Latitudes

  • 45 Replies
  • 10125 Views
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2009, 04:36:16 AM »
Yes, circular flight routes. Stops planes hitting each other.

More because it is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere.  If you project a great circle on a flat projection and then put it on our map it becomes a straight line.

Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2009, 04:44:27 AM »
Yes, circular flight routes. Stops planes hitting each other.

More because it is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere.  If you project a great circle on a flat projection and then put it on our map it becomes a straight line.



That doesn't change the proposition.

(But it does raise some interesting dilemmas for FE)

?

Testthis

  • 13
  • +0/-0
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2009, 10:16:08 AM »
The problem here is that people justify their zealous beliefs to ridiculous lengths, trying to satisfy themselves.  Admitting you're wrong is very difficult, especially when you build your life around a concept.  I'm a born again atheist as of six months ago, and I'll be twenty-seven in a month.  I was literally crying, scared at my realization.  But when I got over it, I started to study the theories behind the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis, etc...  And I found them fascinating, and even comforting.

Admitting when you're wrong is difficult, but it comes with a certain sort of bliss.

That's great. I suggest you to peruse the Flat Earth Literature when you want start crying scared in realization again

No need.

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/faqs.html

It was a fun trip.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2009, 12:58:24 PM »
No need.

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/faqs.html

It was a fun trip.

What does that short flight a sort distance along the ice wall prove about anything?

?

Testthis

  • 13
  • +0/-0
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2009, 02:06:33 PM »
No need.

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/faqs.html

It was a fun trip.

What does that short flight a sort distance along the ice wall prove about anything?

That, despite the belief that no one is allowed close to the "ice wall", people are able to get close to the ice wall.

I'm still interested on your theory on the first point.  Travelling from Chile to Australia should take much, much longer than it does to travel from California to Japan.  But it doesn't.  A simple counter could be that our maps aren't accurate, but that would simply mean that the trips the opposite way should be even MORE skewed, but they aren't.

The miles do not add up to FE theory.  Quite a blunder in a theory to neglect to include simple addition.  You could argue that the air speed is different in the southern hemisphere, which is extremely easy to disprove.  You could also attempt to argue that even airlines are in on the conspiracy, including all pilots that travel across continents, as well as boaters.  You could even attempt to argue that the planes travelling in the southern hemisphere have some sort of hyper drive mechanism, or time dilation unit.  I'd point out the silliness of such a claim, but it seems pointless when those claims are at least slightly more feasible than a "flat Earth".

I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone would actually support a flat Earth theory, obviously.  But you never know, people deny simple fact all the time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2009, 03:14:06 PM »
That, despite the belief that no one is allowed close to the "ice wall", people are able to get close to the ice wall.

When did I say that I believed that? I've always said that plenty of people have been to the coast of Antarctica.

Quote
I'm still interested on your theory on the first point.  Travelling from Chile to Australia should take much, much longer than it does to travel from California to Japan.  But it doesn't.  A simple counter could be that our maps aren't accurate, but that would simply mean that the trips the opposite way should be even MORE skewed, but they aren't.

Really, have you gone on a plane trip the opposite way? Airports don't go take the 'long' way around the earth, even in the RE model.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 04:56:34 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2009, 03:25:30 PM »
When did I say that I believed that? I've always said that plenty of people have been to the coast of Antarctica.

The RE counterpart to the 150 foot Ice Wall described in the FAQ is called the Ross Ice Shelf.

?

Testthis

  • 13
  • +0/-0
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2009, 03:37:59 PM »
Multiple flights.

This isn't rocket science here.  You can easily fly from California to New York, then from New York to Europe.  From Europe to China.  From China to Japan.

Or, the southern suggested route:  Chile to South Africa.  South Africa to Australia.

On a flat Earth model, the distance, one way, or the opposite way, should be much greater in the southern trip than the northern.

And I've flown both ways on the northern path.  From Illinois to NY, then to Germany.  On the trip back, we were able to find a cheaper flight that was a connector through China.

Now, quite obviously, on the FE model, the southern trip should take roughly three times as long (I haven't done the math, so this is an estimate) as the northern trip would.  If it doesn't, we have a glaring issue.

It doesn't.  You have a glaring issue.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 03:47:17 PM by Testthis »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2009, 07:26:48 PM »
Quote
Or, the southern suggested route:  Chile to South Africa.  South Africa to Australia

Those trips aren't circumnavigating the earth, or taking the "long way" between South America and Australia. They're all passing over a shared path.

And I've flown both ways on the northern path.  From Illinois to NY, then to Germany.  On the trip back, we were able to find a cheaper flight that was a connector through China.

Now, quite obviously, on the FE model, the southern trip should take roughly three times as long (I haven't done the math, so this is an estimate) as the northern trip would.  If it doesn't, we have a glaring issue.

It doesn't.  You have a glaring issue.

China isn't in the Southern Hemisphere.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 07:28:45 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

user99

  • 282
  • +0/-0
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2009, 04:49:38 AM »
Those trips aren't circumnavigating the earth, or taking the "long way" between South America and Australia. They're all passing over a shared path.

Umm... wut?

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 23955
  • +6/-1
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #40 on: February 26, 2009, 04:51:17 AM »
Have you checked out how a compass works in FET? it might help you understand this.

?

Testthis

  • 13
  • +0/-0
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #41 on: February 26, 2009, 05:41:05 AM »
Quote
Or, the southern suggested route:  Chile to South Africa.  South Africa to Australia

Those trips aren't circumnavigating the earth, or taking the "long way" between South America and Australia. They're all passing over a shared path.

Map it out, it doesn't matter.  It's still a much longer path on the FE model.

Quote
And I've flown both ways on the northern path.  From Illinois to NY, then to Germany.  On the trip back, we were able to find a cheaper flight that was a connector through China.

Now, quite obviously, on the FE model, the southern trip should take roughly three times as long (I haven't done the math, so this is an estimate) as the northern trip would.  If it doesn't, we have a glaring issue.

It doesn't.  You have a glaring issue.

China isn't in the Southern Hemisphere.

Do you even read?

Quote
And I've flown both ways on the northern path.  From Illinois to NY, then to Germany.  On the trip back, we were able to find a cheaper flight that was a connector through China.

Did I not just say that I flew both ways on the northern path right there?

Quote
Have you checked out how a compass works in FET? it might help you understand this.

It doesn't matter.

I'm noticing that not a single person has been able to address the issue directly, and instead continues to attempt to deflect it.

?

Testthis

  • 13
  • +0/-0
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2009, 09:22:30 PM »
I guess I should have just stuck with my original assumption that all of the so called "FET's" here realized they were all full of hot air from the get go.

Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

?

hi

  • 302
  • +0/-0
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2009, 10:21:21 PM »
I guess I should have just stuck with my original assumption that all of the so called "FET's" here realized they were all full of hot air from the get go.

Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.
Only a very few people here seem to be in it for the debate. I'm getting pretty annoyed of these trolls right now.

?

RJM

  • 104
  • +0/-0
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2009, 10:22:30 PM »
I could pretend I'm one.  I think I pretty much have their argument down.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45162
  • +98/-138
Re: Latitudes
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2009, 06:25:43 AM »
I could pretend I'm one.  I think I pretty much have their argument down.

Doesn't take long, does it?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.