7. FE theory states the equator is the same length as the RE equatorOne minor point, most FE models have the distance to the north pole be the same, not the equator. The FE equator is more like 62882 km.
( if you can figure that out, let me know )I think he meant Earth's surface is a 3D hyperplane of the non-euclidian 4D space, and therefore is flat in a non-euclidean spacetime and therefore non-euclidian too. It's presented in the thread about Davis's relativity model.
I once asked John Davis a related question, as to whether the sum of the angles in triangles on the flat earth would add to 180 degrees, he said that they wouldn't because the surface was non-euclidean, so the (semi) official answer is that the surface of the earth is non euclidean but flat. ( if you can figure that out, let me know )The entire basis of it is that you can orbit around Earth with Earth remaining the same distance from you, and as your orbit is by definition a straight line (or geodesic) through space-time, it must mean the surface of Earth is a straight line as well and thus Earth must be flat.
In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :) Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
The idea of flatness does cover it in non-Euclidean spaces, at least to some extent.( if you can figure that out, let me know )I think he meant Earth's surface is a 3D hyperplane of the non-euclidian 4D space, and therefore is flat in a non-euclidean spacetime and therefore non-euclidian too. It's presented in the thread about Davis's relativity model.
BTW I don't agree with him because I think his definition of "flat" doesn't really capture flatness, but I haven't read the whole thread yet so I don't know if someone else has already pointed this out.
Please read my message there:The idea of flatness does cover it in non-Euclidean spaces, at least to some extent.( if you can figure that out, let me know )I think he meant Earth's surface is a 3D hyperplane of the non-euclidian 4D space, and therefore is flat in a non-euclidean spacetime and therefore non-euclidian too. It's presented in the thread about Davis's relativity model.
BTW I don't agree with him because I think his definition of "flat" doesn't really capture flatness, but I haven't read the whole thread yet so I don't know if someone else has already pointed this out.
The issue is how he tries to compare an unknown line with a flat line to determine if the unknown line is flat. He is using a method that only works in Euclidean spaces.
Please read my message there:I had been meaning to respond to that but ran out of time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72129.msg1970276#msg1970276
(TL;DR – he requires a straight line through space-time between every spatial coordinates and thus also allowing non-flat surfaces like the hyperbolic paraboloid)
The trouble with all this Davis non-Euclidean Flat Earth Hypothesis is that it has absolutely no theoretical or physical basis.Please read my message there:I had been meaning to respond to that but ran out of time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72129.msg1970276#msg1970276
(TL;DR – he requires a straight line through space-time between every spatial coordinates and thus also allowing non-flat surfaces like the hyperbolic paraboloid)
That isn't what he is suggesting at all.
He is using the fact that space-time is non-Euclidean and thus a "straight" line through space-time will appear curved, such as an orbit.
The trouble with all this Davis non-Euclidean Flat Earth Hypothesis is that it has absolutely no theoretical or physical basis.Please read my message there:I had been meaning to respond to that but ran out of time.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72129.msg1970276#msg1970276
(TL;DR – he requires a straight line through space-time between every spatial coordinates and thus also allowing non-flat surfaces like the hyperbolic paraboloid)
That isn't what he is suggesting at all.
He is using the fact that space-time is non-Euclidean and thus a "straight" line through space-time will appear curved, such as an orbit.
Einstein, quite intentionally, designed his GR to reduce to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation as velocities and masses reduce to zero.
He did this, of course, because he was quite certain of the correctness of Newton's theories under these limit conditions.
As was Nikola Tesla, as far as I can determine, even though Tesla did agree with Einstein at all.
John Davis's non-Euclidean Flat Earth Hypothesis seems to have no such constraint.
On a cosmic scale the masses of the objects in the solar are very small and apart from a few exceptional cases velocities are far less than c.
As a result the curvature of spacetime in our vicinity is absolutely minute.
For example the effect of the curvature of the spacelike component of spacetime is
an increase in the earth's diameter by about 4 mm and
an increase in the sun's diameter by about 1.4 m - an absulutely minute effect!
For all practical purposes we live in a 3D Euclidean space.
From my point of view this apparently serious discussion of the Davis non-Euclidean Flat Earth Hypothesis is nothing more than an interesting "academic exercise".
But the big problem that seems to give an air of respectibility to a completely baseless and ridiculous hypothesis.
And has no place in a discussion on "SYD to SCL and flight range".
I deliberately avoided discussion the distortion of space-time that would be required to make it match reality, that's not important when the objective is obfustication and diversion.I'll leave you to your :D obfustication :D.
For the record Non Euclidean is not flat in any practical sense.My point there is that Einstein's GR does not curve space in our vicinity enough to even measure.
I once asked John Davis a related question, as to whether the sum of the angles in triangles on the flat earth would add to 180 degrees, he said that they wouldn't because the surface was non-euclidean, so the (semi) official answer is that the surface of the earth is non euclidean but flat. ( if you can figure that out, let me know )
In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :) Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
I once asked John Davis a related question, as to whether the sum of the angles in triangles on the flat earth would add to 180 degrees, he said that they wouldn't because the surface was non-euclidean, so the (semi) official answer is that the surface of the earth is non euclidean but flat. ( if you can figure that out, let me know )
In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :) Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
No one is claiming that the Earth is completely level. That's ridiculous. The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
The flight times are what they are. I still don't understand the problem with this.
I once asked John Davis a related question, as to whether the sum of the angles in triangles on the flat earth would add to 180 degrees, he said that they wouldn't because the surface was non-euclidean, so the (semi) official answer is that the surface of the earth is non euclidean but flat. ( if you can figure that out, let me know )
In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :) Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
No one is claiming that the Earth is completely level. That's ridiculous. The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
The flight times are what they are. I still don't understand the problem with this.
I thought you were a flat earther? Have you changed sides?
I once asked John Davis a related question, as to whether the sum of the angles in triangles on the flat earth would add to 180 degrees, he said that they wouldn't because the surface was non-euclidean, so the (semi) official answer is that the surface of the earth is non euclidean but flat. ( if you can figure that out, let me know )
In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :) Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
No one is claiming that the Earth is completely level. That's ridiculous. The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
The flight times are what they are. I still don't understand the problem with this.
I thought you were a flat earther? Have you changed sides?
Uh, no?
I once asked John Davis a related question, as to whether the sum of the angles in triangles on the flat earth would add to 180 degrees, he said that they wouldn't because the surface was non-euclidean, so the (semi) official answer is that the surface of the earth is non euclidean but flat. ( if you can figure that out, let me know )
In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :) Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
No one is claiming that the Earth is completely level. That's ridiculous. The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
The flight times are what they are. I still don't understand the problem with this.
I thought you were a flat earther? Have you changed sides?
Uh, no?
So you know the definition of non euclidean means not flat?
I once asked John Davis a related question, as to whether the sum of the angles in triangles on the flat earth would add to 180 degrees, he said that they wouldn't because the surface was non-euclidean, so the (semi) official answer is that the surface of the earth is non euclidean but flat. ( if you can figure that out, let me know )
In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :) Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
No one is claiming that the Earth is completely level. That's ridiculous. The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
The flight times are what they are. I still don't understand the problem with this.
I thought you were a flat earther? Have you changed sides?
Uh, no?
So you know the definition of non euclidean means not flat?
Mountains and valleys exist. It's much rarer on Earth to find a level surface than not. (Excluding oceans, for that point.)
Nobody is debating this.
I once asked John Davis a related question, as to whether the sum of the angles in triangles on the flat earth would add to 180 degrees, he said that they wouldn't because the surface was non-euclidean, so the (semi) official answer is that the surface of the earth is non euclidean but flat. ( if you can figure that out, let me know )
In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :) Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
No one is claiming that the Earth is completely level. That's ridiculous. The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
The flight times are what they are. I still don't understand the problem with this.
I thought you were a flat earther? Have you changed sides?
Uh, no?
So you know the definition of non euclidean means not flat?
Mountains and valleys exist. It's much rarer on Earth to find a level surface than not. (Excluding oceans, for that point.)
Nobody is debating this.
LOL. thanks for confirming your ignorance.
So you know the definition of non euclidean means not flat?As far as I am concerned your definition of non-Euclidean is incomplete.
Euclid's ElementsEuclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.
The Elements is mainly a systematization of earlier knowledge of geometry. Its improvement over earlier treatments was rapidly recognized, with the result that there was little interest in preserving the earlier ones, and they are now nearly all lost.
There are 13 total books in the Elements:
- Books I–IV and VI discuss plane geometry. Many results about plane figures are proved, for example "In any triangle two angles taken together in any manner are less than two right angles." (Book 1 proposition 17 ) and the Pythagorean theorem "In right angled triangles the square on the side subtending the right angle is equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle." (Book I, proposition 47)
- Books V and VII–X deal with number theory, with numbers treated geometrically via their representation as line segments with various lengths. Notions such as prime numbers and rational and irrational numbers are introduced. The infinitude of prime numbers is proved.
- Books XI–XIII concern solid geometry. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base.
From: Wikipedia, Euclidean geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#The_Elements)
1.3 Spherical Geometry:
Spherical geometry is a plane geometry on the surface of a sphere. In a plane geometry, the basic concepts are points and lines. In spherical geometry, points are defined in the usual way, but lines are defined such that the shortest distance between two points lies along them. Therefore, lines in spherical geometry are great circles. A great circle is the largest circle that can be drawn on a sphere. The longitude lines and the equator are great circles of the Earth. Latitude lines, except for the equator, are not great circles. Great circles are lines that divide a sphere into two equal hemispheres.
From: 3: What is Non-Euclidean Geometry (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/noneuclidean.html)
So you know the definition of non euclidean means not flat?As far as I am concerned your definition of non-Euclidean is incomplete.
There can be non-flat things in Euclidean geometry. It is not limited to plane geometry.QuoteEuclid's ElementsEuclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.
The Elements is mainly a systematization of earlier knowledge of geometry. Its improvement over earlier treatments was rapidly recognized, with the result that there was little interest in preserving the earlier ones, and they are now nearly all lost.
There are 13 total books in the Elements:
- Books I–IV and VI discuss plane geometry. Many results about plane figures are proved, for example "In any triangle two angles taken together in any manner are less than two right angles." (Book 1 proposition 17 ) and the Pythagorean theorem "In right angled triangles the square on the side subtending the right angle is equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle." (Book I, proposition 47)
- Books V and VII–X deal with number theory, with numbers treated geometrically via their representation as line segments with various lengths. Notions such as prime numbers and rational and irrational numbers are introduced. The infinitude of prime numbers is proved.
- Books XI–XIII concern solid geometry. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base.
From: Wikipedia, Euclidean geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#The_Elements)
Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:Quote1.3 Spherical Geometry:
Spherical geometry is a plane geometry on the surface of a sphere. In a plane geometry, the basic concepts are points and lines. In spherical geometry, points are defined in the usual way, but lines are defined such that the shortest distance between two points lies along them. Therefore, lines in spherical geometry are great circles. A great circle is the largest circle that can be drawn on a sphere. The longitude lines and the equator are great circles of the Earth. Latitude lines, except for the equator, are not great circles. Great circles are lines that divide a sphere into two equal hemispheres.
From: 3: What is Non-Euclidean Geometry (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/noneuclidean.html)
So you know the definition of non euclidean means not flat?As far as I am concerned your definition of non-Euclidean is incomplete.
There can be non-flat things in Euclidean geometry. It is not limited to plane geometry.QuoteEuclid's ElementsEuclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.
The Elements is mainly a systematization of earlier knowledge of geometry. Its improvement over earlier treatments was rapidly recognized, with the result that there was little interest in preserving the earlier ones, and they are now nearly all lost.
There are 13 total books in the Elements:
- Books I–IV and VI discuss plane geometry. Many results about plane figures are proved, for example "In any triangle two angles taken together in any manner are less than two right angles." (Book 1 proposition 17 ) and the Pythagorean theorem "In right angled triangles the square on the side subtending the right angle is equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle." (Book I, proposition 47)
- Books V and VII–X deal with number theory, with numbers treated geometrically via their representation as line segments with various lengths. Notions such as prime numbers and rational and irrational numbers are introduced. The infinitude of prime numbers is proved.
- Books XI–XIII concern solid geometry. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base.
From: Wikipedia, Euclidean geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#The_Elements)
Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:Quote1.3 Spherical Geometry:
Spherical geometry is a plane geometry on the surface of a sphere. In a plane geometry, the basic concepts are points and lines. In spherical geometry, points are defined in the usual way, but lines are defined such that the shortest distance between two points lies along them. Therefore, lines in spherical geometry are great circles. A great circle is the largest circle that can be drawn on a sphere. The longitude lines and the equator are great circles of the Earth. Latitude lines, except for the equator, are not great circles. Great circles are lines that divide a sphere into two equal hemispheres.
From: 3: What is Non-Euclidean Geometry (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/noneuclidean.html)
Thanks.
Rayzor just thinks he's better than everyone else and can't be wrong.
So you know the definition of non euclidean means not flat?As far as I am concerned your definition of non-Euclidean is incomplete.
There can be non-flat things in Euclidean geometry. It is not limited to plane geometry.QuoteEuclid's ElementsEuclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.
The Elements is mainly a systematization of earlier knowledge of geometry. Its improvement over earlier treatments was rapidly recognized, with the result that there was little interest in preserving the earlier ones, and they are now nearly all lost.
There are 13 total books in the Elements:
- Books I–IV and VI discuss plane geometry. Many results about plane figures are proved, for example "In any triangle two angles taken together in any manner are less than two right angles." (Book 1 proposition 17 ) and the Pythagorean theorem "In right angled triangles the square on the side subtending the right angle is equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle." (Book I, proposition 47)
- Books V and VII–X deal with number theory, with numbers treated geometrically via their representation as line segments with various lengths. Notions such as prime numbers and rational and irrational numbers are introduced. The infinitude of prime numbers is proved.
- Books XI–XIII concern solid geometry. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base.
From: Wikipedia, Euclidean geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#The_Elements)
Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:Quote1.3 Spherical Geometry:
Spherical geometry is a plane geometry on the surface of a sphere. In a plane geometry, the basic concepts are points and lines. In spherical geometry, points are defined in the usual way, but lines are defined such that the shortest distance between two points lies along them. Therefore, lines in spherical geometry are great circles. A great circle is the largest circle that can be drawn on a sphere. The longitude lines and the equator are great circles of the Earth. Latitude lines, except for the equator, are not great circles. Great circles are lines that divide a sphere into two equal hemispheres.
From: 3: What is Non-Euclidean Geometry (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/noneuclidean.html)
Thanks.
Rayzor just thinks he's better than everyone else and can't be wrong.
Nope, just more than you.
You seem to think that the existence of mountains and valleys somehow proves something about the shape of the earth.
Rabinoz is wrong about what the definition of euclidean is, if the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees then the surface is euclidean. if more than 180 the curvature is convex, less than 180 the curvature is concave.
The sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.
Non euclidean means not flat.
You can use other rules of euclidean geometry as well, like parallel lines.
Rabinoz misunderstood the concept of a surface. I'm sure he'll be along any minute to explain about 3d objects in Minkowski space..
Nope. You might note that I thought of that.So you know the definition of non euclidean means not flat?<< rab
As far as I am concerned your definition of non-Euclidean is incomplete.
There can be non-flat things in Euclidean geometry. It is not limited to plane geometry.QuoteEuclid's ElementsEuclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.
The Elements is mainly a systematization of earlier knowledge of geometry. Its improvement over earlier treatments was rapidly recognized, with the result that there was little interest in preserving the earlier ones, and they are now nearly all lost.
There are 13 total books in the Elements:
- Books XI–XIII concern solid geometry. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base.
From: Wikipedia, Euclidean geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#The_Elements)
Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:Quote1.3 Spherical Geometry:
Spherical geometry is a plane geometry on the surface of a sphere. In a plane geometry, the basic concepts are points and lines. In spherical geometry, points are defined in the usual way, but lines are defined such that the shortest distance between two points lies along them. Therefore, lines in spherical geometry are great circles. A great circle is the largest circle that can be drawn on a sphere. The longitude lines and the equator are great circles of the Earth. Latitude lines, except for the equator, are not great circles. Great circles are lines that divide a sphere into two equal hemispheres.
From: 3: What is Non-Euclidean Geometry (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/noneuclidean.html)
Rabinoz is wrong about what the definition of euclidean is,
Books XI–XIII concern solid geometry. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base.
if the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees then the surface is euclidean. if more than 180 the curvature is convex, less than 180 the curvature is concave.The earth is in is 3-D Euclidean space, which as we saw above includes solid figures, including spheres.
The sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.
Non euclidean means not flat.So no, I did not mis-understand anything.
You can use other rules of euclidean geometry as well, like parallel lines.
Rabinoz misunderstood the concept of a surface.
I'm sure he'll be along any minute to explain about 3d objects in Minkowski space.;D ;D If you insist, after we have dealt with hyperbolic space it's only a little step to Minkowski space. ;D ;D
No one is claiming that the Earth is completely level. That's ridiculous. The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.Just because it isn't flat doesn't mean it is non-Euclidean.
The flight times are what they are. I still don't understand the problem with this.Only because you choose not to.
Rayzor just thinks he's better than everyone else and can't be wrong.No, that would be you.
I don't at all. If you'd look back and read what I said, I was just pointing out that whether the Earth is flat or round, the land is uneven in the majority of places. This would result in portions being concave and convex regardless of the shape, and thus a triangle would probably not be a perfect 180 degrees in many places.No. Triangles would be 180 degrees. What wouldn't is curved lines or many sided shapes moving around in 3D.
Nope. You might note that I thought of that.So you know the definition of non euclidean means not flat?<< rab
As far as I am concerned your definition of non-Euclidean is incomplete.
There can be non-flat things in Euclidean geometry. It is not limited to plane geometry.QuoteEuclid's ElementsEuclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.
The Elements is mainly a systematization of earlier knowledge of geometry. Its improvement over earlier treatments was rapidly recognized, with the result that there was little interest in preserving the earlier ones, and they are now nearly all lost.
There are 13 total books in the Elements:
- Books XI–XIII concern solid geometry. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base.
From: Wikipedia, Euclidean geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#The_Elements)
Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:Quote1.3 Spherical Geometry:
Spherical geometry is a plane geometry on the surface of a sphere. In a plane geometry, the basic concepts are points and lines. In spherical geometry, points are defined in the usual way, but lines are defined such that the shortest distance between two points lies along them. Therefore, lines in spherical geometry are great circles. A great circle is the largest circle that can be drawn on a sphere. The longitude lines and the equator are great circles of the Earth. Latitude lines, except for the equator, are not great circles. Great circles are lines that divide a sphere into two equal hemispheres.
From: 3: What is Non-Euclidean Geometry (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/noneuclidean.html)
Rabinoz is wrong about what the definition of euclidean is,
Euclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions and includes solid geometry.QuoteBooks XI–XIII concern solid geometry. A typical result is the 1:3 ratio between the volume of a cone and a cylinder with the same height and base.Quote from: Rayzorif the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees then the surface is euclidean. if more than 180 the curvature is convex, less than 180 the curvature is concave.The earth is in is 3-D Euclidean space, which as we saw above includes solid figures, including spheres.
The sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.
A situation where non-Euclidean space comes in is when motion is confined to the surface of a sphere and this covered by Spherical Geometry, which I specifically included.Quote from: RayzorNon euclidean means not flat.So no, I did not mis-understand anything.
You can use other rules of euclidean geometry as well, like parallel lines.
Rabinoz misunderstood the concept of a surface.
It is true to say that non-Euclidean means that the space is not flat, but Euclidean space can certainly include mountains and valleys, etc.
It is only if we consider our geometry as confined to a spherical surface that we are in a 2-D non-Euclidean space.
This class of non-Euclidean space is called Spherical Geometry and you can use the triangle and parallel line rules.
But in reality, we are not confined to a spherical surface. That is just an approximation that allows the use of Spherical Geometry and Spherical Trigonometry to calculate distances (say using the Haversine Formula) between locations specified by lat/long.
The approximation arises because
- the earth's surface in not perfectly spherical.
For example the distance from Sydney Airport (at -33.94735° 151.17943°) to Heathrow (at 51.47002° -0.45430°)
is 17,020 km based on a spherical earth and 17,016 km using more accurate calculations.
The spherical approximation is very good, but not perfect.- Our movement is not confined to the surface of the earth, spherical or not, We dig into it (a minute distance), fly to 20 km above it and send spacecraft an almost unlimited distance above it.
The altitude an aircraft flies above the earth does affect the length of the flight, but again only by a few tens of km.Quote from: RayzorI'm sure he'll be along any minute to explain about 3d objects in Minkowski space.;D ;D If you insist, after we have dealt with hyperbolic space it's only a little step to Minkowski space. ;D ;D
I know I've been pedantic and laboured the point,but I want to distance the real earth as for as possible from the John Davis's non-Euclidean Flat Earth Hypothesis.
The space we live might be curved by Einstein's GR, but that curvature
at the surface of Earth is immeasurably small - about 1 part in 3.2 x 10^{9} and even
at the surface of the Sun is still extremely small - about 1 part in 10^{9}.
So for all practical purposes, we live in a 3-D Euclidean space and the non-Euclidean only comes in if you consider movement confined to a 2-D spherical surface.
Einstein's GR reduces almost exactly to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation anywhere in the solar system and
that was quite intentional on Einstein's part as he recognised that in the low mass low-speed limit Newton was correct.
Nothing wrong with what you are saying, it's just that we are discussing the geometry of flight times and distances, the geometry proves the surface of the earth is non euclidean.That would be nice, but :D someone,:D who shall remain nameless, let the genie out of the bottle with:
In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :);D No names, no pack drill. ;D
Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
Nothing wrong with what you are saying, it's just that we are discussing the geometry of flight times and distances, the geometry proves the surface of the earth is non euclidean.That would be nice, but :D someone,:D who shall remain nameless, let the genie out of the bottle with:In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :);D No names, no pack drill. ;D
Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
Now, if we can only get Mr Can't Spell Thermometer to tell us what his flat earth looks like we might get somewhere.Nothing wrong with what you are saying, it's just that we are discussing the geometry of flight times and distances, the geometry proves the surface of the earth is non euclidean.That would be nice, but :D someone,:D who shall remain nameless, let the genie out of the bottle with:In my opinion all those flight times and distances are consistent with a non euclidean flat earth :);D No names, no pack drill. ;D
Now cue the argument about metrics. My money is on Minkowski. I think the flat earthers will disagree.
I should be more careful, I was having a shot at the Davis idea of non-euclidean flatness. ( I did actually say that I'd like someone to explain that meant )
Not surprisingly no-one did. ( in the context of flight times and distances, which implies I was talking about the surface of the earth )
Thermoman, obligingly noted that mountains aren't flat, very astute.
What does the earth look like?Note that the map is "certainly not definitive", but there seem no doubt about "As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge".
As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.
The earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.
Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth:(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flat_earth.png/220px-Flat_earth.png)
No one is claiming that the Earth is completely level. That's ridiculous. The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.Just because it isn't flat doesn't mean it is non-Euclidean.The flight times are what they are. I still don't understand the problem with this.Only because you choose not to.
It is impossible for these flights to exist. It requires the planes to fly much faster than they are capable of doing, and there is no reason for the airlines to fly these routes like they do if Earth was flat.Rayzor just thinks he's better than everyone else and can't be wrong.No, that would be you.I don't at all. If you'd look back and read what I said, I was just pointing out that whether the Earth is flat or round, the land is uneven in the majority of places. This would result in portions being concave and convex regardless of the shape, and thus a triangle would probably not be a perfect 180 degrees in many places.No. Triangles would be 180 degrees. What wouldn't is curved lines or many sided shapes moving around in 3D.
Why are the flight times impossible? They clearly and demonstrably aren't.No, they are possible in reality.
You're saying a triangle mapped on the surface of any convex or concave shape is going to have interior angles summing to 180 degrees? You're wrong. Simple as that.No. I'm saying a triangle itself, not one mapped or drawn on another surface. So no, you are wrong as you are yet again blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.
Why are the flight times impossible? They clearly and demonstrably aren't.No, they are possible in reality.
They are impossible in the FE model. I explained why.
If you think they are possible in the FE model, explain how, without just shifting the problem.You're saying a triangle mapped on the surface of any convex or concave shape is going to have interior angles summing to 180 degrees? You're wrong. Simple as that.No. I'm saying a triangle itself, not one mapped or drawn on another surface. So no, you are wrong as you are yet again blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.
Try constructing a triangle with straight lines which does not have the angles add to 180 degrees.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean? Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.
Why are the flight times impossible? They clearly and demonstrably aren't.No, they are possible in reality.
They are impossible in the FE model. I explained why.
If you think they are possible in the FE model, explain how, without just shifting the problem.You're saying a triangle mapped on the surface of any convex or concave shape is going to have interior angles summing to 180 degrees? You're wrong. Simple as that.No. I'm saying a triangle itself, not one mapped or drawn on another surface. So no, you are wrong as you are yet again blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.
Try constructing a triangle with straight lines which does not have the angles add to 180 degrees.
I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
Why are the flight times impossible? They clearly and demonstrably aren't.No, they are possible in reality.
They are impossible in the FE model. I explained why.
If you think they are possible in the FE model, explain how, without just shifting the problem.You're saying a triangle mapped on the surface of any convex or concave shape is going to have interior angles summing to 180 degrees? You're wrong. Simple as that.No. I'm saying a triangle itself, not one mapped or drawn on another surface. So no, you are wrong as you are yet again blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.
Try constructing a triangle with straight lines which does not have the angles add to 180 degrees.
I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
You are clearly shifting the problem. The issue, to be clear, is that the distances involved regarding this particular flight are not possible given the known performance envelope of the aircraft involved if the earth is assumed to be flat. They, unsurprisingly, are possible if the Earth is a sphere.
By dismissing reality and saying "the earth is flat and these flights happen" as evidence supporting an FE position is academically dishonest. The point made, which still stands, is that Santiago to Sydney flights occurs at least four times a week, covering approximately 7,000 miles and are direct, non-stop operations. Using any FE map, these flights are at least 16,000 miles or more, which exceed the maximum range of any commercial passenger aircraft ever built. The burden of proof is on you to explain how this is possible.
Alternatively, you can also admit you don't know how its possible or acknowledge that this isn't possible if the earth is flat.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean? Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.
I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean? Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.
I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.
I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.
The sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean? Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.
I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.
I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.QuoteThe sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.
Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean? Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.
I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.
I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.QuoteThe sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.
Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.
So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth, does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean? Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.
I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.
I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.QuoteThe sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.
Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.
So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth, does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?
My god you're dense.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean? Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.
I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.
I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.QuoteThe sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.
Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.
So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth, does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?
My god you're dense.
So when you are backed into a corner you resort to insults. I suspect that's all you've got left.
How about answering the question as to why spherical geometry works for flight paths and euclidean geometry doesn't.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean? Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.
I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.
I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.QuoteThe sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.
Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.
So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth, does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?
My god you're dense.
So when you are backed into a corner you resort to insults. I suspect that's all you've got left.
How about answering the question as to why spherical geometry works for flight paths and euclidean geometry doesn't.
Because you think the Earth is a ball. How does your belief system prove anything about anything?
That's just avoiding the question, try again.
That's just avoiding the question, try again.
I already answered you several times. Either accept it or give me something to argue with you about.
Really?So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth, does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?
My god you're dense.
That's just avoiding the question, try again.
I already answered you several times. Either accept it or give me something to argue with you about.
No insults and avoiding the question don't count, as answers.
How about answering the question as to why spherical geometry works for flight paths and euclidean geometry doesn't.
The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.Umm... I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.
The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.Umm... I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.
The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.Umm... I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.
Meh. That's not really what I meant. I clarified I was talking about how the surface of the Earth is distorted and alternating concave/convex no matter the overall shape.
With flight times, it's the overall shape that matters, not the surface features that are being overflown.The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.Umm... I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.
Meh. That's not really what I meant. I clarified I was talking about how the surface of the Earth is distorted and alternating concave/convex no matter the overall shape.
With flight times, it's the overall shape that matters, not the surface features that are being overflown.The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.Umm... I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.
Meh. That's not really what I meant. I clarified I was talking about how the surface of the Earth is distorted and alternating concave/convex no matter the overall shape.
That's why I was trying to nudge it back on topic.With flight times, it's the overall shape that matters, not the surface features that are being overflown.The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.Umm... I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.
Meh. That's not really what I meant. I clarified I was talking about how the surface of the Earth is distorted and alternating concave/convex no matter the overall shape.
Right, that whole conversation was sort of off-topic. You're a little late to the party.
I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.Earth isn't flat.
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.Only if you try and treat the surface itself as a plane.
There is no flat Earth map. Ergo, this is a nonissue.No, there are multiple (which is a problem itself and shows a FE to be impossible). The only ones which solve this issue are those which push the issue elsewhere.
I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.Earth isn't flat.
This proves it.
It was already explained above. The distance required on the FE model, and the time it takes requires an impossible velocity. This makes the flights impossible on a flat Earth.
As these flights happen, this means Earth can't be flat.Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.Only if you try and treat the surface itself as a plane.
But no one is trying that.
People use a level surface, and large distance. In this case, the "Flat" Earth would be pretty much flat, while the round earth will start showing serious deviations from flat, as it does.There is no flat Earth map. Ergo, this is a nonissue.No, there are multiple (which is a problem itself and shows a FE to be impossible). The only ones which solve this issue are those which push the issue elsewhere.
Ergo, it is an issue, an issue which shows a FE is impossible.
Even without that, you can take numerous flights and use them collectively to show a FE is impossible.
All of your points are moot in lieu of a map.No they aren't, they show it is impossible to make an accurate map, and I have provided a means to make a FE map (several contradicting ones), which these flights are impossible in.
The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.Yes, they happen, they are possible, ON A ROUND EARTH!!!
All of your points are moot in lieu of a map.
The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.
All of your points are moot in lieu of a map.So you only argument is still that you don't have a map!
The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.
What does the earth look like?Can we take that as definitive?
As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.
The earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.
All of your points are moot in lieu of a map.
This evidence shows that a flat earth map is impossible. The fact that none exists, it not surprising.The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.
He never said they were impossible, learn to read. The flights are impossible if the earth is flat, map or no map.
He never said they were impossible
The flights are impossible
Stop lying, it just shows your dishonesty.He never said they were impossible, learn to read. The flights are impossible if the earth is flat, map or no map.QuoteHe never said they were impossibleQuoteThe flights are impossible
Stop lying, it just shows your dishonesty.He never said they were impossible, learn to read. The flights are impossible if the earth is flat, map or no map.QuoteHe never said they were impossibleQuoteThe flights are impossible
Do you know what quote mining is? Because that is what you are doing.
There is a difference between the statements
"The flights are impossible." and
"The flights are impossible if the earth is flat."
One is stating they are impossible, without any qualifiers at all, meaning there is no way for these flights to be possible, regardless of the shape of Earth.
The other is indicating a condition which would make them impossible, with that condition being Earth being flat.
That means if Earth is flat, the flights are impossible. If Earth is not flat, then the flights may be possible, but more importantly, if the flights are possible (which they are), then Earth can't be flat.
So no one is saying they are impossible, unconditionally.
They are saying they are impossible on a flat Earth. (and explaining why)
They are using this, along with the fact that these flights exist and thus are clearly possible, shows a flat Earth is impossible.
And no, your BS circular reasoning can't help you.
I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society FAQ Here is picture of a proposed,(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymaj1rl83mfazic/1892%20-%20Gleasons%20Map%20-%20Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%2025500%20km%20-%20sml.jpg?dl=1) 1892 - Gleasons Map Sydney to Santiago - 25,500 km | This is the layout presented in the FAQ and described as: Quote What does the earth look like?Nothing suggests that it might not definitive, though the map is "certainly not definitive". But the only important points are: circular, North Pole at the centre, equator around the middle and Antarctica around the outside. And I believe that we have shown that, on that layout, the SYD to SCL is quite impossible because of range and time. |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/sly7oebfhpt6u6t/Bipolar%20Map%20Scaled%20-%20Santiago%20to%20Sydney%2018300%20km.png?dl=1) Bipolar Map Santiago to Sydney 18,300 km | Some flat-earthers, including Tom Bishop, support this layout and Sandokhan supports a layout which is not greatly different. Apart from numerous other difficulties the shortest route for the SYD to SCL flight is still 18,300 km and too far for the planes used and flight times. Not only that the inititial direction out of Sydney on that route is South West and not North West it on the real flights. So, wipe that one! |
| The only proposer of this layout seems to be JRoweSkeptic with his "DET". But it has what I and many others consider insuperable difficulties. Nevertheless flight distances are "not too far" from reported distances. Of course, this is because it approximates the Globe reasonable well, except close to the equator where distances can be almost 60% too large. But I believe that we can ignore this simply because of the impossibility of seamlessly crossing or even seeing across the equator. So, wipe that one! |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/lrh99rdt53fblv6/South%20Polar%20Azimuthal%20Equidistant%20Projection.png?dl=1) South Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection | That seems to leave only a South Pole centred layout as on the left - that solves nothing. It just transfers all the Southern Hemisphere problems to the Northern Hemisphere where there is more land and many more people to bitch about the silly shapes and distances. So, wipe that one! |
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth. Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...No we are not working backwards, the earth has been known to be a Globe for over 2000 years.
Hellenic world
Since the spherical shape was the most widely supported during the Greek Era, efforts to determine its size followed. Plato determined the circumference of the Earth (which is slightly over 40,000 km) to be 400,000 stadia (between 62,800 and 74,000 km or 46,250 and 39,250 mi) while Archimedes estimated 300,000 stadia (48,300 km or 30,000 mi), using the Hellenic stadion which scholars generally take to be 185 meters or 1⁄10 of a geographical mile. Plato's figure was a guess and Archimedes' a more conservative approximation.
Hellenistic world
In Egypt, a Greek scholar and philosopher, Eratosthenes (276 BC – 195 BC), is said to have made more explicit measurements.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Eratosthenes' method for determining the size of the Earth
From these observations, measurements, and/or "known" facts, Eratosthenes concluded that since the angular deviation of the sun from the vertical direction at Alexandria was also the angle of the subtended arc (see illustration), the linear distance between Alexandria and Syene was 1/50 of the circumference of the Earth which thus must be 50×5000 = 250,000 stadia or probably 25,000 geographical miles. The circumference of the Earth is 24,902 mi (40,075.16 km). Over the poles it is more precisely 40,008 km or 24,860 mi. The actual unit of measure used by Eratosthenes was the stadion. No one knows for sure what his stadion equals in modern units, but some say that it was the Hellenic 185 m stadion.
Ancient India
The Indian mathematician Aryabhata (AD 476–550) was a pioneer of mathematical astronomy. He describes the earth as being spherical and that it rotates on its axis, among other things in his work Āryabhaṭīya. Aryabhatiya is divided into four sections. Gitika, Ganitha (mathematics), Kalakriya (reckoning of time) and Gola (celestial sphere). The discovery that the earth rotates on its own axis from west to east is described in Aryabhatiya ( Gitika 3,6; Kalakriya 5; Gola 9,10;). For example, he explained the apparent motion of heavenly bodies is only an illusion (Gola 9), with the following simile;
Just as a passenger in a boat moving downstream sees the stationary (trees on the river banks) as traversing upstream,
so does an observer on earth see the fixed stars as moving towards the west at exactly the same speed
(at which the earth moves from west to east.)
Aryabhatiya also estimates the circumference of Earth, with an error of 1%, which is remarkable. Aryabhata gives the radii of the orbits of the planets in terms of the Earth-Sun distance as essentially their periods of rotation around the Sun. He also gave the correct explanation of lunar and solar eclipses and that the Moon shines by reflecting sunlight.
Islamic world
Main article: Geography and cartography in medieval Islam: Mathematical geography and geodesy
The Muslim scholars, who held to the spherical Earth theory, used it to calculate the distance and direction from any given point on the earth to Mecca. This determined the Qibla, or Muslim direction of prayer. Muslim mathematicians developed spherical trigonometry which was used in these calculations.
Around AD 830 Caliph al-Ma'mun commissioned a group of astronomers led by Al-Khwarizmi to measure the distance from Tadmur (Palmyra) to Raqqa, in modern Syria. They found the cities to be separated by one degree of latitude and the distance between them to be 66 2⁄3 miles[clarification needed] and thus calculated the Earth's circumference to be 24,000 miles.[8] Another estimate given was 56 2⁄3 Arabic miles per degree, which corresponds to 111.8 km per degree and a circumference of 40,248 km, very close to the currently modern values of 111.3 km per degree and 40,068 km circumference, respectively.
Muslim astronomers and geographers were aware of magnetic declination by the 15th century, when the Egyptian astronomer 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Wafa'i (d. 1469/1471) measured it as 7 degrees from Cairo.
The flat earth myth
. . . . . .
flat-earth belief was extremely rare in the Church. The flat earth’s two main proponents were obscure figures named Lactantius (c. 240 – c. 320) and Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th century; the last name means “voyager to India”). However, they were hugely outweighed by tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, scientists, and rulers who unambiguously affirmed that the earth was round. Russell documents accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon (1220–1292), inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan (1301–1358) and Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382); the monk John of Sacrobosco (c. 1195–c. 1256) who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.
. . . . . . . . .
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.
In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.[Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:
“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”
More in The flat earth myth. (http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth)
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.No.
Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...Then maybe you should open your eyes. The distance is impossible for the fly in the time it takes. This makes these flights impossible on a FE.
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.No.
You are the one working backwards.
When confronted with irrefutable evidence Earth can't be flat, as these flights are impossible on a flat Earth, with an explanation of why, rather than trying to show how they are possible on a flat Earth, you baseless assert Earth is flat to try and claim these flights must be possible, to dismiss the evidence against Earth being flat.
Regardless of if you start with the assumption that Earth is flat, these flights are impossible on a flat Earth. These flights people possible show your assumption to be pure bullshit.Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...Then maybe you should open your eyes. The distance is impossible for the fly in the time it takes. This makes these flights impossible on a FE.
We are all still waiting on a sound rebuttal, where you explain how they are possible on a flat Earth.
Remember, it isn't just this one flight, if you try and manipulate your BS Earth to make this one work, you just make other ones impossible.
Clearly flight times only fit together on a round earth. QED.You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.No.
You are the one working backwards.
When confronted with irrefutable evidence Earth can't be flat, as these flights are impossible on a flat Earth, with an explanation of why, rather than trying to show how they are possible on a flat Earth, you baseless assert Earth is flat to try and claim these flights must be possible, to dismiss the evidence against Earth being flat.
Regardless of if you start with the assumption that Earth is flat, these flights are impossible on a flat Earth. These flights people possible show your assumption to be pure bullshit.Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...Then maybe you should open your eyes. The distance is impossible for the fly in the time it takes. This makes these flights impossible on a FE.
We are all still waiting on a sound rebuttal, where you explain how they are possible on a flat Earth.
Remember, it isn't just this one flight, if you try and manipulate your BS Earth to make this one work, you just make other ones impossible.
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Do you know how reasoning works?
This is more of another map problem if anything.
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Do you know how reasoning works?
This is more of another map problem if anything.
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.No.
You are the one working backwards.
When confronted with irrefutable evidence Earth can't be flat, as these flights are impossible on a flat Earth, with an explanation of why, rather than trying to show how they are possible on a flat Earth, you baseless assert Earth is flat to try and claim these flights must be possible, to dismiss the evidence against Earth being flat.
Regardless of if you start with the assumption that Earth is flat, these flights are impossible on a flat Earth. These flights people possible show your assumption to be pure bullshit.Still waiting for any possible answer as to how you're figuring out the are impossible on a flat Earth...Then maybe you should open your eyes. The distance is impossible for the fly in the time it takes. This makes these flights impossible on a FE.
We are all still waiting on a sound rebuttal, where you explain how they are possible on a flat Earth.
Remember, it isn't just this one flight, if you try and manipulate your BS Earth to make this one work, you just make other ones impossible.
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Do you know how reasoning works?
This is more of another map problem if anything.
This is more of another map problem if anything.So provide a map that solve this problem – an FE map that can explain every flight.
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
We look forward to the answer.You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Do you know how reasoning works?Specifically a proof by contradiction and circular reasoning?
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.No.
This is more of another map problem if anything.Yes, as the distances make these flights impossible on a flat Earth.
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.Sure, "You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat."
Do you know how reasoning works?Sure, but apparently you don't.
This is more of another map problem if anything.Really, then you show us a flat earth "layout" where all intercontinental airline routes are possible.
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Do you know how reasoning works?
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
It def comes down to the shape of a flat earth as the common used aircraft for public transportation can't possibly travel that much faster and farther as they would supposed to in almost any long distance flight in the southern hemisphere.
Yet any of the flatties have utterly failed in providing such thing, I wonder why that would be?
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Do you know how reasoning works?
Yes, we do know how reasoning works. We also recognize fallacies in reasoning. Yours is called "begging the question (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question)"
I'll give you another example:
- I'll assume airplanes are teleporting from SCL to SYD
- Planes that leave SCL actually do arrive in SYD
- Thus, these planes are teleporting
True, but no more illogical than your assumption that the earth is flat, when the truth or fallacy of that is what we are out to prove.Yes, we do know how reasoning works. We also recognize fallacies in reasoning. Yours is called "begging the question (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question)"Well, that's an unreasonably silly assumption.
I'll give you another example:
- I'll assume airplanes are teleporting from SCL to SYD
- Planes that leave SCL actually do arrive in SYD
- Thus, these planes are teleporting
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Not only that but Gotham posted this:
As I see it you have two options:
Come up with at some idea of where the basic features of "your flat earth" lie or
abandon the whole discussion.
The only suggestions I can make is to show some of the continental layouts that flat earthers have actually proposed.
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society FAQHere is picture of a proposed,(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymaj1rl83mfazic/1892%20-%20Gleasons%20Map%20-%20Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%2025500%20km%20-%20sml.jpg?dl=1)
but certainly not definitive, flat earth:
1892 - Gleasons Map
Sydney to Santiago - 25,500 km
This is the layout presented in the FAQ and described as:QuoteWhat does the earth look like?Nothing suggests that it might not definitive, though the map is "certainly not definitive".
As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.
The earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.
But the only important points are: circular, North Pole at the centre, equator around the middle and Antarctica around the outside.
And I believe that we have shown that, on that layout, the SYD to SCL is quite impossible because of range and time.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/sly7oebfhpt6u6t/Bipolar%20Map%20Scaled%20-%20Santiago%20to%20Sydney%2018300%20km.png?dl=1)
Bipolar Map
Santiago to Sydney 18,300 km
Some flat-earthers, including Tom Bishop, support this layout and Sandokhan supports a layout which is not greatly different.
Apart from numerous other difficulties the shortest route for the SYD to SCL flight is still 18,300 km and too far for the planes used and flight times.
Not only that the inititial direction out of Sydney on that route is South West and not North West it on the real flights.
So, wipe that one!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vjd3bio3vdcdthz/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane%20-%20sml.jpg?dl=1)
Azimuthal Map Northern Hemiplane(https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb5gvpjemhqd1zt/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane%20-%20sml.jpg?dl=1)
Azimuthal Map Southern Hemiplane
The only proposer of this layout seems to be JRoweSkeptic with his "DET".
But it has what I and many others consider insuperable difficulties.
Nevertheless flight distances are "not too far" from reported distances.
Of course, this is because it approximates the Globe reasonable well, except close to the equator where distances can be almost 60% too large.
But I believe that we can ignore this simply because of the impossibility of seamlessly crossing or even seeing across the equator.
So, wipe that one!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/lrh99rdt53fblv6/South%20Polar%20Azimuthal%20Equidistant%20Projection.png?dl=1)
South Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection
That seems to leave only a South Pole centred layout as on the left - that solves nothing.
It just transfers all the Southern Hemisphere problems to the Northern Hemisphere where there is more land and many more people to bitch about the silly shapes and distances.
So, wipe that one!
So over to you! Any more bright ideas?
Please either offer a flat earth layout where these (the Southern and Northern flights) are feasible or admit that this is one more black mark against your flat earth hypothesis.
Yacht race numerical gymnastics are not indicative of Earth shape. Presenting these representative kips and splits will not get you closer to the truth.So if you can't find a map, go and ask Gotham. Surely a "Planar Moderator" has all this information at the tip of his crook?
FET has maps(s) that get closer to truth. It has been stated that if you travel straight on the flat Earth, you will end up right where you started due to the nature of arcing. This makes more sense than all the "we" are living (and having races) on a round ball...and really works if you were to try it.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1) From near sea-level, sure looks perfectly flat and level. | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/rcmu3djzvuhpz74/Curvature%20from%20Concorde.jpg?dl=1) From Concorde, 50,000 ft, maybe a bit of a curve there. |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/fcckeitocn1cucr/Losing%20Your%20Ride%20at%20121%2C000%20Feet%20-%20A%20Preview%20Indiana%20Caver%20at%200.17%20secs.jpg?dl=1) Losing Your Ride at 121,000 Feet - starting to look convincing! From a Flat Earther's video. | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/2wlf8boqqqqxsfl/Planet%20Earth%20seen%20from%20space%20-Full%20HD%201080p%29-ORIGINAL.jpg?dl=1) That sure looks curved to me, from about 200 miles, must be ;D CGI ;D |
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Lower echelon troll confirmed. Possibly mentally deficient.
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".
I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.
It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."
You could just admit that you have no case and run away.
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".
I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.
It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."
You could just admit that you have no case and run away.
Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.
The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".
I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.
It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."
You could just admit that you have no case and run away.
Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.
The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
Yes do it, take these flights and prove on one hand to other FEIB that they exist.
And on the other hand than prove with a map of a flat earth that it fits to the map.
I dare you to do that.
Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
What "flights" on what "working model"?Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".
And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".
I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.
It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."
You could just admit that you have no case and run away.
Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.
The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
What "flights" on what "working model"?Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".
And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".
I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.
It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."
You could just admit that you have no case and run away.
Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.
The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
I have never seen a "working flat earth model". The only working model I have seen in the "Heliocentric Globe".
So stop just blowing hot air (http://avatarfiles.alphacoders.com/111/1.gif) as you have been all along and show us your "working flat earth model".
Don't hide your light under a bushel. In your case that would be hazardous to your health, as it would all go up in flames.
There could be a very simple reason for that.Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.
There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.
Right. You're asking me to come up with something of the same quality as a model that millions of scientists have been working on for thousands of years. That's a pretty tall order.Rubbish!
The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.You cannot claim that is consistent with a flat earth unless to have a flat earth model.
Right. You're asking me to come up with something of the same quality as a model that millions of scientists have been working on for thousands of years. That's a pretty tall order.Rubbish!
The Globe model was developed by a few Greeks, but verified by many others, Greek, Persian, Indian etc.
Even those accepted that the sun, moon and stars were a great distance away.
They came to this conclusion by the simple reasoning that the sun and moon did not change apparent size significantly from rising to setting.
Even so Aristarchus of Samos (310 BC – 230 BC) estimated that the sun was 18 to 20 times as far away as the moon, he wasn't close
and Hipparchus of Nicaea (190 BC – 120 BC) estimated that the distance to the moon was 68 times the radius of the earth - the correct value is 60.3 times.
Then Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 276 BC – c. 195/194 BC) measured the circumference of the earth.
Poor Eratosthenes gets hammered because of his assumption that the earth was a globe, but many others using different methods
including Aryabhata of India (AD 476–550) and Abu Rayhan al-Biruni of Persia (973–1048), also "measured the earth" and with consistent results.
Also the Globe is the only possible shape consistent with astronomical observations, including the movement of the sun and moon.
Many of these can easily be made by any ordinary person and others made routinely by numerous amateur astronomers.
So stop talking utter bunkum about your "millions of scientists have been working on for thousands of years".
Just open your eyes to things like sunrises, sunset, the movement of the sun, lunar phases etc, etc.
But YOU claimed thatThe fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.You cannot claim that is consistent with a flat earth unless to have a flat earth model.So stop all you delaying tactics and show us how you calculate these distances.I don't know whether to class your argument technique as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or Argumentum ad nauseam.
So which non-universally non-unanimously accepted Flat Earth model does confirm the flight distances?Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.
So which non-universally non-unanimously accepted Flat Earth model does confirm the flight distances?Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.
That's why I'm asking.So which non-universally non-unanimously accepted Flat Earth model does confirm the flight distances?Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.
Why do you think they're not agreed upon?
You're making a similarly fallacious argument by saying the flights are impossible when you have no flat Earth model to confirm this. It's baseless.
YOU claimed thatThe fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.You cannot claim that is consistent with a flat earth unless to have a flat earth model.So stop all you delaying tactics and show us how you calculate these distances.I don't know whether to class your argument technique as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or Argumentum ad nauseam.
You're making a similarly fallacious argument by saying the flights are impossible when you have no flat Earth model to confirm this. It's baseless.YOU claimed thatThe fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.You cannot claim that is consistent with a flat earth unless to have a flat earth model.So stop all you delaying tactics and show us how you calculate these distances.I don't know whether to class your argument technique as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or Argumentum ad nauseam.
Nope, my eyes were checked less than a month ago and I'm not blind yet!So stop all you delaying tactics and show us how you calculate these distances.[/center]Do you not see the similarities here?
I don't know whether to class your argument technique as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or Argumentum ad nauseam.
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.
Based on what, exactly? The non-existent map?No, based upon the numerous maps providing.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.Because you are ignoring it.
Well, that's an unreasonably silly assumption.Not any more so than the assumption that Earth is flat.
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.And then try mapping these distances to a flat surface. Doesn't work.
Person who dodges proper responses and substitutes insults and personal attacks confirmed. Possibly doesn't understand how to have a proper argument.Confirming yourself are we?
Again, the Earth is flatPROVE IT!!!
Right. You're asking me to come up with something of the same quality as a model that millions of scientists have been working on for thousands of years. That's a pretty tall order.No. A simple rudimentary one showing the location of a few cities relative to each other would be fine.
You're making a similarly fallacious argument by saying the flights are impossible when you have no flat Earth model to confirm this. It's baseless.I am using multiple flights as a set. Making a subset of them possible renders others impossible.
Why do you think they're not agreed upon?Because Earth is round, so flat representations will get some parts correct and other parts wrong. So different projections are made to have some parts correct, while other bits are wrong.
Why do you think they're not agreed upon?Because the world is a globe, so they are all completely broken. ::)
Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.
Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards. The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion. If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.
Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.
He learnt on jroa's knee.Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.
LOL, I might have to raise you to one of the upper echelons of trolldom, 5/10. persistent, but still a little too obvious.
I actually think he's another of sceptimatic's characters. Two things they all have in common is the use of baseless assertion as fact, and the dismissal of actual evidence without any reasonable cause. These two things are infuriating for people who possess rational thought and are sure to provoke a response.Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.
LOL, I might have to raise you to one of the upper echelons of trolldom, 5/10. persistent, but still a little too obvious.
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".
I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.
It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."
You could just admit that you have no case and run away.
Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.
The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
Yes do it, take these flights and prove on one hand to other FEIB that they exist.
And on the other hand than prove with a map of a flat earth that it fits to the map.
I dare you to do that.
Again, the Earth is flat and the flights happen, so all it proves is the flights happen how they do regardless of the shape of the Earth.
I actually think he's another of sceptimatic's characters. Two things they all have in common is the use of baseless assertion as fact, and the dismissal of actual evidence without any reasonable cause. These two things are infuriating for people who possess rational thought and are sure to provoke a response.Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.
LOL, I might have to raise you to one of the upper echelons of trolldom, 5/10. persistent, but still a little too obvious.
For all I know, the person behind the computer doesn't even believe any of this crap, but just enjoys getting a rise out of people on various characters about various things.
Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?Because you are asserting that Earth is flat, with no basis. and trying to use that false assumption to conclude that these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?Because you are asserting that Earth is flat, with no basis. and trying to use that false assumption to conclude that these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?I have yet to see any argument from you other than one starting from:
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.Starting a debate with an assumption that cannot be falsified is not valid reasoning.
I stopped reading here. You should really learn to cut your posts down to a readable size. You're a bit wordy.So you can't even read a few lines?
Anyway, I'm simply saying that the flights are possible (obviously) completely separate from the shape of the Earth.No you're not. You are lying, saying Earth is flat, and using that lie to claim the flights are possible on a flat Earth.
So, the shape of the Earth is entirely irrelevant. The flights are possible. That's it.
It's stupid to say that the flights are impossible on a flat Earth, because there is no official model by which to compare the flights and deem them impossible.
Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?I have yet to see any argument from you other than one starting from:You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.Starting a debate with an assumption that cannot be falsified is not valid reasoning.
Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.No we aren't.
What are you not understanding?
Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.No we aren't.
What are you not understanding?
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
Do you mean where I have used that or where these flights are?Where, exactly?Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.No we aren't.
What are you not understanding?
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
Do you mean where I have used that or where these flights are?Where, exactly?Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.No we aren't.
What are you not understanding?
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.Where?
So rather than answer a simple question you pretty much just repeat the same question.QuoteWe are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.Where?
I am understanding everything quite well, thank you. You are the one pleading argumentum ad ignorantiam.Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?I have yet to see any argument from you other than one starting from:You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.Starting a debate with an assumption that cannot be falsified is not valid reasoning.
Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.
What are you not understanding?
DBX | PEK | SYD | ||||
JNB | 6,390 km | 11,699 km | 11,045 km | |||
DBX | xxx | 5,857 km | 12,039 km | |||
PEK | xxx | xxx | 8,934 km |
I actually think he's another of sceptimatic's characters. Two things they all have in common is the use of baseless assertion as fact, and the dismissal of actual evidence without any reasonable cause. These two things are infuriating for people who possess rational thought and are sure to provoke a response.Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.
LOL, I might have to raise you to one of the upper echelons of trolldom, 5/10. persistent, but still a little too obvious.
For all I know, the person behind the computer doesn't even believe any of this crap, but just enjoys getting a rise out of people on various characters about various things.
So rather than answer a simple question you pretty much just repeat the same question.QuoteWe are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.Where?
Fine, I explained it here, among other places:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72377.msg1972270#msg1972270
Now going to actually address it, or just continue your pretence of wilful ignorance?
I am understanding everything quite well, thank you. You are the one pleading argumentum ad ignorantiam.Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?I have yet to see any argument from you other than one starting from:You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.Starting a debate with an assumption that cannot be falsified is not valid reasoning.
Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.
What are you not understanding?
No, I am claiming that the air route distances cannot fit on any flat surface.
For example take the international airports at Johannesburg (JNB), Dubai (DBX), Beijing (PEK) and Sydney (SYD).
The nominal distances between these airports (from TravelAids, Flight Distance Mileage Calculator (http://www.worldatlas.com/travelaids/flight_distance.htm)) is:Now if we take the Johannesburg (JNB) to Sydney (Syd) flight (11,119 km) as a baseline we can use
DBX PEK SYD JNB 6,380 km 11,699 km 11,119 km DBX xxx 5,860 km 12,008 km PEK xxx xxx 8,774 km
the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to DXB and JNB to DXB to calculate the location of Dubai, relative to Johannesburg and Sydney and use
the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to PEK and SYD to PEK to calculate the location of Beijing, relative to Johannesburg and Sydney.
Then the distance from Dubai to Beijing can be calculated or scaled off a diagram - I did both.
This shown here:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y6yih0jmpfs56p5/JNB-DBX-PEK-SYD%20Flat%20Air%20Routes.png?dl=1)This distance from Dubai to Beijing read from the diagram is 7607 km or 7,608 km calculated in Excel.
JNB-DBX-PEK-SYD Flat Air RoutesBut the actual air route distance from Dubai to Beijing is not 7,608 km but 5,860 km.So these flight distances do not fit on any flat surface.
Now the distances I have used are just the nominal distances and real flight distances would all be a little longer.
Some other kind person might like to go to the trouble of looking up actual flights on FlightRadar24 (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights) or FlightAware, QANTAS QFA64, JNB to SYD (https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA64/history/20171019/1710Z/FAOR/YSSY).
There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.
My willful ignorance?Yes, with you continually ignoring what I have said.
You keep doing the same thing. You're trying to prove your point with demonstrably flawed, non-agreed-upon models.I keep doing the same thing, proving that Earth can't be flat.
If we had a model akin to the dogmatic one of the round Earth, and the flights didn't work, that would tell us something. Proving that it doesn't work on broken models that random people made is not helping anything.No, not a dogmatic one, one which matches reality.
Do you see the problem yet? Do I need to word it a few more ways?Yes, I see the problem, EARTH ISN'T FLAT!!
There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.Again, the lack of an official model doesn't mean we can't prove that it's impossible.
Isn't that inconsistent with your model? Shouldn't the flights be longer than what flat geometry would suggest? If you take a flat line and curve it, it gets larger, not smaller.No. It isn't inconsistent with our model.
Not at all I am not trying to compare the distanEs between Dubai and Beijing on the flat earth and the Globe.
I am claiming that the air route distances cannot fit on any flat surface.
For example take the international airports at Johannesburg (JNB), Dubai (DBX), Beijing (PEK) and Sydney (SYD).
The nominal distances between these airports (from TravelAids, Flight Distance Mileage Calculator (http://www.worldatlas.com/travelaids/flight_distance.htm)) is:
<< see below >>
Now if we take the Johannesburg (JNB) to Sydney (Syd) flight (11,045 km) as a baseline we can use
the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to DXB and SYD to DXB to calculate the location of Dubai, relative to Johannesburg and Sydney and use
the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to PEK and SYD to PEK to calculate the location of Beijing, relative to Johannesburg and Sydney.
Then the distance from Dubai to Beijing can be calculated, say using Excel.
This shown here:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y6yih0jmpfs56p5/JNB-DBX-PEK-SYD%20Flat%20Air%20Routes.png?dl=1)This distance from Dubai to Beijing read from the diagram is 7951 km calculated in Excel.
JNB-DBX-PEK-SYD Flat Air RoutesBut the actual air route distance from Dubai to Beijing is not 7951 km but 5,857 km.So these flight distances do not fit on any flat surface.
Now the distances I have used are just the nominal distances and real flight distances would all be a little longer.
Some other kind person might like to go to the trouble of looking up actual flights on FlightRadar24 (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights) or FlightAware, QANTAS QFA64, JNB to SYD (https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA64/history/20171019/1710Z/FAOR/YSSY).
Isn't that inconsistent with your model? Shouldn't the flights be longer than what flat geometry would suggest? If you take a flat line and curve it, it gets larger, not smaller.
DBX | PEK | SYD | ||||
JNB | 6,390 km | 11,699 km | 11,045 km | |||
DBX | xxx | 5,857 km | 12,039 km | |||
PEK | xxx | xxx | 8,934 km |
You do not need a flat earth 'model', just need to map times and distances to a 2 dimensional flat surface. Draw some lines and see if they fit.So rather than answer a simple question you pretty much just repeat the same question.QuoteWe are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.Where?
Fine, I explained it here, among other places:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72377.msg1972270#msg1972270
Now going to actually address it, or just continue your pretence of wilful ignorance?
My willful ignorance?
Seriously?
You keep doing the same thing. You're trying to prove your point with demonstrably flawed, non-agreed-upon models.
If we had a model akin to the dogmatic one of the round Earth, and the flights didn't work, that would tell us something. Proving that it doesn't work on broken models that random people made is not helping anything.
Do you see the problem yet? Do I need to word it a few more ways?
There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.
You keep doing the same thing. You're trying to prove your point with demonstrably flawed, non-agreed-upon models.
...
There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.
...
There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.
You are as unlogisch as you can be.
You now claim that because there is no evidence for your claim, you can not be proven wrong.
OK than I can claim you are dump as a door nail, and because I have no proven for it you can not disprove the prove and therefore you can not disprove me therefore I am right.
See I am right that you are dump as a door nail. ;D ;D ;D
If you have no way to prove a claim wrong, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, Newton's Flaming Laser Sword applies. Thus, this (flight times) is not a topic worthy of debate.Except that flight times can be falsified. In fact, they're falsified all the time by the airline industry and passengers who take those flights.
You can claim anything you want. It doesn't make it true, necessarily. If you have no way to prove a claim wrong, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, Newton's Flaming Laser Sword applies. Thus, this (flight times) is not a topic worthy of debate.Following your line of BS (it isn't logical and I'm not going to call it that), what this would actually mean is that the FE is an unfalsifiable hypothesis and thus not a topic worthy of debate.
You can claim anything you want. It doesn't make it true, necessarily. If you have no way to prove a claim wrong, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, Newton's Flaming Laser Sword applies. Thus, this (flight times) is not a topic worthy of debate.Flight distances, confirmed by flight times, cannot be fitted onto any flat surface.
So here's more! We talked about an upper limit to the distance that a commercial flight can have based on flight time, speed, and range; but I think we can also talk about a lower limit. This would enable northern hemisphere flights to contradict FE models, by showing that an airliner cannot fly too slowly and hide that from the passengers. I'll spare the forum the details of the calculation, but based on my original comparison where the FE and RE models share the same equatorial circumference,Fine, but on the "standard North Polar AEP map" (that no-one will admit is "the official map") the diameter of the "so-called known earth" is given as 24,900 miles or 40,073 km.
the flight from NYC to Dubai (similar time and distance as the SYD to SCL) would have to fly with a nose up pitch of about 9 degrees in order to make the flight time work out right on the FE model. I'd have to revise this based on the amount of fuel onboard and the size of the FE model, but the basic premise holds that flights also cannot fly too slow without passengers noticing. You can use the lift equation to make this fairly simple calculation based on air density, speed, wing area, and angle of attack.I think that you need to present your flat earth distances first, because from what I can see in much of Northern Hemisphere, the AEP map is not "very" far out. Here are a couple of FE maps with some of my distaces.
Yes, I agree that the FE model size is relevant for determining the angle of attack that a commercial flight must have to maintain the speed that matches the duration of the flight. My main point is that the size of the FE model becomes irrelevant when you consider the SYD-SCL flight and the JFK-DXB flights simultaneously. The two cannot coexist on any size FE model: too small, and the JFK-DXB requires an extreme flight attitude and too large, and the SYD-SCL requires surpassing mach 1.Also, just a suggestion, but if you take two sets of routes, one circumnavigating the earth in the Northern Hemisphere,