is the most accurate we have to date.
I haven't said anything about New Zealand, the Equator, nor have I mentioned any distances.
You've stated that your map model is the most accurate we have. You've stated that it can be used for navigation. Globes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe) and map projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) based on globes are also used for navigation. I'll try this again:
Is navigation based on your map more accurate than navigation based on a globe or a map projection of a globe?
A) Yes, it is.
B) No, it isn't.
C) I don't know, because [...]
As I said, the distances on the globe are unverified. For example, no one here can seem to tell me who measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator.
If you guys can't tell me what the distance is how can I tell you which map is the most accurate?
Bolding added for emphasis.
Auckland lies at 36.85 degrees S. each degree is roughly 111kms. Auckland, New Zealand is approximately 4090.35 kms south of the Equator.
Sorry, bad work! You didn't provide a source, if you would, you couldn't prove that its more reliable than Anne Thornley-Brown, you have no chance at all!! Tom Bishop wins again (maybe; I haven't yet grasped the full rules of the game)
-
Tom, I am disappointed in your attitude and the level of maturity you show in your responses. I've talked a lot of BS on this forum but at least my snake oil is clearly labeled as such.
Your attempted proof of the midnight sun in Tasmania was childlike, although I am not sure if it was an attempt at disproving my readily verifiable suggestion that Tasmania is significantly north of the antarctic circle or simply an attempt to derail the topic altogether. The quality of your responses have highlighted your derisive tactics and possibly fundamental flaws in your school of thought. Perhaps this is telling. I'll stop my inquiry with you and let it rest at that.
-
As I said, the distances on the globe are unverified. For example, no one here can seem to tell me who measured the distance between New Zealand and the equator.
If you guys can't tell me what the distance is how can I tell you which map is the most accurate?
Do you want to know something interesting about globes, Tom? If you know the latitude and longitude coordinates of various locations, you don't need to measure the distance between them because you can accurately calculate those distances. For example, North Cape, New Zealand is at a latitude of about 34 degrees south. At a rate of 60 nautical miles per degree, this means that North Cape should be about 2040 nautical miles south of the equator.
-
I did this just for fun. The thread seemed to not be going anywhere as it is.
The Sydney to Los Angeles airline route is quite well known. An aircraft departing from Sydney flies NE, S of New Caledonia, close to Fiji, N of Christmas Island (Line Islands), SE of Hawaii and on towards Los Angeles.
On a Mercator projection map, the flight path looks like this:
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/1184/sydneylaxmercator.jpg)
Nothing too interesting. That's how flight paths projected onto a flat map usually look.
On a globe, if you draw a straight line from Sydney to Los Angeles, you get this:
(http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/8775/sydneylaxglobe.jpg)
It's not very accurate to do it on a flat image of a round globe, but nevertheless the line pretty much follows the flight path described above.
I've tried plotting the same path on a distinct continent FE map. The most accurate map of Earth we have.
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3082/sydneylaxfe22.jpg)
I believe I've correctly located Fiji and Hawaii (two major island chains, easily found on any map of the Pacific). Christmas Island or Kiritimati, another point roughly around the route was more difficult to place on the map, the map being relatively low-res. However it should be somewhere in the left circle. It's (supposedly) a bit N of the equator, at 157 degrees W.
The funny thing is that the Gilbert Islands are located on the other side of the Earth, straddling the equator at (supposedly) 173 degrees E. Why is this funny? Because the Gilbert Islands and Kiritimati are both part of the Republic of Kiribati. Conventional geography indicates the two are supposed to be about 3000km apart. You'd imagine the Kiribatian government would notice their islands are actually on opposite sides of the Earth.
While I'm at it, here's another thing. Air Pacific operates flights from Honolulu to Kiritimati using Boeing 737 aircraft. They claim the distance is 2151km (http://www.gohuno.com/flights/Kiritimati-CXI/Honolulu-HNL.html) and the flight time is 2hrs 58mins. This fits rather nicely with a 737's maximum cruising speed of around 800km/h (it depends on variant). Just looking at the distinct continent FE map, the distance from Honolulu, Hawaii to Kiritimati should be much greater than the 2151km claim; it should be about the same distance as Los Angeles to Paris. A distance no 737 can can cover in 3 hours. But I digress.
Anyone is welcome to better plot the route aircraft take from Sydney to LAX, particularly if they have access to a higher res version of the map, with all Pacific Islands clearly marked. Still, I believe the gist of it won't change. These pilots and navigators flying the Sydney to LAX route must be morons. The airlines must be run by morons too. No pilot, no airline has noticed they're flying in a big loop around the edge of the Earth. No one has noticed that it's much shorter to fly from Sydney towards Africa, across the Atlantic, over North America and to Los Angeles. Despite using inertial navigation, radio beacons and other instruments which would show they're practically flying a half-circle.
Or they do know, but they choose to rip-off their passengers by overcharging them for the wasted fuel and time. And no one has ever spoken about this. Not even a laid off airline employee with a grudge against his former employer. This is big, someone should alert the media! ;D
-
lol
-
Auckland lies at 36.85 degrees S. each degree is roughly 111kms. Auckland, New Zealand is approximately 4090.35 kms south of the Equator.
Who measured that?
Tom, I am disappointed in your attitude and the level of maturity you show in your responses. I've talked a lot of BS on this forum but at least my snake oil is clearly labeled as such.
Your attempted proof of the midnight sun in Tasmania was childlike, although I am not sure if it was an attempt at disproving my readily verifiable suggestion that Tasmania is significantly north of the antarctic circle or simply an attempt to derail the topic altogether. The quality of your responses have highlighted your derisive tactics and possibly fundamental flaws in your school of thought. Perhaps this is telling. I'll stop my inquiry with you and let it rest at that.
You still have not presented evidence that Tasmania does not receive a Midnight Sun, or what exactly is seen from Tasmania during this time. Even if Tasmania is a bit outside of the zone where the Midnight sun appears, since it's relatively near the Antarcic circle it would still receive extremely long days during the Antarctic summer, perhaps receiving 22 hour days and 2 hours of darkness, and therefore seeing the sun most of the time in your scenario.
-
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3082/sydneylaxfe22.jpg)
I believe I've correctly located Fiji and Hawaii (two major island chains, easily found on any map of the Pacific). Christmas Island or Kiritimati, another point roughly around the route was more difficult to place on the map, the map being relatively low-res. However it should be somewhere in the left circle. It's (supposedly) a bit N of the equator, at 157 degrees W.
The funny thing is that the Gilbert Islands are located on the other side of the Earth, straddling the equator at (supposedly) 173 degrees E. Why is this funny? Because the Gilbert Islands and Kiritimati are both part of the Republic of Kiribati. Conventional geography indicates the two are supposed to be about 3000km apart. You'd imagine the Kiribatian government would notice their islands are actually on opposite sides of the Earth.
While I'm at it, here's another thing. Air Pacific operates flights from Honolulu to Kiritimati using Boeing 737 aircraft. They claim the distance is 2151km (http://www.gohuno.com/flights/Kiritimati-CXI/Honolulu-HNL.html) and the flight time is 2hrs 58mins. This fits rather nicely with a 737's maximum cruising speed of around 800km/h (it depends on variant). Just looking at the distinct continent FE map, the distance from Honolulu, Hawaii to Kiritimati should be much greater than the 2151km claim; it should be about the same distance as Los Angeles to Paris. A distance no 737 can can cover in 3 hours. But I digress.
Anyone is welcome to better plot the route aircraft take from Sydney to LAX, particularly if they have access to a higher res version of the map, with all Pacific Islands clearly marked. Still, I believe the gist of it won't change. These pilots and navigators flying the Sydney to LAX route must be morons. The airlines must be run by morons too. No pilot, no airline has noticed they're flying in a big loop around the edge of the Earth. No one has noticed that it's much shorter to fly from Sydney towards Africa, across the Atlantic, over North America and to Los Angeles. Despite using inertial navigation, radio beacons and other instruments which would show they're practically flying a half-circle.
Or they do know, but they choose to rip-off their passengers by overcharging them for the wasted fuel and time. And no one has ever spoken about this. Not even a laid off airline employee with a grudge against his former employer. This is big, someone should alert the media! ;D
Most of those long intercontinental flights don't take direct routes like that. They jump around from continent to continent making layovers, receiving and dropping off passengers along the way.
There are very few direct flights between those areas, and I wouldn't be surprised if the arrival time was always delayed.
-
Auckland lies at 36.85 degrees S. each degree is roughly 111kms. Auckland, New Zealand is approximately 4090.35 kms south of the Equator.
Who measured that?
Tom, I am disappointed in your attitude and the level of maturity you show in your responses. I've talked a lot of BS on this forum but at least my snake oil is clearly labeled as such.
Your attempted proof of the midnight sun in Tasmania was childlike, although I am not sure if it was an attempt at disproving my readily verifiable suggestion that Tasmania is significantly north of the antarctic circle or simply an attempt to derail the topic altogether. The quality of your responses have highlighted your derisive tactics and possibly fundamental flaws in your school of thought. Perhaps this is telling. I'll stop my inquiry with you and let it rest at that.
You still have not presented evidence that Tasmania does not receive a Midnight Sun, or what exactly is seen from Tasmania during this time. Even if Tasmania is a bit outside of the zone where the Midnight sun appears, since it's relatively near the Antarcic circle it would still receive extremely long days during the Antarctic summer, perhaps receiving 22 hour days and 2 hours of darkness, and therefore seeing the sun most of the time in your scenario.
Well the system of latitude and longitude in its current form is well over a hundred years old and covered by ISO 19111. Flights every day confirm the accuracy of this system by arriving at their locations. Any flight crossing the equator and landing in Auckland can confirm this.
I did provide evidence of Tasmania not receiving midnight sun. You are choosing to ignore it. I provided a link with annotations, describing how the midnight sun occurs south of the Antarctic Circle and north of the Arctic Circle. And Tasmania is in neither of those geographic positions.
-
Auckland lies at 36.85 degrees S. each degree is roughly 111kms. Auckland, New Zealand is approximately 4090.35 kms south of the Equator.
Who measured that?
Who measured what? Please be specific.
-
Well the system of latitude and longitude in its current form is well over a hundred years old and covered by ISO 19111. Flights every day confirm the accuracy of this system by arriving at their locations. Any flight crossing the equator and landing in Auckland can confirm this.
Please show us the flight logs to support your hypothesis that all flights everywhere show a globe earth model, and that some of these flights do not experience delays, as is familiar to anyone who has had to sleep in an airport terminal waiting for an international flight.
I did provide evidence of Tasmania not receiving midnight sun. You are choosing to ignore it. I provided a link with annotations, describing how the midnight sun occurs south of the Antarctic Circle and north of the Arctic Circle. And Tasmania is in neither of those geographic positions.
You did not provide evidence that Tasmania never sees the sun at midnight.
I believe the blog author is correct, and it is possible to see the sun at midnight in Tasmania. However, it may dip into the horizon for one or two hours before or after midnight, due to the inaccuracy of daylight saving time over time in relation to the position of the sun.
-
Auckland lies at 36.85 degrees S. each degree is roughly 111kms. Auckland, New Zealand is approximately 4090.35 kms south of the Equator.
Who measured that?
Who measured what? Please be specific.
I would suggest reading what was quoted. Who measured the round earth map distance between New Zealand and the equator?
-
Auckland lies at 36.85 degrees S. each degree is roughly 111kms. Auckland, New Zealand is approximately 4090.35 kms south of the Equator.
Who measured that?
Who measured what? Please be specific.
I would suggest reading what was quoted. Who measured the round earth map distance between New Zealand and the equator?
There were several figures in that quote. I wasn't sure if you were questioning the measurement of a degree of latitude, the latitude of Auckland or the distance between Auckland and the equator.
-
Well the system of latitude and longitude in its current form is well over a hundred years old and covered by ISO 19111. Flights every day confirm the accuracy of this system by arriving at their locations. Any flight crossing the equator and landing in Auckland can confirm this.
Please show us the flight logs to support your hypothesis that all flights everywhere show a globe earth model, and that some of these flights do not experience delays, as is familiar to anyone who has had to sleep in an airport terminal waiting for an international flight.
I did provide evidence of Tasmania not receiving midnight sun. You are choosing to ignore it. I provided a link with annotations, describing how the midnight sun occurs south of the Antarctic Circle and north of the Arctic Circle. And Tasmania is in neither of those geographic positions.
You did not provide evidence that Tasmania never sees the sun at midnight.
I believe the blog author is correct, and it is possible to see the sun at midnight in Tasmania. However, it may dip into the horizon for one or two hours before or after midnight, due to the inaccuracy of daylight saving time over time in relation to the position of the sun.
So you did not even read the blog?
"Unfortunately, there are no populated areas near the Antarctic circle where the sun is visible 24 hours a day"
She is suggesting Antarctic cruises to see the midnight sun in the Southern Hemisphere.
On your view every direct flight from LAX must experience substantial delays for your model to be accurate not some all. I will see about finding evidence of one on-time flight to render your hypothesis false.
-
So you did not even read the blog?
"Unfortunately, there are no populated areas near the Antarctic circle where the sun is visible 24 hours a day"
She is suggesting Antarctic cruises to see the midnight sun in the Southern Hemisphere.
How does that sentence imply that it's impossible to view the sun at midnight in Tasmania?
On your view every direct flight from LAX must experience substantial delays for your model to be accurate not some all. I will see about finding evidence of one on-time flight to render your hypothesis false.
There are very few direct flights. Please do some research.
-
For more entertainment value.
American Airlines Flight 7363:
- is a non-stop flight from Sydney to Los Angeles. It does not hop from here to there dropping off passengers.
- the straight line distance from Sydney Int. to LAX, calculated based on globe coordinates, is roughly 12,100km.
- the flight takes 13 hrs 40 mins
- the flight uses an Airbus A380, an aircraft with a maximum cruising speed of roughly 945 km/h.
The cruising speed, distance and flight time match up nicely. So they're not lying to us about the distance and they're not flying in a big loop. Damn. And I thought I was onto some big Airline Conspiracy. ;D
-
For more entertainment value.
American Airlines Flight 7363:
- is a non-stop flight from Sydney to Los Angeles. It does not hop from here to there dropping off passengers.
- the straight line distance from Sydney Int. to LAX, calculated based on globe coordinates, is roughly 12,100km.
- the flight takes 13 hrs 40 mins
- the flight uses an Airbus A380, an aircraft with a maximum cruising speed of roughly 945 km/h.
The cruising speed, distance and flight time match up nicely. So they're not lying to us about the distance and they're not flying in a big loop. Damn. And I thought I was onto some big Airline Conspiracy. ;D
Again, please show us the flight logs. An airline website advertisement is not a legitimate source. We need to see the actual delays experienced.
I know many people who have had to sleep overnight in an airport due to delayed flights.
-
For more entertainment value.
American Airlines Flight 7363:
- is a non-stop flight from Sydney to Los Angeles. It does not hop from here to there dropping off passengers.
- the straight line distance from Sydney Int. to LAX, calculated based on globe coordinates, is roughly 12,100km.
- the flight takes 13 hrs 40 mins
- the flight uses an Airbus A380, an aircraft with a maximum cruising speed of roughly 945 km/h.
The cruising speed, distance and flight time match up nicely. So they're not lying to us about the distance and they're not flying in a big loop. Damn. And I thought I was onto some big Airline Conspiracy. ;D
Again, please show us the flight logs. An airline website advertisement is not a legitimate source. We need to see the actual delays experienced.
I know many people who have had to sleep overnight in an airport due to delayed flights.
Chillax, Tom Bishop. I'm not arguing with you anymore. I decided it was pointless. So I just presented a few things, as I've said, for "funsies" ;D
Everyone can use their own brain to judge if those few things make any sense or not.
-
So you did not even read the blog?
"Unfortunately, there are no populated areas near the Antarctic circle where the sun is visible 24 hours a day"
She is suggesting Antarctic cruises to see the midnight sun in the Southern Hemisphere.
How does that sentence imply that it's impossible to view the sun at midnight in Tasmania?
Tasmania is a populated area.
On your view every direct flight from LAX must experience substantial delays for your model to be accurate not some all. I will see about finding evidence of one on-time flight to render your hypothesis false.
There are very few direct flights. Please do some research.
Air Canada flight AC2133 from Honolulu to Sydney direct left 15 minutes late and is scheduled to land 40 minutes late, making its aggregate flight length 25 minutes longer or 8hrs 20 minutes total. On a straight line route from Honolulu to Sydney on your map, which would cross North America and Europe, I would conservatively estimate it crosses 70% of the Earth's circumference (if you provide a scale for your map, I will happily provide a more accurate number), making this a 28,000km flight yielding an average velocity of approximately 3,300km/h.
I will update you with the landing time.
-
You still have not presented evidence that Tasmania does not receive a Midnight Sun
First of all, I shouldn't have to, because I, like the millions of others who live in Australia know that Australian states do not experience the midnight sun. This should be enough to place the onus on you in any reasonable conversation. Since this is not a reasonable conversation, here is a picture of the antarctic circle, drawn on a world map (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Antarctic_Circle?topic=49460). The antarctic circle is at 66 degrees south of the equator, and defines the point south of which a midnight sun is seen. If you are not familiar with this, here is the wikipedia article on the midnight sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun) it corroborates what I have just said. Tasmania is at Tasmania just over 40 degrees south of the equator (http://www.distancesfrom.com/au/tasmania-latitude-longitude-tasmania-latitude-tasmania-longitude/LatLongHistory/389166.aspx (http://www.distancesfrom.com/au/tasmania-latitude-longitude-tasmania-latitude-tasmania-longitude/LatLongHistory/389166.aspx)). Since 40 degrees is less than 66 degrees, we can state that Tasmania is outside the antarctic circle.
...or what exactly is seen from Tasmania during this time
The midnight sun can be see as far as 100km north of the antarctic circle. Tasmania is 2000km north of the antarctic circle. The sun sets there in summer. Here is a photo of Tasmania (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paparwin/8293362547/#), at night, during the summer solstice. Here is a video of a Tasmanian sunset during the summer solstice (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronjrs/8297904937/#secretc9ee20d248), clearly showing a descent of the sun at an angle of about 20-something degrees, as would be expected of a location 20-something degrees north of the antarctic circle during the southern summer solstice.
Even if Tasmania is a bit outside of the zone where the Midnight sun appears, since it's relatively near the Antarcic circle it would still receive extremely long days during the Antarctic summer, perhaps receiving 22 hour days and 2 hours of darkness, and therefore seeing the sun most of the time in your scenario.
No. 2000km is not close. It is very far. The longest day in Tasmania is not 22 hours, it is just over 15 hours. At this point I'd like to propose that we drop this conversation and just conclude that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, make this stuff up as you go, and simply don't know how to answer my question and are therefore trying to derail it with these ridiculous statements and burdens of proof you keep placing on me.
Speaking with you about this topic has been extremely painful. I do not believe you understand these topics at all. You do not convey any understanding and your reasoning skills appear to be either deliberately rigid or unintentionally hindered.
-
More fun facts about American Airlines Flight 7363: this flight has an on-time performance of 73%. The rest of the time it is, obviously, not on-time. This flight has an average delay of 49 minutes with a standard deviation of 60.26 minutes. On a 12000km flight, that's about 5 minutes per 1000km.
What causes delays other than, you know - we're flying in big loops through the air? Things like aircraft maintenance problems, crew problems, aircraft cleaning, baggage loading, fueling, extreme weather, glitches in airline schedules, congestion in air traffic, late arrival of the aircraft to be used for the flight from a previous flight, security issues.
Obviously that and OMG, we can't navigate for s***!
-
So you did not even read the blog?
"Unfortunately, there are no populated areas near the Antarctic circle where the sun is visible 24 hours a day"
She is suggesting Antarctic cruises to see the midnight sun in the Southern Hemisphere.
How does that sentence imply that it's impossible to view the sun at midnight in Tasmania?
Tasmania is a populated area.
It is possible to see the sun at midnight, yet not have the sun be visible for 24 hours of the day.
You still have not presented evidence that Tasmania does not receive a Midnight Sun
First of all, I shouldn't have to, because I, like the millions of others who live in Australia know that Australian states do not experience the midnight sun. This should be enough to place the onus on you in any reasonable conversation. Since this is not a reasonable conversation, here is a picture of the antarctic circle, drawn on a world map (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Antarctic_Circle?topic=49460). The antarctic circle is at 66 degrees south of the equator, and defines the point south of which a midnight sun is seen. If you are not familiar with this, here is the wikipedia article on the midnight sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun) it corroborates what I have just said. Tasmania is at Tasmania just over 40 degrees south of the equator (http://www.distancesfrom.com/au/tasmania-latitude-longitude-tasmania-latitude-tasmania-longitude/LatLongHistory/389166.aspx (http://www.distancesfrom.com/au/tasmania-latitude-longitude-tasmania-latitude-tasmania-longitude/LatLongHistory/389166.aspx)). Since 40 degrees is less than 66 degrees, we can state that Tasmania is outside the antarctic circle.
The sun does not have to be visible for 24 hours straight to see the sun at midnight. Daylight savings time does not correlate 12pm with the sun directly overhead and 12am with the sun directly opposite.
-
Air Canada flight AC2133 from Honolulu to Sydney direct left 15 minutes late and is scheduled to land 40 minutes late, making its aggregate flight length 25 minutes longer or 8hrs 20 minutes total. On a straight line route from Honolulu to Sydney on your map, which would cross North America and Europe, I would conservatively estimate it crosses 70% of the Earth's circumference (if you provide a scale for your map, I will happily provide a more accurate number), making this a 28,000km flight yielding an average velocity of approximately 3,300km/h.
I will update you with the landing time.
I was thinking of doing some calculations myself showing how, according to that FE map, some airline routes would have to be flown at supersonic speeds to reach their destination anywhere near the scheduled time. But having no scale on that map put me off it.
However if your estimate is good, I'd also add that, as far as I know, no airliner has a range of 28000km, so no airliner could do a 28000km flight without stopping for fuel.
For the record, Air Canada 2133 uses a Boeing 777-200LR; the standard range is cited for it is some 17,500km. A Boeing 777-200LR holds the record flight distance for a non-stop airline flight: On November 10, 2005, the first −200LR set a record for the longest non-stop flight of a passenger airliner by flying 11,664 nautical miles (21,602 km), eastward from Hong Kong to London. That's still far short of the 28000km.
Edit: another thing - At no point does Air Canada 2133, in its route from Honolulu to Sydney, fly over North America, the Atlantic, or to the south of Africa. It also flies almost entirely over water. This easily shows that it's route is not a straight line on that map. So the flight distance should be even greater than your estimate. So would the average velocity.
Let's recap: Boeing is secretly hiding the fact their 777-200LR has a huge range, the kind of range strategic bombers can achieve only through multiple air refuels, and that it has a speed that can rival or exceed that of an SR-71 Blackbird, supposedly the fastest air-breathing jet ever made. Wooo, go Boeing!
-
Air Canada flight AC2133 from Honolulu to Sydney direct left 15 minutes late and is scheduled to land 40 minutes late, making its aggregate flight length 25 minutes longer or 8hrs 20 minutes total. On a straight line route from Honolulu to Sydney on your map, which would cross North America and Europe, I would conservatively estimate it crosses 70% of the Earth's circumference (if you provide a scale for your map, I will happily provide a more accurate number), making this a 28,000km flight yielding an average velocity of approximately 3,300km/h.
I will update you with the landing time.
I was thinking of doing some calculations myself showing how, according to that FE map, some airline routes would have to be flown at supersonic speeds to reach their destination anywhere near the scheduled time. But having no scale on that map put me off it.
However if your estimate is good, I'd also add that, as far as I know, no airliner has a range of 28000km, so no airliner could do a 28000km flight without stopping for fuel.
For the record, Air Canada 2133 uses a Boeing 777-200LR; the standard range is cited for it is some 17,500km. A Boeing 777-200LR holds the record flight distance for a non-stop airline flight: On November 10, 2005, the first −200LR set a record for the longest non-stop flight of a passenger airliner by flying 11,664 nautical miles (21,602 km), eastward from Hong Kong to London. That's still far short of the 28000km.
Do the few direct flights to Australia use any jet streams to reach its destination? Pilots regularly use jet streams on international flights to save on time and fuel. Jetstreams can reach 400 mph (http://cubanology.com/Articles/Influential_Jet_Stream.htm), which is just a bit less than the speed planes travel without jet streams.
-
Obviously that and OMG, we can't navigate for s***!
The pilots would be traveling in the same south-western direction and the same longitudes to reach Australia.
-
905km/h the cruising speed of a 777-200LR. 644km/h the quoted speed of the jet steam (400mph). Assuming jet streams are always this fast and they follow the flight path from Honolulu to Sydney. Also assuming jet streams of 640km/h reverse direction to accommodate return flights on the same flight path.
905 + 644 = 1549
1549<3300
-
The sun does not have to be visible for 24 hours straight to see the sun at midnight
Obvious and irrelevant. I am and always was talking about the point at which the sun is farthest / closest to the state of Tasmania. You brought the midnight sun into it, not me. It's a moot point though because it is always dark in Tasmania at midnight (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=956&month=12&year=2013&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1), regardless of the time of year.
Daylight savings time does not correlate 12pm with the sun directly overhead and 12am with the sun directly opposite.
Obvious, but interesting; what do you mean by directly opposite to overhead?
-
Do the few direct flights to Australia use any jet streams to reach its destination? Pilots regularly use jet streams on international flights to save on time and fuel. Jetstreams can reach 400 mph (http://cubanology.com/Articles/Influential_Jet_Stream.htm), which is just a bit less than the speed planes travel without jet streams.
Jet streams travel primarily east. Flights from the US to Australia travel primarily southwest. In other words, the jet streams are traveling the wrong way to help.
-
So you did not even read the blog?
"Unfortunately, there are no populated areas near the Antarctic circle where the sun is visible 24 hours a day"
She is suggesting Antarctic cruises to see the midnight sun in the Southern Hemisphere.
How does that sentence imply that it's impossible to view the sun at midnight in Tasmania?
Tasmania is a populated area.
It is possible to see the sun at midnight, yet not have the sun be visible for 24 hours of the day.
This is an equivocation. We are talking about the Midnight Sun, a phrase meaning the phenomenon of the sun remaining in the sky for the summer months. We are not talking about a sun at midnight. This was made clear by the use of the phrase "the Midnight Sun" and the link to the Wikipedia article defining and refining the definition of the phenomena.
You still have not presented evidence that Tasmania does not receive a Midnight Sun
First of all, I shouldn't have to, because I, like the millions of others who live in Australia know that Australian states do not experience the midnight sun. This should be enough to place the onus on you in any reasonable conversation. Since this is not a reasonable conversation, here is a picture of the antarctic circle, drawn on a world map (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Antarctic_Circle?topic=49460). The antarctic circle is at 66 degrees south of the equator, and defines the point south of which a midnight sun is seen. If you are not familiar with this, here is the wikipedia article on the midnight sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun) it corroborates what I have just said. Tasmania is at Tasmania just over 40 degrees south of the equator (http://www.distancesfrom.com/au/tasmania-latitude-longitude-tasmania-latitude-tasmania-longitude/LatLongHistory/389166.aspx (http://www.distancesfrom.com/au/tasmania-latitude-longitude-tasmania-latitude-tasmania-longitude/LatLongHistory/389166.aspx)). Since 40 degrees is less than 66 degrees, we can state that Tasmania is outside the antarctic circle.
The sun does not have to be visible for 24 hours straight to see the sun at midnight. Daylight savings time does not correlate 12pm with the sun directly overhead and 12am with the sun directly opposite.
Again equivocating on Midnight Sun.
-
So you did not even read the blog?
"Unfortunately, there are no populated areas near the Antarctic circle where the sun is visible 24 hours a day"
She is suggesting Antarctic cruises to see the midnight sun in the Southern Hemisphere.
How does that sentence imply that it's impossible to view the sun at midnight in Tasmania?
Have you personally been to Tasmania and witnessed the sun being visible at midnight? We all know how you are about wanting RE'ers to personally verify their claims, so I think that fair is fair.
-
I'm still most impressed by the astonishing case of Kiribati!
-
So you did not even read the blog?
"Unfortunately, there are no populated areas near the Antarctic circle where the sun is visible 24 hours a day"
She is suggesting Antarctic cruises to see the midnight sun in the Southern Hemisphere.
How does that sentence imply that it's impossible to view the sun at midnight in Tasmania?
Tasmania is a populated area.
On your view every direct flight from LAX must experience substantial delays for your model to be accurate not some all. I will see about finding evidence of one on-time flight to render your hypothesis false.
There are very few direct flights. Please do some research.
Air Canada flight AC2133 from Honolulu to Sydney direct left 15 minutes late and is scheduled to land 40 minutes late, making its aggregate flight length 25 minutes longer or 8hrs 20 minutes total. On a straight line route from Honolulu to Sydney on your map, which would cross North America and Europe, I would conservatively estimate it crosses 70% of the Earth's circumference (if you provide a scale for your map, I will happily provide a more accurate number), making this a 28,000km flight yielding an average velocity of approximately 3,300km/h.
I will update you with the landing time.
Update and Erratta on AC2133 (Honolulu to Sydney direct):
I forgot to factor the time zone differences in to the flight time. The original flight time with a 10:45pm Honolulu time on March 28th take off and 6:15am Sydney time landing on March 30th was 10.5hrs. The flight actually departed at 11:45pm Honolulu time and landed 6:58am Sydney time for an 10.25hr flight time.
Source for departure time: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA2133/history/20130329/0845Z/PHNL/YSSY (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA2133/history/20130329/0845Z/PHNL/YSSY)
Source for arrival time: http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/flights/flight-arrivals-and-departures/airport-visit-planner.aspx?fnum=AC2133+Arriving+30%2F03%2F2013+6%3A15%3A00+AM&act=&ttype= (http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/flights/flight-arrivals-and-departures/airport-visit-planner.aspx?fnum=AC2133+Arriving+30%2F03%2F2013+6%3A15%3A00+AM&act=&ttype=)
Going back to my extremely conservative estimate of a 28,000kms for the journey on the FE map Tom is championing, this would require an average velocity of 2400km/h. This is well beyond the specifications for this craft even with a 400kph jet stream. The tracklog (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA2133/history/20130329/0845Z/PHNL/YSSY) does not show it flying over either continent, so we can assume that the flight length was an oblong route with a path longer than 28,000kms making the required velocity to match the flight time even longer.
I am left with very few options here:
1. Boeing 777s in fact travel at super sonic speeds and have a range 62.5% longer than the published specifications (on the low end of the travel distance estimate).
2. The times that are published for take-offs and landings are incorrect.
3. The map put forward by Tom is not feasible.
I suppose option 1. is possible but it begs the question why are Boeing, airlines and airport authorities lying about the capabilities of their crafts? It does not seem like a viable answer to me. Option 2. seems even less likely. People use this published info to meet their loved ones on flights and any inaccuracies measured in hours on a consistent basis (read: almost every time) would be noticed. Option 3. seems the most likely as its proponent has himself said it was inaccurate. It places well-known land masses in geographic relationships that are known not to exist (e.g. New Zealand lying further from the Equator than Antarctica).
I submit that the map supported by Tom is not an accurate representation of the shape of the Earth.
-
I second that ^^^^
Tom your map is horrendously inaccurate as shown by this evidence alone. Maby FE needs a new one?
-
^^ Motion carried. ;D
The idea of that map being anywhere near accurate has got more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss cheese. ;D
-
If he keeps trying to tell me we have a midnight sun I'm gonna snap.
-
Tom Bishop? I was wondering if you wanted to comment on my report of the flight time and path of AC2133 that departed Honolulu and arrived in Sydney?
-
...or any of the countless mistakes in your maps and barrage of made up facts you answered said questions with.
-
So you did not even read the blog?
"Unfortunately, there are no populated areas near the Antarctic circle where the sun is visible 24 hours a day"
She is suggesting Antarctic cruises to see the midnight sun in the Southern Hemisphere.
How does that sentence imply that it's impossible to view the sun at midnight in Tasmania?
On your view every direct flight from LAX must experience substantial delays for your model to be accurate not some all. I will see about finding evidence of one on-time flight to render your hypothesis false.
There are very few direct flights. Please do some research.
"Please do some research." I have noticed you write this (and you write it very often) when you have no answer.
-
??? I don't get it.
-
??? I don't get it.
I think Omega Man wrote the last paragraph and included it in the quotation accidentally.
-
Tom-AC2133 Honolulu-Sydney direct. How did it make the flight so quickly?
-
Right, Tom Bishop is gonna give a you a reasonable answer on this about the same time that Parsifal is gonna clear up things regarding the well known fact the sun is made up of quark-gluon plasma. ;D
-
You all talk like you know what you are talking about and that FE believers have no clue, when the actual truth is, you lot don't have a clue. You are all running of a collective pat on each others backs like kids throwing stones and hitting the kid stood out in the play ground and praising each other each time you hit.
Most of you RE crew are all indoctrinated to the point of ridiculous and there's not much hope for you. ;D
-
You all talk like you know what you are talking about and that RE believers have no clue, when the actual truth is, you lot don't have a clue. You are all running of a collective pat on each others backs like kids throwing stones and hitting the kid stood out in the play ground and praising each other each time you hit.
Most of you FE crew are all indoctrinated to the point of ridiculous and there's not much hope for you. ;D
Fixed that for ya ;D
-
You all talk like you know what you are talking about and that RE believers have no clue, when the actual truth is, you lot don't have a clue. You are all running of a collective pat on each others backs like kids throwing stones and hitting the kid stood out in the play ground and praising each other each time you hit.
Most of you FE crew are all indoctrinated to the point of ridiculous and there's not much hope for you. ;D
Fixed that for ya ;D
I think you have just basically answered my question right there. ;D
-
You all talk like you know what you are talking about and that RE believers have no clue, when the actual truth is, you lot don't have a clue. You are all running of a collective pat on each others backs like kids throwing stones and hitting the kid stood out in the play ground and praising each other each time you hit.
Most of you FE crew are all indoctrinated to the point of ridiculous and there's not much hope for you. ;D
Fixed that for ya ;D
I think you have just basically answered my question right there. ;D
Last I checked gravity still existed, and you could go watch a rocket launch live. I've provided you with the information to do so, it's up to you to take it upon yourself to come out of your shell and experience what the RE has to offer you.
-
Good stuff lately. The quark-gluon plasma bail, the fact they can't explain AC2133, and Scepi dodging the question(although this isn't unusual(see: every post scepi has ever made)).