Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SylviaElse

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The South Pole
« on: February 14, 2018, 04:56:47 PM »
The ones you mention would be particularly bad for the projection shown.
I'm moderately surprised that there have been no suggestions of a massive conspiracy amongst aircraft manufacturers and airlines to conceal the fact that the aircraft can fly much faster and over longer ranges, so as to allow the problematic flights to take the advertised time despite the much larger distances.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The South Pole
« on: February 13, 2018, 11:21:17 PM »
It's the same projection as the typical "UN map" flat earth, but centered on the equator and 0 longitude instead of the north pole. Selecting the Greenwich meridian as the center conveniently puts the "edge" out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, where there aren't many people. You can pick whatever meridian you want as the center (or any latitude, for that matter), but this is probably as good a choice as any since you wouldn't want the "edge" to be anywhere near a populated place - that would produce too many embarrassing questions.
Doesn't help much. I've flown from Sydney to Los Angeles in 15 hours, and Hawaii to Auckland in much less. Just how inaccurate would it have to be for that to work

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sydney to Santiago - what would it take to prove?
« on: February 13, 2018, 11:14:03 PM »
Someone should make a better map that has a universal scale consistent to anywhere on the map.
The problem with flat maps of a spherical Earth is that there's inevitably some distortion or shapes, angles, or both, because there's no way of flattening a surface that curves in more than one direction without either stretching, or compressing, parts of it - a universal scale is impossible. Straight lines on the map generally don't correspond to the shortest distance between two points on the Earth.

In the case of flat Earth, this problem doesn't exist, and the most obvious way of mapping it is to reduce it by a linear scale. On such a map, straight lines correspond to straight lines on the Earth, and should represent the shortest distance between two points.

This is straying somewhat from the topic of the thread, though it does raise the question of whether proof that travel from Sydney to Santiago can be done in less than thirteen hours invalidates a flat Earth of the form shown in your map.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sydney to Santiago - what would it take to prove?
« on: February 13, 2018, 10:28:32 PM »
I am guessing you are referencing a similar map to this

I am guessing you are imagining a plane travelling in a straight line, flying over West Russia, ending up over Scandinavia and then North America to get there.

This is not how movement works

Follow the horizontal grid line so you are going 'around' in a circle shape to get from Sydney to Santiago passing New Zealand on your way. The map is a bit rough but the route the plane flies is the same. What you perceive as a 'straight line' is actually not straight.
The question is not so much whether it's straight, but how the aircraft can cover the distance in less than 13 hours. On the face of it, making the path not straight just makes matters worse.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't I see Polaris from Sydney?
« on: February 13, 2018, 09:57:00 PM »
I should also ask why the Southern Cross is visible to the south, from every southern place, including the sea. How can it be towards the south for all observers?

Flat Earth Debate / Why can't I see Polaris from Sydney?
« on: February 13, 2018, 04:53:16 PM »
On a flat Earth, the same stars should be visible from everywhere. Yet, in Sydney, where I live, Polaris (Alpha Ursae Minoris) is never in the sky. How can that be?

Flat Earth Debate / Sydney to Santiago - what would it take to prove?
« on: February 13, 2018, 04:51:09 PM »
In some versions of the flat Earth theory, the distance between Sydney and Santiago is such that a subsonic airliner would take about 40 hours to make the journey. This contrasts with the less than 13 hours for the advertised schedules. The reality of such flights would be a serious problem for those versions of the theory. The approach that seems to be adopted by flag Earth believers is that these flights do not in fact exist, or take a lot more than the claimed time.

So, the question is, assuming that the flights do exist and do take the advertised time, how could this be proved to the flat Earth believers?

Even if a flat Earth believer takes such a flight, and then accepts that the journey took less than 13 hours, and assuming they accept that the aircraft they flew in is not capable of supersonic flight, they would be just one person. If they subsequently announce that they've seen proof that the Earth is not flat, it seems likely that others would simply claim that the person had been tricked, bribed, or cooerced into making the announcement.

A widely accepted proof about these flights would have to take a form that could be checked by each individual to be convinced. I'm having difficulty thinking of anything that would fit that requirement. Even videos are potentially suspect these days, given the extent to which they can be modified by anyone with sufficient resources.

Perhaps the Sydney to Santiago flight argument is a dead-end, not because it's wrong, but because there's no way of proving that it's right to people who are determined to disbelieve it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight times between Australia and South America
« on: February 12, 2018, 03:01:05 PM »
Once I get more data in as far as how many of these flights actually take off and do not get re-routed, we shall see.
How do you intend to get this data? On the face of it, you'd only believe it if you boarded such a plane, and it didn't get re-routed.

You could try looking at the Sydney and Santiago departures and arrivals web pages. It would cause no end of confusion for actual passengers and those meeting them if those pages were systematically inaccurate.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight times between Australia and South America
« on: February 11, 2018, 06:44:06 PM »
I am a passenger and I want to go from Australia to Chile.

I book one of the direct flights.

I arrive at the airport that very day and when I arrive, a customer service agent states to me:

"Sir, we are very sorry but the direct flight has been cancelled because of rules prohibiting pilot operating hours; however, we are have made these alternate arrangements for you."

If I complain a lot (probably not) the agent offers a voucher for 50 bucks off my next flight...

Not too big a deal...

Who is going to argue against caps on pilot operating hours?


Airlines make more money off multiple stops.
Many passengers would be aware that there are plenty of non-stop flights that exceed twelve and half hours (I've been on such flights myself, multiple times, Sydney to Los Angeles, Singapore to London), and that the pilot hours issue is managed by having additional pilots on board so that no pilot has to work the entire flight. So they'd find this excuse less than plausible. They'd also point out that in any case, the airline would have know about the problem in advance, but still offered the non-stop flight. There's no way that an airline could get away with doing this over and over again.

As for making more money off multiple stops, this would only work if the airline tried to get the passenger to pay the extra. If the airline engaged in such a practice on a regular basis, it would certainly be subject to sanctions from consumer protection agencies, because bait and switch is not allowed.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight times between Australia and South America
« on: February 11, 2018, 05:22:22 PM »
2) A person can try to book a direct flight from Australia to South America all they want. Those flights do not take place on a daily basis (I see Petey on here stating they offer six flights a week...I bet none of those actually go fulfilled).If you do book the flight, be prepared to not only lose the cost of the deposit, but also be prepared to be placed on a two or three stop flight due to any myriad of airline related foul ups.
It seems an act of complete desperation to argue that airlines are advertising and offering flights that either don't exist, or take multiples of the advertised time, with multiple stops. Where are all the complaints from severely annoyed passengers, or would-be passengers? Why would the airlines do something that's only going to cause them trouble? In the case where the flight takes longer, and multiple stops, why would the airlines offer something that would inevitably lose them money? If the Earth really were flat, such that the direct flights were impossible, why wouldn't the airlines simply claim that the direct routes were uneconomic, and not offer them?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight times between Australia and South America
« on: February 10, 2018, 07:29:37 PM »
If it was a flight from Perth to Santiago, why would the fact that it is smaller than Sydney make it a less viable path?
It means the number of passengers would be lower. That's a problem for a route that's not suitable for twin-engined aircraft under the current rules, because the four engined aircraft in commerical service capable of flying that distance are all large, with the smallest being the a340-300, carrying 277 passengers.

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA space walks
« on: February 10, 2018, 05:33:53 PM »
So the Earth is vast enough so we can observe it both in reflection and background and small enough to observe curvature of both ends?
I don't see any problem with that. If you extend the curve shown in the image, you'll end up with quite a large circle - easily enough to account for the reflection.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight times between Australia and South America
« on: February 10, 2018, 04:14:13 PM »

The problem is;

All the claims made as "we flight Santiago from Sydney" all are rounders. So all of them are suspicious. This is main problem.

It's easy to claim that all contradicting evidence is lies (although defamation proceedings might arise). But it doesn't address the point I raised.

Just now I went onto the Qantas booking page, and went through a booking from Sydney to Santiago for the coming Wenesday. Looks like the plane (assuming it exists) is nearly full. I stopped only when I reached the payment page, because I don't actually want to go to Santiago. Anyone, including a flat-earth believer, can try this. So, the question is, what would happen if I tried to pay, as I would likely do if I actually wanted to travel. There are various possible outcomes. Firstly, my payment would be rejected. Secondly, it would be accepted, but between now and Wednesday, I'd be informed that the flight was cancelled. Thirdly, I might board the plane, which leaves Sydney, only to be diverted for some alleged technical reason. Fourthly, it might actually fly to Santiago, but take 28 hours longer than the claimed flight time.

Any of those scenarios, particularly if repeated over and over, would surely cause complaint. Where are those complaints? If the world's massive conspiracy is censoring them, why does it allow this forum to exist? Why allow flat-earther believers any ability to publicise their views? Indeed, why create the appearance of the existence of non-existent flights? Why offer direct services from Sydney to Santiago that don't exist, or don't perform as advertised, given that that's only going to cause trouble?

By far the most likely scenario is that the flights do exist, and take the advertised twelve and half hours to make the trip. That would explain the lack of complaints. Of course, that's a problem for the flat-earth theory.

Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX: The Latest
« on: February 09, 2018, 09:01:14 PM »
The speed of the stars (especially when compared to the speed of the Earth; even that footage near the end of the Earth's reflection vanishing into the distance rather than rotating out of view).

Which stars?

The reflections are seen in surfaces that are nothing like flat, nor even regularly curved. They can be expected to do all kinds of strange things, without that implying that they're not real.

Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX: The Latest
« on: February 09, 2018, 08:54:40 PM »
A simple car that survived being launched up through the atmosphere, survived the friction, and got out into outer space, floating so freely that a camera can not only see its undamaged frame, but the space around it. And look how quickly the stars whoosh by.

Just look.
You can tell the solo company's a bit less practised at this.

There a faring around the vehicle (as indeed there is around other payloads during launches) both to protect the vehicle, and to reduce drag. It is jetisoned once it no longer provides any benefit.

Flat Earth General / Re: earth is flat
« on: February 09, 2018, 08:50:45 PM »
Then , why every planet we watch on the telescope has a spherical shape?
Strictly speaking, we do not see a spherical shape. What we see is a circular image. That alone would be consistent with a disc (though it would have to move so as always to face Earth, which would be improbable). However, the features move across the image in a way that is most easily explained by a rotating sphere.

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA space walks
« on: February 09, 2018, 08:47:57 PM »
So Im noticing a lot of "spacewalk" images have the earth in the back round as well as in the reflection on the helmet. How would this be possible?  I'm not sure of the copyright laws but if you go on nasa webpage and search space walk you'll find many bizarre images
Since these space walks take place in low Earth orbit, the Earth subtends a large angle. The helmets are round, so you can see one part of the Earth behind the astronaut, and another part reflected in the helmet, and this is entirely reasonable. "Mark Vande Hei's 'Space-Selfie'" is a nice example.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Properties that the Earth shares with a Round Earth
« on: February 09, 2018, 07:13:26 PM »
The flat Earth is flat, but has the properties of a sphere. Everything works as described by science, it's just also flat. That's not a statement of what I consider objective fact, that's just my belief, I don't think it's possible to have an objective fact.

In that case, it would look like a sphere from space, distances across its surface would be as predicted for a spere, and opposite edges would be instantaneously linked so as to have zero distance between them. There would never be anything about it that suggested that it was flat. So why would you think it was flat?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight times between Australia and South America
« on: February 09, 2018, 06:08:25 PM »
I call bull shit on the whole flightradar tracking thing presented in the OP.

There is not one independently documented instance of flightradar tracking a supposed non-stop Australia to South America (or South Africa) for the entire length of the claimed flight.

Go pound sand.

Anybody can draw lines on a map and claim the lines were generated by some other software.
However, the flight schedules are published. If the flights don't exist, where are the complaints about never being able to book on them? If they exist, but take much longer than scheduled, then where are the complaints about the excessive and persistent delays? The most likely answer is that the flights exist, and take about as long as advertised, and that's a problem for the flat earth theory.

Pages: [1]