1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times???

« on: June 02, 2010, 07:29:49 AM »

Impact on passenger aircraft
Effect of wind shear on aircraft trajectory. Note how merely correcting for the initial gust front can have dire consequences.

Strong outflow from thunderstorms causes rapid changes in the three-dimensional wind velocity just above ground level. Initially, this outflow causes a headwind that increases airspeed, which normally causes a pilot to reduce engine power if they are unaware of the wind shear. As the aircraft passes into the region of the downdraft, the localized headwind diminishes, reducing the aircraft's airspeed and increasing its sink rate. Then, when the aircraft passes through the other side of the downdraft, the headwind becomes a tailwind, reducing airspeed further, leaving the aircraft in a low-power, low-speed descent. This can lead to an accident if the aircraft is too low to effect a recovery before ground contact. As the result of the accidents in the 1970s and 1980s, in 1988 the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration mandated that all commercial aircraft have on-board wind shear detection systems by 1993. Between 1964 and 1985, wind shear directly caused or contributed to 26 major civil transport aircraft accidents in the U.S. that led to 620 deaths and 200 injuries. Since 1995, the number of major civil aircraft accidents caused by wind shear has dropped to approximately one every ten years, due to the mandated on-board detection as well as the addition of Doppler weather radar units on the ground. (NEXRAD)[21]

I'd hate to see how a commercial airliner manages to travel outside of a jet stream traveling over twice the speed of sound to a normal landing speed.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: More evidence for Flat Earth Theory

« on: May 31, 2010, 08:14:58 AM »

When the plane is at ground level, horizontal lines on the airport buildings are still straight when viewed through the windows, why would the horizon differ?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lets talk about navigation.

« on: May 31, 2010, 06:49:02 AM »

A map would certainly not reflect actual or accurate distances of a globe earth.

Take a look at the size of Greenland on a Mercator map sometime.

Ever thought why it appears distorted when viewing a flat map of the Earth?

Because it's not it's actual representation.

Here's an example of something similar:

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs46/f/2009/213/6/b/Old_Man_facemap_by_SnakebitSamurai.jpg


The only map of the Earth you need to worry about when discussing the errors of Earth maps are the globes themselves - every other map is derived and distorted from that to make it flat, your argument has no substance.




I know that the time it takes to fly from Wellington, NZ, to Brisbane, AUS, is approximately 240 minutes in an Airbus A320.

Max cruising speed 903km/h (487kt) at 28,000ft, economical cruising speed 840km/h (454kt) at 37,000ft

We can work out that the distance from Wellington to Brisbane for the plane I was in and it's route was less than 3612km and 3360km (Note, these are only using the 2 speeds specified, which would be how far the plane could fly at these speeds for the time duration)

The straight line distance between these two cities on RE is around 2500km, which gives it a nice cruising speed of around 630km/h


It turns out, that a flight from London, England, takes around the same amount of time to get to Moscow, Russia.

Both are approximately the same distance, yet on FE, one is twice as long.



So, when FE'ers can get off their asses, stop with the excuses, and actually try to help themselves - they might realize that it just doesn't work.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature

« on: May 31, 2010, 06:11:11 AM »

Now, where do you take into account atmospheric temperature and pressure?

I missed it.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise and Sunset (WITHOUT Bendy Light)

« on: May 31, 2010, 06:04:37 AM »

His "Optical illusion" answer is made to be so general it answers everything.

Ofcourse it doesn't work when you try to explain it in depth.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Mapping on the cheap - spotlight method

« on: May 31, 2010, 06:01:37 AM »

What parsec is trying to get is that the light from the globular spheroid projected onto the flat map would indeed be a different shape, but it would still be circular.

Infact, here it is here:



That's only a Northern Hemispheres Summer though, if I were to draw the Southern Hemispheres Summer, the gray and light areas would be switched - How screwy is that.


What's funny, is this is basically the reverse of this entire experiment.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: More evidence for Flat Earth Theory

« on: May 31, 2010, 05:57:35 AM »

Lord Wilmore, if his image, (and you're about to say mine is too) are CGI, who says WardoggKC130FE's picture is also fake? (Even though it's just unable to see the curvature in his image, it still may be fake)

It's not a question of "if" his image is computer generated. It's a mosaic on a 3D model, and NASA have never claimed otherwise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8547114.stm

The Blue Marble series was pieced together from thousands of images taken over many months by the satellite's remote-sensing device Modis, of every square kilometre of the Earth's surface.

Your point being?

Images can only stitch together in the manner that they appear in.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lets talk about the Tropic lines.

« on: May 30, 2010, 08:28:18 AM »

Well, ignoring the first part of each statement (because ToCan can be larger than ToCap but still ~= so there can be stupid arguments there) we are left with one or the other.

You cannot have the Equator larger than both and also not larger than both at the same time.


Obviously, from this, we can dismiss either model depending on the results gathered.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lets talk about the Tropic lines.

« on: May 30, 2010, 08:16:07 AM »

RE:
ToCan ~= ToCap
and
ToCan < Eq > ToCap


FE:
ToCan < ToCap
and
ToCan < Eq < ToCap

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Lunar Danger! James and Ichi are the only ones?

« on: May 30, 2010, 08:11:18 AM »

making excess collenchyma would be the last thing it would do since it is so metabolically expensive.

It's also probably the only thing it can do to stop itself breaking in half and dying.

Food is more important to the plant and since it is starving, does not have food, then the excess collenchyma could not be grown.

I'd rather starve a bit more, strengthen my body, and last another few days than wither and die.

You never know, those extra few days might bring the food I need.

I am a plant.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Mapping on the cheap - spotlight method

« on: May 30, 2010, 08:09:24 AM »

Pray tell, what shape would a square or triangle produce?

How does a source of light produce anything but a circular shape if there is nothing to direct the light?

I'd love to know.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Lunar Danger! James and Ichi are the only ones?

« on: May 30, 2010, 08:05:34 AM »

making excess collenchyma would be the last thing it would do since it is so metabolically expensive.

It's also probably the only thing it can do to stop itself breaking in half and dying.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lets talk about the Tropic lines.

« on: May 30, 2010, 08:01:08 AM »

Can't say I'm an FEer so this experiment is not for me.


You on the otherhand.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Lunar Danger! James and Ichi are the only ones?

« on: May 30, 2010, 07:43:33 AM »

I'm sorry but what does lack of sunlight have to do with excess collenchyma  .

Everything

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Can you prove that the Earth is flat?

« on: May 30, 2010, 07:37:10 AM »

It's just Vongeo not ever seeing the top of an ice shelf before, so it must be something else, because we all know that the icewall is big.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature

« on: May 30, 2010, 07:33:26 AM »

If you actually looked at your own photos, you would clearly see that the more distant skyline becomes obstructed by water compared to the closer skyline.

Obviously you missed that bit.

AKA: Curvature.

I think, fm, that you have no idea what a round earth flying through space at some 107000 km/hr actually implies...without attractive gravity round earth theory falls flat on its nose...

It implies nothing, what it is is what it is.

All I know is that it works, and works fine because we are all here, debating about it.

Can you explain how we don't all fly off the Earth if it is a spinning disc?



Have some photos:


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/3239550294_54321c861a.jpg
http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/special/cgrportweller/torontofromstationPW-ns.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Toronto_seen_across_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott_2.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Toronto_from_LO.JPG
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/Autumn%202007/winter%202007/IMGP8777ii.jpg
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_dwwIAAX3HDY/SvH6K92cJ5I/AAAAAAAAA6I/PYLKoieeKQk/s912/DSC02307.JPG
http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/24715141.jpg

Just a few searches and look what I found.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat Earth's Edge?

« on: May 30, 2010, 07:19:42 AM »

Already been proven that Antarctica cannot be the Ice wall.

To put it nicely, it's damned impossible.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lets talk about the Tropic lines.

« on: May 30, 2010, 07:17:27 AM »

Here: lets make it kindergarten grade for you


We know that cities are specific distances from each other (unless you want to argue that the conspiracy is a million times larger than what is believed) we know of cities that are on each tropic line.

From city to city, following the tropic line, until we reach the first city again we can get a rough figure of how large it is.

A->B  B->C  C->D  D->A  = A->>A = distance around tropic.


Compare each tropic and notice how they are actually very similar sizes, and also notice how the equator is larger than both.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature

« on: May 30, 2010, 07:09:59 AM »

In case you still have doubts about the fact that there is no curvature across Lake Ontario, here are more photographs for you:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1090

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33777#p33777

I see curvature in those photos, what's your point?

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise and Sunset (WITHOUT Bendy Light)

« on: May 30, 2010, 07:06:44 AM »

He's plucking at straws, what do you expect, a good answer?

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Mapping on the cheap - spotlight method

« on: May 30, 2010, 07:03:19 AM »

You can tell where on the circle to put the points because the latitude of the location tells you how far up or down you need to put the point.

How?

Well you agree that latitudes and longitudes are correct for both models?

If it is sunrise at a certain point and sunset at another, you can (using the latitudes) figure out where on the edge of the circle they are because the point will intersect the Spotlight area.

You would also have to take into account the time of year (How far North/South the Sun is compared to Equator) to get a better approximation.

In keeping the Spotlight the same size, it would eventually scale itself out.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lets talk about the Tropic lines.

« on: May 30, 2010, 02:19:02 AM »

Burden of proof, etc.

You're the one asking him the question, you should go find out for yourself.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: New Scientist Weighs In...

« on: May 30, 2010, 02:16:08 AM »

They'd claim the hole isn't straight down and is actually a long curve coming up on another part of the flat Earth.  When you point out that you could see visually to the other side, they'd say you just proved wacky bendy light  Their crazy justification has become far too predictable.

If only the hole was somehow made inside a vacuum, then you could drop things in it and they would make it all the way to the other end before heading back to the center.

That would be the ultimate transport.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can all Flath Earth Believers at least agree on the existence of Bendy Light?

« on: May 30, 2010, 02:10:30 AM »

If that is what you are trying to establish, I believe Tom holds Rowbothams perspective work true.

The problem is Rowbotham assumed the shape of the Earth when he made the theory.
Therefore, for us REers, his theory of a limited perspective can be easily explained as a misunderstanding of data when things got further away when not taking into account the curvature of the Earth (too bad it still doesn't explain why the Sun goes beneath the clouds and horizon)


To be quite honest, I have never seen a line of streetlights shrink in the way that Rowbothams diagrams suggest.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Mapping on the cheap - spotlight method

« on: May 30, 2010, 01:54:58 AM »

the sun is a floodlight
and floodlights dont always shine in a circle pattern

spotlights however do.
the sun is NOT a spotlight

Since when does the Sun have a giant reflector around it to make it a floodlight?

You realize that "floodlight" doesn't specify a shape, most floodlights still make a circular shape.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: New Scientist Weighs In...

« on: May 26, 2010, 04:04:22 AM »

You know... a hole through the centre of the earth would actually resolve a lot of issues on this site.

Care to elaborate?

You'd get to the other side and prove it's shape.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate

« on: May 26, 2010, 04:03:20 AM »

This dog is golden, all dogs are golden until I see one that is not.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature

« on: May 26, 2010, 04:01:51 AM »

Then, immediately, we can use the sinking ship effect to explain this fact on a flat earth.

Do you have any equations for this effect to explain how it works and how it can predict phenomena under certain conditions?

No? Oh well that's sad.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lets talk about the Tropic lines.

« on: May 26, 2010, 03:47:37 AM »

Another hole for the icewall model.

Maybe we could move on to the Wilmore endorsed model?(it atleast solves this problem,i think.)

It creates others.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Undoing the Spotlight theory.

« on: May 26, 2010, 03:24:58 AM »

Try it.  Take a floodlight the size of a quarter, hold it 7.25ft above the ground and try to illuminate a 62ft wide circle the way it was shown in Space Tourist's link.  If you can do it, please, post the results.

Remember, it also has to make both shapes as supplied in my diagram in the OP.