No flightpaths are straight

  • 93 Replies
  • 28944 Views
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #60 on: October 28, 2007, 03:17:46 PM »
Not on FE anyway.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #61 on: October 28, 2007, 03:19:43 PM »
Not on FE anyway.

What RE proponent has charted, mapped, and verified distances between every square inch of the globe?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #62 on: October 28, 2007, 03:22:17 PM »
No single person has, but on RE we have these things called satellites. They've been used to map the earth.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #63 on: October 28, 2007, 03:24:08 PM »
No single person has, but on RE we have these things called satellites. They've been used to map the earth.

So another blind appeal to NASA?

Besides, NASA does not even claim to use satellites for mapping the earth.

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #64 on: October 28, 2007, 03:31:37 PM »
Whoa! Look who decided to show up! I'm glad you came back Tom. You might want to catch up a bit on what's been covered before we get into the thick of things again.

First off, maybe you'd like to give me your source for the statement you made here:

In the Southern Hemisphere there are both eastward and westward jet streams.

I'll be very interested in that one.


Second, did you or did you not say the following:

Pilots find distant airports airports and plan flights based on lines of latitude and longitude. While the maps may be based on RE, those same coordinates take the pilot to the same destination.

No need to answer, it's clear that you did, in fact, say that.

But wait now. If pilot's are navigating solely by lat/lon, doesn't that mean that airports MUST be where they are represented to be on a RE based map?

What RE proponent has charted, mapped, and verified distances between every square inch of the globe?

We don't need every square inch of the globe charted, mapped, and verified. Just a few major discrepancies would be sufficient. Am I right about that, Tom?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 03:33:31 PM by ChiefConspirator »
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #65 on: October 28, 2007, 03:41:31 PM »
Quote
First off, maybe you'd like to give me your source for the statement you made here:

In the Southern Hemisphere there are both eastward and westward jet streams.

I'll be very interested in that one.

Divito has already covered it.

Quote
Second, did you or did you not say the following:

Pilots find distant airports airports and plan flights based on lines of latitude and longitude. While the maps may be based on RE, those same coordinates take the pilot to the same destination.

No need to answer, it's clear that you did, in fact, say that.

But wait now. If pilot's are navigating solely by lat/lon, doesn't that mean that airports MUST be where they are represented to be on a RE based map?

Latitude and longitude says nothing about the true form of the earth. We could create a south centric model of the Flat Earth which would get pilots to their destination, too.

Quote
We don't need every square inch of the globe charted, mapped, and verified. Just a few major discrepancies would be sufficient. Am I right about that, Tom?

Nope. All it would show is that the a location is not in the precise place that it should be. It would only mean that the lines of latitude are closer or farther together than assumed. We can squish and contort the Flat Earth model limitlessly to reflect the established paths of commuter flights.

And how do you plan to show these discrepancies? Do you plan to go to LAN.com and give us an automatically generated flight time estimate based on Round Earth maps? That says nothing about the actual flight time. It will have to be proven that the flight you pick is not delayed. I have personally been on international flights that have been delayed by hours on end.

Finally you would have to prove that when the plane makes the same flight, going the "long" way around the earth, the flight time matches a Round Earth prediction. Pointing us to the paths of commuter flights says nothing except that planes travel on established routes. But what happens when planes travel differently than the established routes? Suddenly you have no data.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 03:50:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #66 on: October 28, 2007, 03:50:40 PM »
Stop chatting shit. Everyone. please dearest lord...

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #67 on: October 28, 2007, 05:25:33 PM »
There are no international flights which even approach the Antarctic circle.



http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=2054
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #68 on: October 28, 2007, 05:43:50 PM »
Quote
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=2054

That's not an international flight, that's a tourist flight.

It flies along the Antarctic coast for a little bit and then heads back. None of this proves that the earth is a globe. Stop posting.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #69 on: October 28, 2007, 05:47:36 PM »
Quote
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=2054

That's not an international flight, that's a tourist flight.

It flies along the Antarctic coast for a little bit and then heads back. None of this proves that the earth is a globe. Stop posting.

If you are that convinced that the Earth is flat, why don't you take that flight? Why don't you take it in December, when RE theory states there will be 24 hours of continuous daylight in Antarctica, but FE theory does not. And you can do a controlled experiment, and record the results, and post them up here. I'll even come with you, if you like.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #70 on: October 29, 2007, 11:33:05 AM »
If you are interested I'd suggest the book How Maps Lie.

Actually I've read that one. It has to do the deficiencies of 2D projections of 3D objects. It just points out the pros and cons of various map projections. However, no where does it suggest that our actual understanding of the worlds geography is deficient, or that the world is actually flat. It just discusses the problems with representing inheritly 3-dimensional spaces on 2-dimensional mediums, like a flat map of a round earth. In fact, that whole book is SO round-earth, I'm surprised you can touch it without burning your skin. But I see why you posted it as a reference. It just doesn't support your claims at all. For instance, no where does it claim that the real-world position of features on a 2D map are unknown or truly misrepresented. It just says that 2D maps can be misleading, unless you understand their deficiencies.



Quote
First off, maybe you'd like to give me your source for the statement you made here:
In the Southern Hemisphere there are both eastward and westward jet streams.
I'll be very interested in that one.

Divito has already covered it.

Way to man up, there, Tom. I've already responded to divito's source. Since you refuse to act like an adult and address the issue that you know I'm raising with your statement, I will literally spell it out for you. Show me your source that suggests eastward jet streams form south of tropics, or even IN the tropics during winter. Why is your source for this information so secret that you don't want to give it to us? Is there something in it that hurts the FE case?



Latitude and longitude says nothing about the true form of the earth.

But they do. As proven by the fact that people have been successfully navigating with compasses for a long time. Planes and sea vessels determine headings by using their current location, translated to a lat/lon point, and computing the direction to reach another lat/lon point. If latitude and longitude coordinates were completely arbitrary, as you claim, this would simply not work.

But I want to understand what you are suggesting, completely, first. Are you suggesting that on a flat earth, longitudinal lines aren't straight, and latitudinal lines aren't round? Or that longitudinal degrees on the flat earth are not all equal? I mean, later you go on to say:

It would only mean that the lines of latitude are closer or farther together than assumed. We can squish and contort the Flat Earth model limitlessly to reflect the established paths of commuter flights.

This seems to make what you're saying a little clearer. You seem to be suggesting that we could squish lines of latitude to account for the obvious extreme difference in distance between degrees of longitude in the southern hemisphere. This way, diagonal distances can be accounted for. But what about nearly exact east/west travel? And, after applying this distortion, north/south travel is thrown out of wack. Regardless, no amount of distortion of latitude lines would account for the fact that longitudinal distances would be extremely wrong in the southern hemisphere.

But what about the data? What can I show to support my obviously befuddling views?

And how do you plan to show these discrepancies? Do you plan to go to LAN.com and give us an automatically generated flight time estimate based on Round Earth maps? That says nothing about the actual flight time.

Ah, maybe it's just me, but your writing tone is slightly different here. It reeks of fear.

Obviously I never considered doing the things you suggest, since you've made it abundantly clear that you won't accept them. Rather I defer all the way back, back to near the beginning of this thread where I first join the fray.

What I'm really getting at is, wouldn't pilots have to be in on the conspiracy, since they would have to use the correct FE maps in order to account for the flight time and positions of distant airports?

You'll notice that my original argument has nothing to do with offering direct proof. You obviously would never accept any officially collected data, as it would be too easy for a conspiracy to control. You have even made it clear you won't accept any data I PERSONALLY claim to gather. Rather, right off the bat, I deferred to the many pilots of the many flights that occur in the southern hemisphere. What I clearly said was, THEY would have first-hand data. If the world were flat, they over time, would collectively notice that they could not count on successfully navigating in the southern hemisphere using RE maps. No matter how hard you cry "latitudinal distortion," you are talking about significantly more surface area in the southern hemisphere to account for than is reported on a RE based map.

And further on this same point, you keep repeating in your arguments that you are only talking about commercial commuter air traffic. I'm assuming the reason you keep doing this is that you expect that to be the only data available to discuss. Very clever of you. First you try and close off the discussion to everything except commercial flights, then you try and establish the data from those flights as unreliable. However, part of the point that I made originally was that a pilot doesn't have to be on a commercial commuter flight to notice that his map of the southern hemisphere is useless.

Furthermore, I don't REALLY want to introduce this now because we already have enough minutia to discuss, but what about sea travel? I'm sure you have some theory that we all can agree has an extremely low-probability of being true to explain the discrepancies of that. Save that for another thread.





We could create a south centric model of the Flat Earth which would get pilots to their destination, too.

Sure you could. In that case just swap the word "South" in all of MY previous arguments with the word "North."




Quote
We don't need every square inch of the globe charted, mapped, and verified. Just a few major discrepancies would be sufficient. Am I right about that, Tom?

Nope. All it would show is that the a location is not in the precise place that it should be.

Exactly. And what I'M saying is that people, over time, would NOTICE that locations are not in the precise places they should be, because this would be prevalent across A WHOLE HEMISPHERE.
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #71 on: October 29, 2007, 12:53:10 PM »
Whole Hemisphere?

There is only one recurring flight between Australia and South America. Believe me, we've searched and checked. You seem to believe that the earth is circumnavigated every single day. Well here's news for you, the earth is rarely circumnavigated. And whenever the earth is circumnavigated it is done either in the Northern Hemisphere (where most people live) or at the equator. In fact, the earth is so infrequently circumnavigated that whenever someone does it it's newsworthy.

I'm more than willing to accept any data you present. Likewise, you should be willing to accept the data in the Flat Earth Literature which presents analysis on the few Southern Hemisphere circumnavigations which have occurred:

For example, from Proof 78 of One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe we read:

    "Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough," is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the polar Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Next see this page in Zetetic Cosmogony where the author gives us information on Southern Hemisphere voyages.

As we can clearly see, there clearly is evidence which suggests a large southern region incompatible with the Round Earth doctrine.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2007, 01:03:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #72 on: October 29, 2007, 04:36:19 PM »
There is only one recurring flight between Australia and South America. Believe me, we've searched and checked.

Ok. That's great. What about all the cargo flights? If I ship a package to Australia, something has to fly it there. What about all the flights that transport people from the northern hemisphere to the southern? What about all the private flights? While I can't PROVE that non-passenger/non-commercial flights take place, as I don't have access to UPS's air shipping records, or any database of private flight plans, I think it's safe to assume that a fair number of these flights occur somewhat constantly.

But I'll just go ahead and admit what's going on here. You are calling me out on my lack of data. Touche. Good for you. But the point I'm making doesn't require quantifiable data to be convincing. Let me resummarize to illustrate this.

Airplanes, as you said, Tom, navigate to their destinations by using a compass to direct it a set of lat/lon coordinates. The fact that the vast VAST majority of flights that we know about find their way to their intended destination AT ALL in the southern hemisphere means that the lat/lon coordinates of those destinations properly represent their locations in the real world. If lat/lon coordinates were completely arbitrary, as you claim, then it would quickly become clear that either a compass is useless, or the coordinates are useless.

And, fine, what about sea and land travel? So far I've concentrated on air travel, but the same ideas apply to boats and surveying, too. How do you account for the constant successful use of cartography that is based on a round earth? Before you go and give me another spiel on "maps don't represent the real word," please explain how boats and planes can exactly navigate to places that are far away without maps correctly representing the locations of those destinations.

You seem to believe that the earth is circumnavigated every single day. Well here's news for you, the earth is rarely circumnavigated. And whenever the earth is circumnavigated it is done either in the Northern Hemisphere (where most people live) or at the equator. In fact, the earth is so infrequently circumnavigated that whenever someone does it it's newsworthy.

Whoa. You schooled me. I'm still a little confused, though. I'm not totally sure why complete circumnavigation is necessary to establish that lat/lon coordinates don't accurately represent the locations of features in the southern hemisphere. I don't need to establish, as you say, "every square inch" of the southern hemisphere to realize that the collection of individual observations don't add up. I don't need to establish every single location where the Sydney airport runway ISN'T in order to notice that it doesn't match the accepted coordinate of it's location.

Likewise, you should be willing to accept the data in the Flat Earth Literature which presents analysis on the few Southern Hemisphere circumnavigations which have occurred:

I'm sorry, Tom, but I read the page you posted, and it's riddled with problems. First off, that whole page is based on references to the book "The Cruise of Her Majesty's Ship 'Challenger'," available at the link below. It doesn't appear that the author, Spry, ever gives the measurements that Rowbotham talks about. The voyage described in the "The Cruise" does not travel directly from "The Cape" to Melbourne, so I'm not sure how Rowbotham was able to extrapolate the number "7,637 miles." It certainly didn't appear that Spry ever fielded a number for the distance between these points. The same with the second measurement that Rowbotham gives. Chapter 8 of "the Cruise" covers the journey from Melbourne to Wellington. On page 135, Spry very clearly states the distance from Sydney to New Zealand as "about 1100 miles." He doesn't specify what part of New Zealand he was referring to, but that is the only absolute distance he gives on the matter. How Rowbotham is able to extrapolate the distance "1,432 miles" is unclear.

Now here's the interesting part. On the RE-based globe, the accepted distance from Sydney to Wellington is 1,385 miles. It turns out, despite pulling numbers out of thin air, Rowbotham is 96% accurate about the distance from Sydney to Wellington, according to established RE maps. However, without describing his computations, he claims that this measurement somehow shows that the circumference of the world at 37.5 degrees south is 25,500 miles. I have to stress that he never shows HOW he comes to this number. By my calculations, using the accepted mean radius of the RE globe as 6371 kilometers, at 37.5º south of the equator, the latitudinal circumference would be 5054 kilometers. ( cos(37.5)*6371 ). This gives a circumference of 31,755 kilometers (5054 * 2 * pi), or 19,732 miles.

So since Rowbotham draws conclusions from his reference materials that are not really reflected in those references, and refuses to explain his calculations, no, I'm not willing to accept his data.

Edit: forgot the link

http://books.google.com/books?id=bf8HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA38&dq=William+James+Joseph+Spry&psp=1#PPR3,M1
« Last Edit: October 30, 2007, 12:51:38 PM by ChiefConspirator »
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #73 on: October 29, 2007, 04:44:18 PM »
Show me your source that suggests eastward jet streams form south of tropics, or even IN the tropics during winter.

I'm starting to lose hope on this. If you're not going to post your source, why won't you at least tell me WHY you won't post it?
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

Torn Bishop

Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #74 on: October 29, 2007, 10:36:38 PM »
Not on FE anyway.

What RE proponent has charted, mapped, and verified distances between every square inch of the globe?
Have you charted, mapped, and verified distances between every square inch of the globe?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #75 on: October 30, 2007, 09:35:49 AM »
Quote
Ok. That's great. What about all the cargo flights? If I ship a package to Australia, something has to fly it there. What about all the flights that transport people from the northern hemisphere to the southern? What about all the private flights? While I can't PROVE that non-passenger/non-commercial flights take place, as I don't have access to UPS's air shipping records, or any database of private flight plans, I think it's safe to assume that a fair number of these flights occur somewhat constantly.

But I'll just go ahead and admit what's going on here. You are calling me out on my lack of data. Touche. Good for you. But the point I'm making doesn't require quantifiable data to be convincing. Let me resummarize to illustrate this.

The vast majority of flights between the two extremities of the world don't travel between New Zealand and South America directly, but make a bunch of little hops along the continents, picking up and dropping off passengers along the way. Like international shipping, the post office doesn't charter a direct flight just for one parcel of mail. The post office puts it on a flight that makes dozens upon dozens of little hops along the continents of the world, picking up and dropping off mail by the ton, distributing to major regional centers. It is vastly cheaper for the airline company and post offices to operate in this fashion.

With this considered, there are simply no cargo flights which travel between the southern continents directly. They make shipments to major distributional centers in more developed countries.

Quote
Whoa. You schooled me. I'm still a little confused, though. I'm not totally sure why complete circumnavigation is necessary to establish that lat/lon coordinates don't accurately represent the locations of features in the southern hemisphere. I don't need to establish, as you say, "every square inch" of the southern hemisphere to realize that the collection of individual observations don't add up. I don't need to establish every single location where the Sydney airport runway ISN'T in order to notice that it doesn't match the accepted coordinate of it's location.

If you feel that you can do it, feel free to make a new thread and present your data then. We're more than willing to listen.

Quote
So since Rowbotham draws conclusions from his reference materials that are not really reflected in those references, and refuses to explain his calculations, no, I'm not willing to accept his data.

Then we're not willing to accept yours. Run along now.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2007, 01:24:49 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #76 on: October 30, 2007, 10:30:17 AM »
Besides, NASA does not even claim to use satellites for mapping the earth.
That's because they expect people to know that they use satellites.

I don't know a specific reason why would NASA say something like "Oh yes we use satellites for mapping the earth". It's just a boring fact that everyone can think of anyway.


?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #77 on: October 30, 2007, 12:05:28 PM »
I'm really starting to notice a pattern here. Each successive back and forth we have, you respond to less and less of my points. Let me make a few very clear ones that I think the people of this forum deserve answers to.


Point #1:
Airplanes, as you said, Tom, navigate to their destinations by using a compass to direct it a set of lat/lon coordinates. The fact that the vast VAST majority of flights that we know about find their way to their intended destination AT ALL in the southern hemisphere means that the lat/lon coordinates of those destinations properly represent their locations in the real world. If lat/lon coordinates were completely arbitrary, as you claim, then it would quickly become clear that either a compass is useless, or the coordinates are useless.

...please explain how boats and planes can exactly navigate to places that are far away without maps correctly representing the locations of those destinations.



Point #2:
I don't need to establish, as you say, "every square inch" of the southern hemisphere to realize that the collection of individual observations don't add up.



Point #3:
Next see this page in Zetetic Cosmogony where the author gives us information on Southern Hemisphere voyages.

On the RE-based globe, the accepted distance from Sydney to Wellington is 1,385 miles. It turns out, despite pulling numbers out of thin air, Rowbotham is 96% accurate about the distance from Sydney to Wellington, according to established RE maps. However, without describing his computations, he claims that this measurement somehow shows that the circumference of the world at 37.5 degrees south is 25,500 miles. I have to stress that he never shows HOW he comes to this number.

Please explain Rowbotham's calculations.




Point #4:
Show me your source that suggests eastward jet streams form south of tropics, or even IN the tropics during winter.
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #78 on: October 30, 2007, 12:25:23 PM »
Run along now.

Your emotions betray you, Tom. Are you afraid of this discussion? Why did you only respond to a very small part of what I said last time? Not only that, but you responded to the least important part of what I said. You're really confusing me. I would think that you would relish the chance to show that my ideas are wrong. Why, then, does it appear you are hiding from this?
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #79 on: October 30, 2007, 06:05:47 PM »
Quote
irplanes, as you said, Tom, navigate to their destinations by using a compass to direct it a set of lat/lon coordinates. The fact that the vast VAST majority of flights that we know about find their way to their intended destination AT ALL in the southern hemisphere means that the lat/lon coordinates of those destinations properly represent their locations in the real world. If lat/lon coordinates were completely arbitrary, as you claim, then it would quickly become clear that either a compass is useless, or the coordinates are useless.

The coordinates have no relation to the compass readings. The compass is only a guide and cannot get you to a precise location on earth without accounting for longitude and latitude.

Quote
...please explain how boats and planes can exactly navigate to places that are far away without maps correctly representing the locations of those destinations.

Boats and planes are only able to exactly navigate to places that are far away with maps because professional navigating maps are flat azimuthal projections. If, instead, navigators tried using a globe when traveling from point A to point B, their path would be distorted and they would not reach their destination. Since they do reach their destination, the earth must be flat.

Navigators using flat maps is a prime proof for a flat earth.

Quote
I don't need to establish, as you say, "every square inch" of the southern hemisphere to realize that the collection of individual observations don't add up.

Then go ahead and present your data then. We're waiting.

Lets see your data which proves that the Southern Hemisphere reflects the Round Earth model.

Quote
Please explain Rowbotham's calculations.

Rowbotham did not write Zetetic Cosmogony. That would be Thomas Winship.

If his work is not satisfying, consult the other Flat Earth Literature. From Proof 78 of One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe we read:

    "Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough," is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the polar Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2007, 06:25:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #80 on: October 30, 2007, 06:07:24 PM »
Quote
Your emotions betray you, Tom. Are you afraid of this discussion? Why did you only respond to a very small part of what I said last time? Not only that, but you responded to the least important part of what I said. You're really confusing me. I would think that you would relish the chance to show that my ideas are wrong. Why, then, does it appear you are hiding from this?

I'm still waiting for your evidence. What evidence is there showing that the southern hemisphere reflects the Round Earth hypothesis?

What data is there?

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #81 on: October 30, 2007, 06:11:32 PM »
Quote
Your emotions betray you, Tom. Are you afraid of this discussion? Why did you only respond to a very small part of what I said last time? Not only that, but you responded to the least important part of what I said. You're really confusing me. I would think that you would relish the chance to show that my ideas are wrong. Why, then, does it appear you are hiding from this?

I'm still waiting for your evidence. What evidence is there showing that the southern hemisphere reflects the Round Earth hypothesis?

What data is there?
No north star? Also pictures please, and no 'pictures aren't acceptable.' ;)
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #82 on: October 30, 2007, 08:31:18 PM »
There are no international flights which even approach the Antarctic circle.
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=2054

A.  Just because the Icewall surrounds the earth doesn't mean that there is no Antarctican continent.

B.  I think you realize, as well as I do, that this is a government website, and as such, a website of a government with a space administration.  For this reason, your source is uncredible.
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is against.

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #83 on: October 31, 2007, 11:45:11 AM »
I'm still waiting for your evidence. What evidence is there showing that the southern hemisphere reflects the Round Earth hypothesis?

What data is there?

I AM ASKING YOU TO CLARIFY AN IDEA, TOM BISHOP. No where am I claiming to submit data about anything. This is a discussion about an inheritly contradictory idea. Believe it or not, Tom, but this kind of thing happens all over the place on this forum. I mean, I want data on the FE sun, but we both know you don't have any "data" on that. And I understand that. Neither of us have access to databases of verified "data" on the kinds of things we are discussing. That doesn't mean discussing the concepts is useless.

What's more, that has been clear since the beginning of my questioning in this thread. You were more than willing earlier to give "conceptual" answers to my questions. Only at a certain point did you start refusing to address the points I was bringing up and spewing back demands for "data." Why are you afraid of discussing these concepts? Why aren't you jumping on the chance to prove me wrong conceptually?

But I'll respond to YOUR question, even though you refuse to respond to mine.

What evidence is there showing that the southern hemisphere reflects the Round Earth hypothesis?

a) The fact, as accepted by reasonable people, that ships and planes regularly navigate to distant points in the southern hemisphere. You have to agree that EVERY DAY, AT LEAST ONE AIRPLANE TAKES OFF OR LANDS IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, AND IT TRAVELS TO OR COMES FROM A LOCATION THAT IS FARTHER AWAY THAN CAN BE SEEN WITH THE NAKED EYE. Therefore, it must navigate by using some other means of choosing its direction of travel.

b) As it turns out, YOU provided enough evidence to discuss the ideas, here. YOU said the following:

Pilots find distant airports airports and plan flights based on lines of latitude and longitude. While the maps may be based on RE, those same coordinates take the pilot to the same destination.

YOUR words state, very clearly, that the lat/lon coordinates of airports in use today properly represent the real-world locations of said airports. The evidence is in the fact that AIRPLANES FLY TO AND LAND AT THESE AIRPORTS USING LAT/LON DERIVED HEADINGS. The only way you can refute this is to claim that AIRPLANES CONSTANTLY GET LOST IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE DUE TO DISTORTED CARTOGRAPHY. Are you claiming that?

But then you go on to contradict yourself:
Latitude and longitude says nothing about the true form of the earth.

What? But it has to. It HAS to, Tom Bishop. Otherwise:
...it would quickly become clear that either a compass is useless, or the coordinates are useless.

To clarify your own statement, you later say:
It would only mean that the lines of latitude are closer or farther together than assumed. We can squish and contort the Flat Earth model limitlessly to reflect the established paths of commuter flights.

I'm sorry, but it is just flat-out clear to any reasonable person that you cannot "squish and contort the Flat Earth model limitlessly." The more you squish lines of latitude together, the more north/south navigation becomes ridiculously impossible using RE maps. Are you claiming that no one who travels from the north to the south in the southern hemisphere would notice the difference between 111 miles per latitudinal degree and some "limitlessly" smaller distance?

You further go on to solidify this contradiction YOURSELF:

Quote
We don't need every square inch of the globe charted, mapped, and verified. Just a few major discrepancies would be sufficient. Am I right about that, Tom?
Nope. All it would show is that the a location is not in the precise place that it should be.

See? You, yourself, admit that it would be clear that locations wouldn't be where they are represented to be on our accepted maps of the world.

So please please pretty please simply CLARIFY THE CONTRADICTIONS OF YOUR OWN STATEMENTS FOR THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THIS FORUM:

...please explain how boats and planes can exactly navigate to places that are far away without maps correctly representing the locations of those destinations.

Also, how are you suggesting that the inhabitants of the southern hemisphere, WITH ANY FORM OF INTERACTION WITH CARTOGRAPHY, (THAT MEANS LAND, SEA, or AIR TRAVEL, SURVEYING, PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT, LARGE SCALE CONSTRUCTION, ETC.), don't notice that coordinates represented on maps don't agree at all with the real-world positions represented on maps?
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #84 on: October 31, 2007, 05:03:13 PM »
I owe you an apology, because I didn't see this post before.

I'm going to skip over any rebuttal to the first part of your post, even though I already wrote it, because in the middle of your post lies the most interesting part.


Boats and planes are only able to exactly navigate to places that are far away with maps because professional navigating maps are flat azimuthal projections. If, instead, navigators tried using a globe when traveling from point A to point B, their path would be distorted and they would not reach their destination. Since they do reach their destination, the earth must be flat.


In particular, I'm interested in the first sentence.

Boats and planes are only able to exactly navigate to places that are far away with maps because professional navigating maps are flat azimuthal projections.

Herein lies your admission that, in your view, there IS an accurate map of the KNOWN parts of the flat earth. Where is this admission exactly? In this first sentence, you agree that boats and planes ARE able to "exactly navigate to places that are far away." You attribute this phenomena to maps. So in this first sentence you make very clear your admission that boats and planes can accurately navigate because the flat, paper maps that they use ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE LOCATIONS OF THEIR DESTINATIONS.

Let me go back to your statement and add an emphasis.

Boats and planes are only able to exactly navigate to places that are far away with maps because professional navigating maps are flat azimuthal projections.

But what's this? You just specified the form of the KNOWN flat Earth. Since you are suggesting that navigating maps properly represent the form of the KNOWN Earth, (since ships/planes navigate correctly), and since the Earth is flat, that means that navigating maps properly represent the form of the known flat earth.

On a planar Earth, the only "projection" that properly reflects the interactions that human beings have with the flat Earth is, of course, orthographic. That is to say, the only undistorted way of projecting planar data onto the surface of a planar Earth is by projecting it orthographically. In order to represent the passage of a ship or an airplane across the surface of the Earth (which would be, for all intents and purposes, a planar path) without distorting it is by projecting its path orthographically. So if boat/plane navigators are able to properly navigate across the surface of the flat Earth using azimuthal projections of a round Earth, that proves that navigators are able to use azimuthal projections of a round Earth AS orthographic projections of a flat Earth.

That means the orthographic map of the flat Earth IS the azimuthal projection of the accepted round Earth.

So you've solidified the positions of airports and seaports on the flat Earth. They must be where they are represented to be on the azimuthally projected maps of boat/plane navigators. Since the airports and seaports are pegged, the land and water between them is the only thing that can be distorted.


So here is my SINGLE question to you.

Are you suggesting navigators represent their path of travel across the surface of the Earth on an azimuthally-projected map orthographically?
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #85 on: November 01, 2007, 09:26:04 AM »
LOL, Bishop got pwnd.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #86 on: November 01, 2007, 09:36:15 AM »
Quote
Are you suggesting navigators represent their path of travel across the surface of the Earth on an azimuthally-projected map orthographically?

Yes. That is what the Flat Earth Society maintains. The earth takes the forum of navigator's azimuthal maps.

Quote
LOL, Bishop got pwnd.

No, there was not any "pwning" going on because ChiefConspirator failed to present data showing that the FE Theory is incorrect.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #87 on: November 01, 2007, 09:43:44 AM »
have you read This Page?

It debunks Rowbothams experiment and proves, experimentally that the Earth is a sphere. Not only that, there are a list of references for you to look up and read.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #88 on: November 01, 2007, 11:21:41 AM »
The earth takes the forum of navigator's azimuthal maps.

Well well well. Look who changed their tune. Why, it wasn't too long ago that you said:

You're asking for data which is quite simply unavailable: an accurate map of the earth.

But herein lies your defeat. (And your pwnd-idness.)




Remember my original question? In case you don't, here it is:

What I'm really getting at is, wouldn't pilots have to be in on the conspiracy, since they would have to use the correct FE maps in order to account for the flight time and positions of distant airports?

Remember your response?

Nope. Pilots find distant airports airports and plan flights based on lines of latitude and longitude. While the maps may be based on RE, those same coordinates take the pilot to the same destination.

But once again, now you change your tune...

Are you suggesting navigators represent their path of travel across the surface of the Earth on an azimuthally-projected map orthographically?

Your reply:

Yes. That is what the Flat Earth Society maintains.

But Tom!!! How can both these answers be true? If a boat/plane navigator is using a map based on azimuthal projections of a round Earth, as you claim, AND they are plotting their path across it as if it represented a flat Earth, wouldn't that mean that they'd have to be in on the conspiracy? How would they know that was necessary?

So you have three choices of what to believe to account for this:

  • All navigators who successfully navigate in the southern hemisphere don't know what azimuthal projections are.
  • All ships and airplanes that successfully navigate in the southern hemisphere are constantly being fooled as to their path of travel, in exactly the right way as to account for the difference between an expected round Earth and a flat Earth.
  • All navigators who successfully navigate in the southern hemisphere are in on the conspiracy.

Which is it?
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: No flightpaths are straight
« Reply #89 on: November 02, 2007, 04:14:30 AM »
Quote
Are you suggesting navigators represent their path of travel across the surface of the Earth on an azimuthally-projected map orthographically?

Yes. That is what the Flat Earth Society maintains. The earth takes the forum of navigator's azimuthal maps.

Quote
LOL, Bishop got pwnd.

No, there was not any "pwning" going on because ChiefConspirator failed to present data showing that the FE Theory is incorrect.

Actually, there was a lot of pwning going on, because your theory is full of huge and insummountable holes.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.