1

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 04:39:43 PM »

Will continue tomorrow - need to go to bed

BTW Tom, are you RE or FE?

EDIT: nice one, just saw the revised calculations.  Was planning to have a look at them tomorrow but you saved me the trouble.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 04:31:36 PM »

Ok, from the map on the post you referenced (which I must say bears little resemblance to the previous map), can you estimate the distance between Capetown, South Africa and Sydney, Australia?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 04:13:59 PM »

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not there, but could you tell me which non-government-controlled source you obtained the latitudes and logitudes from?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 04:11:44 PM »

My mistake Tom, but you have previously agreed that the 19000 figure was fairly accurate.

eviltoothpaste, if you can calculate FE distances between any 2 earth points to absolute accuracy (and your post implies that you claim you can) then surely you can present me with an accurate top-down map of FE?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 04:04:25 PM »

eviltoothpaste your calculations are based on a diameter of 12800km, whereas it clearly states on the FAQ that the diameter is 24900 miles.  Are you suggesting the FAQ is wrong?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 04:02:27 PM »

There is a daily DIRECT Qantas service that takes 11 hours 20 minutes.

Again Tom, I ask you to answer my question.  How can a 747 achive 1650mph?

7

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 03:18:15 PM »

Well, this sort of brings me back to my original question: on FE, to travel the shortest possible distance between Chile and NZ in 11.5hrs requires an average speed of about 1650 mph.  How is this possible in a 747 with average cruising speed 600mph?

And yes I realise these figures are slightly different this time round - the original was based on my estimation of 18000 miles, these are based on your estimation of 19000.

Also, please note we have STILL not made any reference to round earth.

To reiterate: on FE, how can you travel 19000 miles in 11.5hrs?

8

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 03:08:33 PM »

So just to be clear, from everything we've agreed on in these last few posts:  on FE, the straight-line distance between Chile and NZ is, give or take, approximately 19000 miles.  Agreed?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 03:01:37 PM »

My apologies - I have since rechecked the FAQ and the exact number there is 24900.  But do you agree with my previous statement?

10

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 02:55:51 PM »

Ok.  So we've established that on FE, a straight line between Chile and NZ is about 4/5 of the total diameter, and 4/5 of 24900 is 19920 miles.  Agreed?

11

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 02:52:31 PM »

Ok.  It's worth saying at this point that none of this need be related to RE distances in any way, we are just looking at FE.

So if the distance from near ice wall to Chile is 1/10 total distance, and distance from NZ to far ice wall is also 1/10, then the remaining distance is 4/5.  Agreed?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 02:50:10 PM »

OK.  And can you make a similar estimation as to the distance between NZ and the far ice wall.  Again, I'd go for 1/10.  Agreed?

13

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 02:44:31 PM »

The 24000 miles diameter is quoted in the FAQ.  Did you just edit your reply?

14

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 02:43:42 PM »

Ok.  Start from the ice wall nearest Chile.  Using ratios (ie not absolute distances) can you make an estimation as to the distance between the ice wall and Chile.  Note I have not asked for an accurate distance, just a rough estimate, eg 1/10, as in "the distance from the ice wall to Chile is about 1/10 of the whole distance across".

15

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 02:35:10 PM »

Ok.  So we can break that diameter up into 3 sections:

A: Distance from ice wall to Chile.
B: Distance from Chile to New Zealand.
C: Distance from New Zealand to opposite ice wall.

And A+B+C=24000 miles.  Correct?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 02:28:13 PM »

Ok...

Tom, ignoring any distances for now, would you say that on the FE disc you can roughly draw a straight line across the diameter that goes through both Chile and New Zealand?  And by FE disc I don't mean the picture above, I just mean some top-down view of FE.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 02:00:30 PM »

I'll ask again... can you show me a top-down map of FE that corroborates the assertions you've made.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 01:37:38 PM »

This was my point in response to your explanation tom.  To quote you:

1.  America is exactly the same size as it is in RE.
In RE we take this to be 9000 miles

2.  (referring to distance between Chile and NZ) The distance would not be "about 1,800 miles,"(sic) but exactly the same as the distance in RE.
In RE we take this to be 6300 miles.

Now no amount of skewing of the above map can account for what you are claiming.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 12:15:37 PM »

In that case, could you provide a scaled map that demonstrates both your assertions:

1.  That the earth is on a two-dimensional disc.
2.  That 2 given cities (or even arbitrary points) on this map can be measured to be equal to the distance between these 2 places on a round earth globe.

If the world is flat, this should be easy to do.

EDIT:
On round earth, distance from southernmost tip of South America to mid-Alaska (ie length of continental America) is about 9000 miles.  You claim that on flat earth this distance is the same.  On FE this line forms part of the longer path between Chile and NZ, a distance you've already claimed is about 6000 miles.  In other words, IRRELEVENT of any scale or projections, you are claiming the following:

Distance A:  <-------------------------------------------------->
Distance B:                    <--------------------------->

and B > A.  I hope you can see how this is impossible.[/b]

20

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 12:08:07 PM »

1.  From the FAQ:
Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles

2.  If you are claiming the distance on the FE map from Chile to NZ/Aus is 6300 miles (which is about what it is in RE) then is everything else on that direct path compressed too?  Is continental America now 1/3 of the distance too?

21

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 11:55:52 AM »

I am not really sure what you mean by that.  My question does not rely on any reference to round earth.  I'll try and make it more concrete so it only needs a yes/no answer:

1.  You MUST concede that in FE the distance involved is 18000 miles.
2.  You MUST concede that it is possible to fly the distance in 11.5hrs.
3.  Following from this, using speed=dist/time (I really hope you don't deny that), you MUST concede that the flight speed reaches in excess of 1600mph.

Yes or no?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 10:52:40 AM »

I appreciate the posts guys, but I would like to hear a FE response before we start a flame.

FE-ers: anyone out there?

23

Flat Earth Q&A / flight times

« on: January 14, 2007, 06:54:07 AM »

Hi all, greetings from an open-minded RE-er.

My question is similar to one on the FAQ, but the FAQ didn't provide me with an acceptable answer so here goes...

A direct 747 flight from Santiago, Chile to Auckland, New Zealand takes about 11 and 1/2 hours.  Hopefully we can all agree on that being a fact.  In round earth theory this tallies well with a cruising speed of around 600mph.  However, judging by the flat earth maps that are shown on this site, the distance between these cities looks to be around 18000 miles - requiring a cruising speed of around 1600mph - faster than Concorde.

What is the FE stance on this?  Are standard commercial 747s capable of this speed?  If so - since their path crosses a lot of land - how come no one ever hears the sonic boom?  Would it be necessary in FE theory to then deny either the existance of sonic booms and/or speed of sound?  

Rational explanations preferred.
Thanks for your time.