Simple Proof

This thread makes no sense.  All I see is the assumption that RE and FE maps would be different.  So what?

So shit would go crazy if you tried to use a FE map!!! Planes would fall in the ocean running out of fuel, crash into mountains.

If the world was flat and someone used a RE map, and they set off on a boat east from new zealand expecting to hit south america relatively quickly, but then realizing they actually had to sail half way round the world to get there, would DIE due to damn starvation.

If the world was flat and someone used a RE map, and they set off on a boat east from new zealand expecting to hit south america relatively quickly, but then realizing they actually had to sail half way round the world to get there, would DIE due to damn starvation.

If they all died of starvation, how would they live to tell us about it?

You ask the most retarded questions, it actually keeps my time on this site entertaining. Im not even going to dignify that question with an answer, thats how dumb it is.

Tom makes RET look dumb. It is a credible theory too, how fascinating.

@everyone that read this whole thread, this is me laughing at you.

Bahaha, no he doesnt.

His best explanation i remember was that every flight in the southern hemisphere experiences a flight delay of 2 hours for every 1 hour of estimated time. Then they blame it on the weather. For EVERY FLIGHT. That was awesome. He really made US look stupid there. (that was sarcasm, in case you couldnt figure that out narcberry)

Either you don't understand your own theory or Tom. Either way, we win.

No i understand my theory and his explanation just fine. His explanation is just amazingly stupid. Go read the thread if your confused.

I did, and I stand by his argument. Tom is absolutely correct.

i just lost the tiny bit of respect i had for you. You seriously think that EVERY east/west flight in the southern hemisphere takes 3 times longer than it should do? That is the biggest load of bullshit i have every heard. I think thats even worse then thinking the earth is flat.

You needa pull your head out of toms ass so that you can see and think for yourself.

Tom is correct.

Ever wonder why people don't fly transcontinental in the southern hemisphere?

THEY DO! all the damn time. thousands of people a day. Wow your naive.

Thousands of people who are late arrivals... hmm didn't think that one through did you?

Oh my god, yes i did think it through, stop trolling. No they arent late. They are on time, thats my point. I personally have taken one of the flights and we got there on time. ON DAMN TIME! your argument is crap admit it.

What flight?
From where?
To where?
Departed when?
Arrived when?
What was the windspeed?
In what direction?
What highway did you traverse?

What flight? nz to australia on air nz, dont have flight number handy
From where? Auckland
To where? Melbourne
Departed when? Cant remember but say 12.00pm
Arrived when? Cant remember but say 3.00pm
What was the windspeed? at the flying altitude the windspeed isnt going to change the 3 hour flight time by 6 hours.
In what direction? west (slightly north west)
What highway did you traverse? No highways? Over an ocean.

NZ to AU... you crack me up.

Why? Its just as relevant. Its still west/east in the southern hemisphere. Dont be a noob like tom and give the same answer.

 I also know people that have flown to south africa and to south america.

Difference between FE and RE maps:
North hemisphere, fairly similar but there are differences.
South hemisphere, FE has a wider pacific, atlantic and indian oceans.


RE'ers would be caught in their lie pretty quick if they shrunk the size of waterways between close islands throughout the southern hemisphere.

They have been caught quick either way.

The ocean between NZ and AUS is part of the PACIFIC OCEAN. So according to what you said, it should be wider and its not. They are NOT CLOSE ISLANDS, how many times do i have to say this. They are both countries (not just little islands) and New Zealand is the furthest away from its neighboring country of any damn country in the world!! As i said to tom, NZ is as close to AUS and mexico is close to canada. You know that gap in the middle (of mexico and canada), its the united states! Its not just a little waterway.

...facepunch...

...facepunch...

I don't think you should be giving him any ideas.

It's simple, when constructing the RE lie, you make as few changes to reality in the hardest to notice ways. IE you shrink the oceans where no civilization exists.

Not the whole of the ocean as is suggested by quick photoshops of our map.

Take an example I think you guys might understand.
Your teacher hands you a map of the flat earth, scissors (with rounded tip) and some elmers glue.
Your assignment is to make a RE from a FE. She even gives you instructions.
1. Cut out the continents -Antarctica from the FE map.
2. Glue them onto the RE globe.

You'll notice the major changes are in the oceans between continents. Not between continents themselves or island groups. You'll notice the continents haven't shrunk. The distance from NZ to AU is exactly the same.

Now if I was rude and you are actually in 5th grade, you may notice that the flat continents did not glue so well onto the round map. There are adjustments that need to be made in order for flat continents to fit onto a round map. This is the exact reason why the RE'ers construct their round maps with many images, lots of editing, and usually cloud cover.

Now i see the level you think of the FE theory at, with scissors and glue. If there is perfectly good space between NZ and AUS that is FULL OF OCEAN, why wouldnt you cut some of it out??? Also there are islands in the pacific, you cant just cut them out.

Even if you say this how it works then, the flights across the pacific or indian ocean still discredit this theory.

What was the windspeed? at the flying altitude the windspeed isnt going to change the 3 hour flight time by 6 hours.

I once had a flight of one hour and five minutes, take just twenty five minutes.  All due to winds aloft.

Ok then, well i didnt think they would make that much of a difference. Was the flight international? like how high was it?

But still if it got shorter, then this goes against the FE theory that even if you had tailwinds you would only get there on time, not significantly earlier. If they had headwinds the flight could (accoriding to your times) take like 15 hours instead of 3 hours. Dont think that happens much.

Quote

If the equatorial circumference in RE is 24,900 miles then the radius of an FE must be 24,900 (because urm.. I don't know).

This gives an equatorial circumference in RE of 39,112 miles.

No i think u stuffed it up, so i just made it clear. If you want to talk about this go do it in my thread, keep this one on topic i guess.

How they got their numbers is, took the RE equatorial circumference, assumed that was the same distance as twice the distance between the north and south pole (e.g. the FE diameter) then used the circumference equation, put in their diameter and got a circumference of the earth. They then ignored the fact that this changes the size of the equator, which we have a measurment for. FE made no measurements or recordings. All they needed was wikipedia and a calculator.

My point was, why make this assumption rather than, say, assume the same equatorial circumference.
On what basis is one assumption any more valid than the other.

btw I had an 'RE' for a 'FE' at one point in an earlier post.
Fixed now, sorry for any confusion.

Tom is correct.

Ever wonder why people don't fly transcontinental in the southern hemisphere?

So simple to demonstrate you are wrong.

SA222 and SA223 go between South Africa and South America every day..

If the distance was how far FE predicts it to be, the flight would be 30 hours late.
You think someone might notice?

Quote from: Colossal Death Robot on May 24, 2008, 09:09:05 PM

What was the windspeed? at the flying altitude the windspeed isnt going to change the 3 hour flight time by 6 hours.

I once had a flight of one hour and five minutes, take just twenty five minutes.  All due to winds aloft.

I fly virtually every week (I have the carbon footprint of a small African country  ).

A flight scheduled for 1 hour and five minutes, if it runs on time typically spend half that time either taxiing or stacking.
For example:
London - Brussels is 200 miles. BA2560 is scheduled at 1:10. At 500 mph it takes 24 minutes to fly 200 miles.

I think Engy was talking about a flight in which he piloted the aircraft.