The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: defender_of_truth on October 14, 2017, 09:50:14 AM

Title: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: defender_of_truth on October 14, 2017, 09:50:14 AM
Hi all, I'm new to this forum and I'll be upfront about why I'm here. It is because someone managed to convince my long-time best friend to give some credibility to the "flat earth theory", although he hasn't completely renounced his belief in a round(ish) earth. I'm perturbed about this whole internet sensation, and here to help anyone else who is being led astray by this clearly false "theory". I understand there are psychological underpinnings to the conspiracy theory game, so I will try to stick to verifiable facts to help those who are able to understand.

I've gone through a systematic approach with my friend to help him think critically about one small topic in-depth, so as not to get bogged down with the plurality of subjects. For this, I've chosen the Sydney to Santiago non-stop route which I think is rather new (2015?). The steps are as follows:

1. The flight exists
2. The flight starts and ends at the locations specified
3. Normal everyday people take this flight: business, vacation, etc.
4. The elapsed time is as specified, about 12.5 hours
5. The flight uses the specified plane, 747-400
6. 747-400 specifications are as stated: range, takeoff weight, etc.
7. FE theory states the equator is the same length as the RE equator
8. FE and RE equator are both 24,870 miles long
9. FE and RE equator are both 7,918 miles in diameter (pi*d=dia)
10. FE shortest distance from SYD to SCL is roughly 10100 miles
11. RE shortest distance from SYD to SCL is roughly 7066 miles
12. The speed of sound is 661mph at 35,000 feet

The distance from SYD to SCL on FE can't happen for at least 2 reasons:
13. The speed would be faster than mach 1
14. The range exceeds specification

Please respond back with a specific number, or something scientific with numbers and facts. Let's leave opinions out of this discussion.

Thanks
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: Sam Hill on October 14, 2017, 10:30:35 AM
We can analyze multiple Southern Hemisphere flights which mutually connect four or more cities as well.  Displayed here on a Web Mercator Projection map are three such sets.

We begin where you did, at SCL, the “Santiago Quatro” of Santiago Chile (SCL), Auckland (AKL), Sydney (SYD), and Honolulu (HNL).  There are nonstop flights from each of these to all three of the others, in both directions (important, so we can average out the effect of the jet stream)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/40320CwzpJYluUS9CEU9Ju1cliTF7FtnwJEv3bSyW0P2cvkqgrnwa_mq5bNcAJ0ef1GLU0opyqjxV_QYT3p6K3-bGN1MlnUSuS0MGCaiVW6N4EWFvYvFkw_kvVWmXMAjBYHgA-V5cWh_85AshoiyTtrxbGXOQ9oG5YDHRbHZYoI8x833oA7x0Vk0jvEMkiy9IQxtoMWEHwLbZ2cRS0JE5fwmCB3S_H_9Fpy449_0ecXIRKq92a4ECDl_TCfU-Y5zdSY2Zc6ffJjwOla9apGc0LRjv9_UIvZ7lyk2qxr321gNVr36U_utL81pxXPhd5-ow9bl5bSLiJ-21UHTVlR-afM3smdVr6yPK7neJxYOy-qYpdQaoaJKJIDO7kkipjx98SyGDJnGo-ykcLSPb-HR_fjm1XiRkc1Hyz0DMq1GBhoH8rGiMIElhS-hxBzdy63cXV_05Lii2DG10YKHF3h1TutzfYtiJ5F5i3KX0q3zGv73qnhQ_ktp5BdK4QL2pDZo7CqEn5hgLOk4Mt6DSrINN5rsqTvPvSN12BhMeoqeDQCcGsod-sfwJW3R3lzHc38d1_ENvyDUyYMkWfTqXvSZxX80YLGHs6lBRHDJe9An98jMddPv1FW4jeUsAVdyl8ZX5ErHOTKfDDl4WJ1_xbN8IMkUTaZhjbPooYZR=w2820-h1178-no)

On the east side of the South American continent we have the “São Paulo Cinco”, interconnecting the São Paulo airports (GRU and VCP) with Johannesburg (JNB), Dakar (DKR), Dubai (DXB), and New York (JFK).  This one is not ideal due to the odd fact that there is only direct service between Dakar and São Paulo in the westbound direction, preventing us from averaging out the jet stream on that leg. 
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VyKmhmeKlqwpfJZS9EEIfLjWZbKxEyEP6pObKJDQZTjxFTgrFVnkKlU9g5ESwu5Z3m4uaSvFj4HAar5gb70z0z05zVHS7blF9yvX32bwp6nlD7Gmw2RPrI2ewKwOrUn4eUI_BglSgv9R2d1EEctRcGyNY9PE1VBf8tI91_Ud7eMPyl_3cxlGM4AmpMslD_K5UaVp6IHVJaF2rDF0o2iyjPp1D9Xe7LZ_QNsiNDHtatcgrg6UCHJquPMcr9QwJbayXn630fuMNIrLjDDQ-lOMhnaDIPnXR4DZ6V4aDkwuiBrISRUPM7S5anBK8LH_3OC3mKyiRNCdC7JaF3RXHZhQoClgLa16WGzZIfsHWPRhI2O0McZkwGxCyjFUQh1D1a2Sc4c4uYER_aYgaOdsq5Z1PjurZWFKU8K3OzPRV8oqPBqJvCqvJ6P1X-Swq8V9kjpsD_oebXx6YZFe-Ten5-wTAB2VpgkLhIvDkwt76x6V4ZtIGED3ion1yfwhMZlVD8zwP4_W4LbrYVoyINFXhpDAk0BgohWYMs5WplAQrAdHcbHk5MP_2BfluOGJx4Xl5CzITZRVjL83F_brCnIeznuyhYG_spE15SkAB3zvGSRJjg8Y3VMnkLqQMQ3cY8WvXVkXRau5NHbR-dfl9ZR_-tMKcptG8Ah2U-OeXfVF=w2282-h974-no)

Continuing eastward we start getting into a better-connected part of the southern hemisphere, where we find a six city set anchored to the São Paulo Cinco by virtue of sharing the JNB-DXB route: the “Indian Ocean Six”.  The other four airports in the set are Mauritius (MTU), Perth (PER), Singapore (SIN), and Hong Kong (HKG).
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/RTXC0OHF9K9X8FoSpFCo3dgHAhmENSpeqEdp2zzi89zcFCjP72LOoN36Yl31Png5GmazUfs6JUCDEv9cuZ7UlIbprDYMRnyzp7fZlyVpFc0VVGwjGix8zR0xev3QxK6U_bfxpEMnVfG3KPCOrf3B25J7ApURG2MiuPtdYW_nzs3CYuQtmBdf7A9ptK5RXdZgsAn0GD7GPdsfm0RR7KjVYWvvsuYlGDrHZiiB7cBYTakwt9h_561paHbDIlmg06AKapleVbXgokbBA8lnKj7Vwegws0m7kiiUB0cknsFfHnAxrifP3mSKK4V8dMYZgg4_sYRKcNyimjr3bEmh8BFAdEWWu9vZl7KjsEce5s4VTRbLXkmuBBvfYULY8CKUkVPm1OZqC2L92ZIVICcrgQMI9vnQKH0ZcuwYAOZM0mIRDwT8dyyR6NrORAUKcQ4qr5WovK9MG2JCV-mIXOdP8_A3pWpiCWmLMoSq2ysA7ac7SzPczp54D5K1rCDrjjO2t0Jn8j7MLamGpYs3EsU2YA7ieUMVu6bvuZaZCSTX2g8J_JvYmEvZn3r5bsmzEdHbTU6MQV32FUA8-BRgJXKXqnKMyV5LIL2Z19cPrCql85ae1_S9BbunC84pfl7Iu-Oui_jgSwuVqrzLU3E8w7Qqcps2gHfNJEY2HtIZST9r=w1580-h988-no)

For the five and six city groups, the triangles that form can be shown to have geometries that are impossible on a flat surface.  Santiago, Auckland, and Sydney are too close to a straight line to give us a good non-flat argument for that set, any discrepancy there could be due to weather or approach/departure route differences, or any number of other factors.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 14, 2017, 01:27:30 PM
7. FE theory states the equator is the same length as the RE equator
One 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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on October 15, 2017, 03:36:57 AM
Shalom and welcome to the trenches.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 15, 2017, 06:44:31 AM
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.


Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: AFanOfTruth on October 15, 2017, 10:44:43 AM
( 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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 15, 2017, 02:48:24 PM
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.
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.

But there are a few massive problems with this.
The first, and most important, is that this reasoning only works in Euclidean spaces, not non-Euclidean spaces like space-time.
Another is that not all geodesics through space-time remain the same distance from Earth, not even all those which have some point travelling perpendicular to a line connecting Earth to the trajectory (which by definition would include all lines except those going directly through the centre of Earth).
Some will be hyperbolic trajectories, where Earth gets closer and closer, and then starts moving further away, which would indicate that Earth is convex. Others are sub-orbital elliptical trajectories, colliding with the surface of Earth which would indicate Earth is concave. Others are elliptical orbits where the distance to Earth varies periodically, which would indicate an undulating Earth.
Another issue is that it is ignoring all the other points on Earth's surface. Similar to being able to measure the distance to the point below, you can also measure the distance to other points on the surface of Earth, and that indicates Earth is a sphere.

But the simplest analysis is with the equivalence principle which standing on Earth in the presence of gravity is indistinguishable from being on an object accelerating upwards at g. This shows that Earth's surface is not a space-time geodesic (or flat), and instead is constantly curving up (or out), constantly "expanding" as the time axis tries to crush it.


The other option is a completely different route where Earth is merely in non-Euclidean space (without trying to appeal to space-time).
The problem with this is how you measure the curvature of space and why light bends.
Unless you can make it distinguishable from a RE and light going straight (at least through space-time), then it is just a RE in disguise to pretend it is flat.
It also creates the issue of all the FE claims of missing curvature would work equally well against this model (i.e. not at all).

Without light bending, the simplest way to measure if space is Euclidean or not is with light, and there are several ways.
One is to shine 2 beams of light parallel to one another (preferably in a vacuum), and see how the distance between them changes (and as a bonus, the distance from the starting point to them, which is not necessarily measured along the line the light traveled but can be along another straight line)), doing so in multiple directions.
In Euclidean space, they remain the same distance apart.
In spherical space, they first converge (get closer together), then cross, then diverge (get further apart), reaching a maximum (which should be the initial separation distance) before starting to converge again, crossing and diverging and reaching a maximum at the starting point.
In hyperbolic space, they diverge, with the rate of the change in rate of divergence continually decreasing until eventually they reach a point where they act like 2 lines which started at an angle in Euclidean space.
In other spaces you can have some combination of the above.
In cylindrical spaces they remain the same distances apart, yet can loop around, with beams fired at an angle crossing one another multiple times (depending on the starting directions).

But if Earth's surface is going to be flat, then a beam of light fired parallel to Earth's surface should remain the same distance above.

Another option is to measure the apparent intensity of a light source with changing distance.
The 1/r^2 law is based upon Euclidean geometry where as the light propagates outwards, the same energy is spread over the surface of a sphere.
In hyperbolic geometry, due to the divergence stated above, the surface area of the sphere grows faster than r^2, and thus the apparent intensity decreases faster.
In spherical geometry, due to the convergence/divergence above, the intensity becomes periodic. It start decreasing as you move away from the source, but with a decrease slower than 1/r^2, reaching a minimum and then starts increasing, reaching a maximum (which is the initial intensity), and then starts decreasing again, reaching a minimum, then growing in intensity to original maximum at the starting point.

This can also be done in 2D with a 1/r law to compare with, but requires a 2D light source.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 15, 2017, 02:57:03 PM
( 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 idea of flatness does cover it in non-Euclidean spaces, at least to some extent.
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: AFanOfTruth on October 15, 2017, 10:03:50 PM
( 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 idea of flatness does cover it in non-Euclidean spaces, at least to some extent.
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:
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)
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 16, 2017, 01:25:58 AM
Please read my message there:
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)
I had been meaning to respond to that but ran out of time.
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2017, 02:03:40 AM
Please read my message there:
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)
I had been meaning to respond to that but ran out of time.
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.

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".
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 16, 2017, 02:49:19 AM
Please read my message there:
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)
I had been meaning to respond to that but ran out of time.
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.

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".

To understand it, you need to take a step back and realise it's a layer of obfustication.  if I can claim the surface of a globe is flat, in some sense or other,  then the distances and times in the southern hemisphere can be perfectly explained.   ( It's a globe ),  but JD can claim he thinks of it as flat in some sense. 

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.

For the record Non Euclidean is not flat in any practical sense.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2017, 03:56:09 AM
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.

Quote from: Rayzor
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.
Hence we live in a 3-D Euclidean space.
The effects of GR, in our vicinity, are mostly due to the curving of the timelike component of spacetime - see JackBlack's diagrams, where orbital motion is (almost) periodic in space, but not in time.

If, however, you consider our movement confined to the surface of a sphere (an approximation to the earth) then you can look on our being confined to a 2-D non-Euclidean space.

But we are not actually confined to the surface of the earth. We can go under the surface (though not far) and above the surface as far "as we like".
Hence the "2-D non-Euclidean space" is just an artifice that is helpful for travel limited to the surface.

None of this, of course, bears any relation to John Davis''s Ferrari Effect.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2017, 06:05:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 16, 2017, 06:19:59 PM
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?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2017, 06:35:32 PM
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?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 16, 2017, 06:38:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2017, 06:52:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 16, 2017, 07:12:47 PM
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. 


Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2017, 07:53:26 PM
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.

...What?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2017, 08:34:24 PM
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.
Quote
Euclid's Elements
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)
Euclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.

Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:
Quote
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)


Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 16, 2017, 10:25:36 PM
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.
Quote
Euclid's Elements
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)
Euclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.

Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:
Quote
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)

Thanks.

Rayzor just thinks he's better than everyone else and can't be wrong.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 16, 2017, 10:51:42 PM
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.
Quote
Euclid's Elements
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)
Euclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.

Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:
Quote
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)

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..



Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 12:25:45 AM
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.
Quote
Euclid's Elements
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)
Euclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.

Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:
Quote
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)

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..

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 17, 2017, 12:31:21 AM
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.
Quote
Euclid's Elements
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)
Euclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.

Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:
Quote
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)

Rabinoz is wrong about what the definition of euclidean is, 
Nope. You might note that I thought of that.
Euclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions and includes solid geometry.
Quote
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.

Quote from: Rayzor
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.   
The earth is in is 3-D Euclidean space, which as we saw above includes solid figures, including spheres.
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: Rayzor
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.
So no, I did not mis-understand anything.
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
Quote from: Rayzor
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

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 109 and even
          at the surface of the Sun is still extremely small - about 1 part in 109.
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.


Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 17, 2017, 12:49:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 17, 2017, 01:06:03 AM
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.
Quote
Euclid's Elements
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)
Euclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions.

Non-Euclidean Geometry includes:
Quote
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)

Rabinoz is wrong about what the definition of euclidean is, 
Nope. You might note that I thought of that.
Euclidean geometry is not restricted to two dimensions and includes solid geometry.
Quote
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.

Quote from: Rayzor
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.   
The earth is in is 3-D Euclidean space, which as we saw above includes solid figures, including spheres.
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: Rayzor
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.
So no, I did not mis-understand anything.
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: Rayzor
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

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 109 and even
          at the surface of the Sun is still extremely small - about 1 part in 109.
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 17, 2017, 02:44:43 AM
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 :)   
Now cue the argument about metrics.  My money is on Minkowski.  I think the flat earthers will disagree.
;D No names, no pack drill. ;D
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 17, 2017, 03:03:41 AM
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 :)   
Now cue the argument about metrics.  My money is on Minkowski.  I think the flat earthers will disagree.
;D No names, no pack drill. ;D

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 17, 2017, 03:35:52 AM
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 :)   
Now cue the argument about metrics.  My money is on Minkowski.  I think the flat earthers will disagree.
;D No names, no pack drill. ;D

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.
Now, if we can only get Mr Can't Spell Thermometer to tell us what his flat earth looks like we might get somewhere.
I guess all we have is the FAQ, where Jack says
Quote
What does the earth look like?
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)
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".

Surely Jack's knowledge of the FE transcends that of th3rm0m3t3r0?

So unless something better comes along, I guess we use the "Ice-Wall" map.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 03:08:38 PM
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.

I explained further.

Why are the flight times impossible? They clearly and demonstrably aren't.

I think I'm a worthless piece of shit, but thanks for knocking me down another self-esteem peg.

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 17, 2017, 03:14:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 03:25:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 17, 2017, 03:45:53 PM
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. 
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 03:55:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: Gumwars on October 17, 2017, 04:55:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 05:03:47 PM
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.

There is no flat Earth map. Ergo, this is a nonissue.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 17, 2017, 05:27:54 PM
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.

Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 06:00:18 PM
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.

Quote
The 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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 17, 2017, 06:19:23 PM
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.

Quote
The 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?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 06:39:25 PM
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.

Quote
The 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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 17, 2017, 07:05:41 PM
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.

Quote
The 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.



Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 07:11:18 PM
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.

Quote
The 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?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 17, 2017, 07:13:56 PM
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.

Quote
The 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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 07:16:07 PM

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 17, 2017, 07:22:51 PM

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 17, 2017, 07:50:06 PM
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.
Really?
The distance from the North Pole to the South Pole on the Globe and on the  usual flat earth map is a little over 20,000 km.
         For the Globe, according to Wikipedia, the polar circumference is 40,008 km
         For the Flat Earth "24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world", so "rim to rim" the earth is 40073 km - close enough.
So on both the Globe or the flat earth, the distance from the North pole to the equator is close enough to 10,000 km.

Now the equatorial circumference of the real earth is 40,075 km, close enough to 40,000 km.

I would like you to fit those dimensions onto your flat earth.

You insist that circumference = 2 × π × radius and it is on a flat surface.

But on the real earth circumference = 2 × 2 × radius.

Now, I (we) did say elsewhere that in non-Euclidean geometry. as on the surface of a sphere, circumference ≠ 2 × π × radius and in
Spherical Geometry, as on the surface of a sphere circumference < 2 × π × radius.

The bottom line is that the Equatorial Circumference = 4 × (North Pole to Equator distance) fits on a sphere but not on a plane surface.

In other words the measured dimensions of the earth will not fit on a plane surface.
[youtube]][/youtube]
The Flat Earth Myth Disproved


Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 07:53:36 PM

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.

You've yet to explain how you arrive at this assertion. It's a pretty big part of the point you're trying to make.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: markjo on October 17, 2017, 08:05:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 08:19:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 17, 2017, 08:51:02 PM
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.

We are discussing flight times not mountain climbing.  Stop avoiding the question.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: markjo on October 17, 2017, 08:54:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 17, 2017, 08:59:08 PM
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.

Right, that whole conversation was sort of off-topic. You're a little late to the party.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: markjo on October 17, 2017, 09:24:47 PM
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.

Right, that whole conversation was sort of off-topic. You're a little late to the party.
That's why I was trying to nudge it back on topic.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 18, 2017, 01:27:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 18, 2017, 01:30:29 AM
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.

The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 18, 2017, 01:45:31 AM
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!!!
They are impossible on a flat Earth, thus these flights prove FE is wrong.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 18, 2017, 01:49:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 18, 2017, 02:15:06 AM
All of your points are moot in lieu of a map.

The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.
So you only argument is still that you don't have a map!
Well, Jack, in the FAQ puts it this way:
Quote
What does the earth look like?

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.
Can we take that as definitive?

The whole point, that no-one is ever prepared to address, is that the measurements of the real earth make a flat earth completely impossible, no matter what sort of flat earth map you try.

The various intercontinental air routes simply provide a rough, but independent check on these measurements.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 18, 2017, 09:40:23 AM
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.

Quote
He never said they were impossible

Quote
The flights are impossible
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 18, 2017, 01:17:58 PM
He never said they were impossible,  learn to read.  The flights are impossible if the earth is flat, map or no map.
Quote
He never said they were impossible
Quote
The flights are impossible
Stop lying, it just shows your dishonesty.

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 18, 2017, 03:54:20 PM
He never said they were impossible,  learn to read.  The flights are impossible if the earth is flat, map or no map.
Quote
He never said they were impossible
Quote
The flights are impossible
Stop lying, it just shows your dishonesty.

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.

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...
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 18, 2017, 04:01:45 PM
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.

Let's cut to the chase and go right back to your claim:
"The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible."
That seems to be the crux of this fruitless argument.

You simply state, "the Earth is flat", but the truth or not of that unsupported claim is the point of the whole thread.

You claim to know that the earth is flat, but seem to have no idea of even its basic layout.

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.
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.

<< Changed a North for South >>
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 18, 2017, 07:30:51 PM
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.

The following is from an old post on the size of the earth, but it looks certain that from say 500 BC on the Greeks believed the earth a Globe:

Just honestly read this Wikipedia, History of geodesy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy). This is from Wikipedia, but the information is available from other sources.

Here are some extracts from that article:
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Then in India in the first century AD:
Quote
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.

And in the first century AD in the Islamic world:
Quote
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.

Al-Biruni
Of the medieval Persian Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (973–1048) it is said:
The detail of Al-Biruni is very relevant, but a bit long to include here, but
"He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value not obtained in the West until the 16th century."

And finally in the early church:
Quote from: Jonathan Sarfati
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)

No, you modern flat earthers are the John-come-lately's so it is up to you to prove you case.

And simply saying, "The earth looks flat" is neither proof nor even evidence.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 19, 2017, 01:04:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 05:44:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: inquisitive on October 19, 2017, 06:10:03 AM
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.
Clearly flight times only fit together on a round earth.  QED.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 19, 2017, 06:12:49 AM
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.

Ok, let's see you prove the flights are possible on a flat earth.   

Logic isn't your strong suit is it?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: Canadabear on October 19, 2017, 06:21:23 AM
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.

and that is you error: why do you start with the assumption that the earth is flat?
what are your prove for that assumption?

if you do the math than you will see that because of the flight time and the flight speed you will get a flight distance.
this flight distance does not match the distance on a flat earth.
and because flight time is tested to be correct and also flight speed is tested to be correct we can say that the flight distance is correct.
what is only left is the assumed distance on a flat earth.
now compare: we have a correct distance and a assumed distance, they do not match, that means that your assumed distance is wrong.
and because your assumed distance is wrong your assumed flat earth is wrong.

even a 5year old will understand that.

do you understand that?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: AFanOfTruth on October 19, 2017, 07:03:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2017, 07:49:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: inquisitive on October 19, 2017, 09:52:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: Sentinel on October 19, 2017, 11:18:46 AM
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?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 19, 2017, 01:07:24 PM
Do you know how reasoning works?
Specifically a proof by contradiction and circular reasoning?
What you are doing is circular reasoning, which is invalid. You assume a premise to try to prove (or at least avoid a disproof) of that premise.
That is not how reasoning works at all.

With a proof by contradiction, you start with a premise, argue through without making more assumptions, until you reach a contradiction which you then use to conclude the assumption was false.

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.
To do it properly (i.e. using reasoning and logic), but I'll even be nice and start with your BS assumption:
Assume Earth is flat.
These flights are impossible on a flat Earth.
Thus these flights are impossible.
But these flights happen, and thus are possible.
Thus we have reached a contradiction and thus the assumption (that Earth is flat) is FALSE!!!

You cannot just start with the assumption that Earth is flat to try and prove these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
You need to deal with why they are impossible.

This is more of another map problem if anything.
Yes, as the distances make these flights impossible on a flat Earth.
You have the general connectivity of places on the globe, based upon flights, including their directions and times.
This requires both the north pole and south pole to be small regions (or points). It also requires the equator to be much larger.
With these connections going all around the world, there is no way to fit this on a flat Earth.
You could use the standard NP centered AEP, but that fails with flights near the south pole.
You can use the SP centered AEP, but that fails with flights near the north pole.
You can use the bipolar map, but that fails with flights which go from one side to the other.

There is no way you can fit these flights onto a flat Earth while keeping them possible.

So it doesn't matter if you assume Earth is flat or not. These flights are impossible on a flat Earth.
Thus these flights being possible show Earth cannot be flat.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2017, 03:06:57 PM
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."
Yes, it is valid logic to start with an assumption, but the possibility of that assumption being invalid must be considered.

It has been shown that "These flights clearly are NOT impossible." True.
But then you claim. "Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth." Not true.

All it means is that either
          "these flights are possible on a flat Earth" or
           your initial "assumption that the Earth is flat" was invalid. 

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0
Do you know how reasoning works?
Sure, but apparently you don't.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0
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.

I gave all the feasible flat earth layouts that I could find in SYD to SCL and flight range « Reply #62 on: October 19, 2017, 09:01:45 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72377.msg1971777#msg1971777).

I believe I also proved that you "modern flat earthists" are the "new boys on the block", so it's up to you to prove you case, not us in:
SYD to SCL and flight range « Reply #63 on: October 19, 2017, 12:30:51 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72377.msg1971828#msg1971828).

So it is over to you.
Come up with some convincing evidence or admit that many international airline flights would be impossible if the earth were flat.

Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: Sam Hill on October 19, 2017, 03:24:57 PM
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:
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 03:44:40 PM
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?

Based on what, exactly? The non-existent map?

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.

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

Well, that's an unreasonably silly assumption.

Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2017, 04:07:52 PM
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
Well, that's an unreasonably silly assumption.
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.

You still refuse to comment on this post where I go through all the "feasible" continental layouts that I can find:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 FAQ
    Here is picture of a proposed,
    but certainly not definitive, flat earth:
    (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?

    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.
    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!

  • (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.
Not only that but Gotham posted this:
Yacht race numerical gymnastics are not indicative of Earth shape.  Presenting these representative kips and splits will not get you closer to the truth.

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.     
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?

To put it bluntly, put up or shut up!
Show us a continental layout (no detailed map needed) that make all international air routes feasible or call it quits.

Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2017, 04:57:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 05:00:38 PM
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?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 19, 2017, 05:52:56 PM
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?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.

Lower echelon troll confirmed.   Possibly mentally deficient.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2017, 06:00:42 PM
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.
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."

But here's some contrary evidence:

(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
Not only does it look curved, but as Galileo is reputed to have said:
"Eppur si muove. And yet it does move.
Referring to the Earth, by legend, Galileo whispered this to himself as he rose from kneeling after making his abjuration of heliocentricity.
."
(https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a012300/a012312/12312_Twitter_June2016.gif)
It sure doesn't look flat to me! And by the way, the earth does not measure flat either.

It's funny that flat earthers still have no meaningful explanations for:And there is still no flat earth map that shows correct distances all over the world.
That, of course, is because it is not possible to have a flat map that shows correct distances at the same scale all over the world.

You could just admit that you have no case and run away.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 06:01:23 PM
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?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.

Lower echelon troll confirmed.   Possibly mentally deficient.

Person who dodges proper responses and substitutes insults and personal attacks confirmed. Possibly doesn't understand how to have a proper argument.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 06:04:09 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: Canadabear on October 19, 2017, 06:45:54 PM
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2017, 07:02:20 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 07:05:59 PM
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?

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.

There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2017, 07:07:38 PM
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"?

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 07:18:31 PM
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"?

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.

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2017, 07:32:32 PM
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.
There could be a very simple reason for that.

The simple fact that the earth isn't flat would make "a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model" very difficult.

But, you refuse to even give any evidence for the earth's being other than a globe, other than "It looks flat".
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2017, 08:15:19 PM
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 that
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.
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.

Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 08:20:08 PM
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 that
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.
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2017, 08:40:35 PM
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?

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.

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?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 08:42:21 PM
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?

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.

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?

Why do you think they're not agreed upon?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: markjo on October 19, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
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?

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.

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?

Why do you think they're not agreed upon?
That's why I'm asking.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2017, 09:05:04 PM
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 that
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.
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 09:09:15 PM
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 that
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.
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.

Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2017, 11:49:06 PM
So stop all you delaying tactics and show us how you calculate these distances.[/center]
I don't know whether to class your argument technique as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or Argumentum ad nauseam.
Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.
Nope, my eyes were checked less than a month ago and I'm not blind yet!

What similarities?

The topic is about a flight, SYD to SCL, that does not fit the "accepted flat earth map" or any flat earth map I have seen.
JRoweSkeptic's comes close, but there are serious problems with his "model".

Maybe you don't accept that map, so show me a flat earth map or even rough "continental layout" where that map does "fit".

If you don't even have a rough idea of where the North Pole, Equator and South Pole are then you don't have a flat earth model.

But, you claim that you have flown routes that do fit "your" flat earth. How many times do I have to ask you to list them?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 20, 2017, 01:17:11 AM
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.
Try mapping it to a globe. Works fine.

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?
Ignoring arguments presented to you is not a proper response.

Again, the Earth is flat
PROVE 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.
Inky was working on it but gave up after realising it wont work.

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.
Flights near the poles shows a flat earth needs to be akin to the bipolar model.
Flights north and south show that each location need to be connected up, but that already is impossible.
But allowing some serious leeway, you could just get away with that part. But then connections east to west near the equator shows it is impossible.

We don't need a FE model to show it is impossible. We can use the flights to try and construct and show it is 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 there is only one round Earth representation (with Earth actually being round rather than flat representations of the round Earth), with the exception of ones which are known to be inaccurate to exaggerate something like the oblateness to make it easier to understand?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 20, 2017, 01:23:18 AM
Why do you think they're not agreed upon?
Because the world is a globe, so they are all completely broken.  ::)
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 20, 2017, 02:15:44 AM
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. 
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: Canadabear on October 20, 2017, 04:27:47 AM
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?

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.

There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.

and why isn't there a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model?

simply because there is not one evidence of the possibility of a flat earth.
there are only a lot of mind plays how a flat earth could look like.
but each and every one has his flaws.
there is not one model that can explain all the reality we can see.
each and every explanation that FEIB bring up is explainable with the global earth model.

you also still did not explain how you can prove your assumption that the earth could be flat.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 20, 2017, 05:14:00 AM
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.
He learnt on jroa's knee.

Now he's all grown up, I wish he'd get his own shtick.  One jroa is bad enough without wannabes.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on October 20, 2017, 05:50:40 AM
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. 

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. 
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: Sentinel on October 20, 2017, 08:16:54 AM
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.
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.

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.

Then prove it, as simple as that.
Until then the earth is as round as it gets, and no flattard BS might be able to change that.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2017, 03:07:45 PM
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. 

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.

Scepti is/was a straight up noob compared to me. Check the dates.

Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 20, 2017, 03:25:57 PM
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.
Meanwhile we are either using commonly promoted FE maps to show these flights don't work as the distance is too great on the FE maps, or using these flights (not just the ones near the south pole, but other flights as well) and distances to show it is impossible to construct a map.

One is close to circular reasoning, where you are assuming Earth is flat to try and say that Earth is flat, or more specifically that there is nothing wrong with these flights on a flat Earth. In this case you take your assumption that Earth is flat as 100% true with no doubt at all, and thus if there are any issues raised it must be with them, not with this assumption. This is completely fallacious when the topic of discussion is if Earth is flat and if these flights are compatible with a flat Earth.

The other is a proof by contradiction, where you assume Earth is flat, and then reach a contradiction and use that to show that Earth can't be flat.

Or to put it another way:
Both have these flights being real.
One shows that these flights are impossible on a FE, and uses that to conclude Earth can't be flat.
The other baselessly asserts that Earth is flat, and uses this baseless assumption to conclude these flights are possible on a FE to then conclude they don't pose a problem for a FE.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2017, 03:34:46 PM
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.

I stopped reading here. You should really learn to cut your posts down to a readable size. You're a bit wordy.

Anyway, I'm simply saying that the flights are possible (obviously) completely separate from the shape of the 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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 20, 2017, 03:42:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 20, 2017, 03:42:46 PM
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.
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.
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.
The simple fact is these flights (as in a multitude of flights) show Earth can't be flat. I have explained why. If you think there is a problem with that explanation go and show what the issue is.
I didn't appeal to any official model.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 20, 2017, 03:43:49 PM
And see what I mean about you not admitting when you are wrong?
You just ignore it when people show why you are wrong, or lie about what they or you have done to pretend you aren't wrong.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2017, 03:49:07 PM
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?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 20, 2017, 03:54:38 PM
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 we aren't.
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
What are you not understanding?

Regardless, people present a model of FE as if it was an official one, because it is what is needed for several things to make sense, but results in other things (like these flights) not making sense.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2017, 04:02:04 PM
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 we aren't.
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.

Where, exactly?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 20, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
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 we aren't.
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
Where, exactly?
Do you mean where I have used that or where these flights are?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2017, 04:35:37 PM
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 we aren't.
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
Where, exactly?
Do you mean where I have used that or where these flights are?

Quote
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
Where?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 20, 2017, 05:04:50 PM
Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 20, 2017, 07:20:14 PM
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?
I am understanding everything quite well, thank you. You are the one pleading argumentum ad ignorantiam.

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 Great Circle Mapper (http://www.gcmap.com/dist?P=SYD-PEK&DU=km&DM=&SG=&SU=kph)) is:
   
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

Now if we take the Johannesburg (JNB) to Sydney (Syd) flight (11,119 km) as a baseline we can use
      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)
JNB-DBX-PEK-SYD Flat Air Routes
This distance from Dubai to Beijing is 7,591 km calculated in Excel.
But the actual air route distance from Dubai to Beijing is not 7,608 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).


<< Distance Sydney to Beijing corrected - little effect of result >>
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 20, 2017, 08:05:24 PM
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. 

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.

Head of nail,  meet the hammer. 

Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 21, 2017, 01:28:49 AM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 21, 2017, 01:34:16 AM
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?
I am understanding everything quite well, thank you. You are the one pleading argumentum ad ignorantiam.

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:
   
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
Now if we take the Johannesburg (JNB) to Sydney (Syd) flight (11,119 km) as a baseline we can use
      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)
JNB-DBX-PEK-SYD Flat Air Routes
This distance from Dubai to Beijing read from the diagram is 7607 km or 7,608 km calculated in Excel.
But 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).

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JerkFace on October 21, 2017, 01:41:38 AM
There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.

Bzzzt,   Sorry, fatal logic error.   The flight times disprove all possible flat earth maps.   

The fact that you didn't understand the differences between euclidean and non-euclidean is your downfall. 

Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 21, 2017, 02:14:00 AM
My willful ignorance?
Yes, with you continually ignoring what I have said.
You have knowledge presented to you which you are wilfully choosing to ignore/reject.
That means you are wilfully ignorant.


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.
Yes, these models are demonstrably flawed, because Earth isn't flat.
But I used the flights to show what attributes the model must have assuming Earth is flat and reached a contradiction, showing Earth isn't 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.
The fact you have so many flawed models and not a single working model while RE has a single working model, tells us something.
It tells us your FE garbage cannot explain reality, that you need to appeal to different models for different parts.

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!!
It is impossible to construct a working model of Earth which is flat.
And the other problem is that you don't give a shit about the truth or reality and are happy to just keep spouting ignorant garbage.

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.
We can show what attributes the model MUST have and show that it contradicts itself.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 21, 2017, 02:15:58 AM
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.
Why would taking a flat line and curving it make it larger rather than smaller?
Perhaps you should try thinking about it the other way. You take a round surface, and then stretch it out so it is flat.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 21, 2017, 03:16:32 AM

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)
JNB-DBX-PEK-SYD Flat Air Routes
This distance from Dubai to Beijing read from the diagram is 7951 km calculated in Excel.
But 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.
Not at all I am not trying to compare the distanEs between Dubai and Beijing on the flat earth and the Globe.

What I have done is to show that the following set of air route distances cannot fit on any flat surface.
   
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

In those calculations the location of
      Dubai is determined by the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to DXB and SYD to DXB and of
      Beijing is determined by the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to PEK and SYD to PEK.
Then the resulting Dubai to Beijing distance is found not to match the real distance.

Three locations make a triangle that can always be fitted onto a plane, but a fourth with flights to the other three will not necessarily fit onto a plane surface.

You try some other combinations or routes and see if you can fit them onto a plane.

When I get onto a computer I'll show the points on the Globe.

<< Distances "tidied up, esp Sydney to Beijing - little effect on result >>
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: inquisitive on October 21, 2017, 04:37:00 AM
Quote
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.

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 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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: NAZA on October 21, 2017, 06:18:44 AM


You keep doing the same thing. You're trying to prove your point with demonstrably flawed, non-agreed-upon models.


This from a flatter, priceless.

Maybe you guys need to dumb it down a bit for AltSkepti/R2dc3po.

Here's an easy experiment that this flatter with a degree in science can perform.

Equipment needed:
 1 ball
Wrapping paper

Instructions :

1. Wrap ball without cutting, folding, creasing, or wetting paper

2.  Flee thread
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: Canadabear on October 21, 2017, 02:42:11 PM
...

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
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 21, 2017, 02:58:49 PM
...

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

... Dump as a doornail?

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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: markjo on October 21, 2017, 03:19:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: JackBlack on October 21, 2017, 04:25:55 PM
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.
Your response seems to repeatedly be that there is no official FE model and thus nothing to falsify.
So it is FE that is garbage unworthy of debate.

The flight times can be falsified.

But of course, that is still just a load of BS.
You don't need an official model to falsify it.
You can show requirements that the model must have, and show they lead to a contradiction, as I did, which you ignored.
So not only can FE be falsified using flight times/distances, it has been.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 21, 2017, 05:03:10 PM
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.

Therefore, since as you have admitted these flights exist, the earth cannot be flat.

End of story.

If you want to dispute the above conclusion, you try fitting the distances of the following flights onto any flat surface:
London to Beijing, Beijing to Los Angeles and Los Angeles to London.
Then:
Johannesburg to Sydney, Sydney to Santiago, Santiago to Buenos Aires and Buenos Aires to Johannesburg.

I doubt that you'll manage that, but a few connecting flights will put the kibosh on that.

Have fun on your Pizza Planet!
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 22, 2017, 05:01:32 PM
Can we now claim that if the stated air route distances are reasonably close that given by the airlines then
the earth cannot be flat?
Any objections?
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: defender_of_truth on October 23, 2017, 12:47:20 AM
Wow, you guys really take this stuff and run with it! 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, 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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 23, 2017, 01:50:11 AM
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.
This makes the equatorial circumference 62,947 km, far bigger that the equatorial circumference of the real earth.

Quote from: defender_of_truth
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.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/mux32ayjmldllho/1892%20-%20Gleasons%20Map%20-%20Air%20Routes.jpg?dl=1)
1892 - Gleasons Map - Air Routes
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rnxqax91dv29ysn/1892%20-%20Gleasons%20Map%20-%20Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20and%20Tokyo%20to%20San%20Francisco.png?dl=1)
1892 - Gleasons Map - Sydney to Santiago and Tokyo to San Francisco
Though I haven't looked at your route yet.

Best of luck.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: defender_of_truth on October 23, 2017, 02:26:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
Post by: rabinoz on October 23, 2017, 03:52:47 AM
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,
         say, LHR to PEK, PEK to LAX and LAX to London.
And one circumnavigating the earth in the Southern Hemisphere,
         say, JNB to SYD, SYD to SCL, SCL to EZE and EZE to JNB.
It will totally impossible to fit those distances onto any flat surface, especially if a couple of North-South routes are added,
         say, LHR to JNB and PEK to SYD.

I might tackle it one day, but rather than simply relying of Globe distances, I would like to get actual flight distances, flight times and aircraft speeds.

One day.