Flight time thought experiment.

  • 27 Replies
  • 5090 Views
Flight time thought experiment.
« on: March 10, 2009, 11:14:04 PM »
Okay, I was just thinking about this and am curious to see what sort of responses I get -- I haven't read anything which addresses this argument in the FAQ.

Suppose we have two cities on either end of an axis passing through the equator and the center of the RE model, as shown below.


Now, the equivalent positions of those cities on the FE model are located on a diameter of the 'equator' (a ring of a radius equal to half that of the earth's total radius) as illustrated below. Obviously the position of the white line is meant to be the equator, though I acknowledge that it is placed incorrectly. This will not matter later in this thought experiment, as we will use real numbers to make our point. This only serves as a visual example to clarify the situation.


We must first introduce a reference frame for each model. In both cases, the reference frame will be defined such that the earth is stationary.

Next, we introduce an airplane. This airplane will act in the manner we are all familiar with. It will obey all laws of physics, motion, and time as we experience in our world today (flat or not). The Boeing 747 commercial jet has a cruising speed of approximately 250 m/s (we will use this velocity in our calculations). In order to simplify the experiment, we assume this speed is constant and unaltered by the effects of wind.

Finally we come to the nitty-gritty. In the RE model, the airplane will travel along the Earth's circumference. We will calculate this circumference by using the RE's mean radius, 6371 km (6,371,000 m). We can ignore the altitude of the plane because it is very small compared to the Earth's radius. Using simple arithmetic, we come up with a circumference of: 2*Pi*r = 40,030,173 m.

Presumably, if we travel along the equator or straight over the North Pole, the distance from city A to city B will be equidistant as we see below:


This distance precisely one half the circumference, thus (40,030,173 m)/2 = 20,015,086.5 m.

The equivalent paths for the FE model (one traveling along the Earth's Equator, and one straight over the North Pole are as such:


I was unable to find dimensions of the FE model, so we will assume that the distance of the path around the equator of the FE model is the same as that of the RE model. We can make our point without the aid of this assumption, but for the purposes of coming up with hard numbers, it is safe to assume so.

No matter what path we take in the RE model, since the distance is the same, and the speed of the airplane is the same (also remember that the Earth is stationary in our reference frame), we can easily verify that the time to travel from city A to city B is equal. Time = Distance/speed, thus (20,015,086.5 m)/(250 m/s) = 80,060 s.

In the FE model, the time it will take to travel along Earth's "Equator" is the same as calculated above, since the distance and speed is the same in both models.

The distance of the path which travels straight over the North Pole of the FE model can be defined as the diameter of the circle making up the Equator, so: Radius = Circumference/2*Pi = (40,030,173 m)/2*Pi = 6,371,000 m. Diameter = 2*Radius, thus 2*(6,371,000 m) = 12,742,000 m.

Therefore, the theoretical time it would take the airplane to travel this distance is: Time = Distance/Speed = (12,742,000 m)/(250 m/s) = 50,968 s. Remember, the airplane acts the way we expect it to in our world today, so no arguments can be made that it will travel slower moving in one path or the other.

Obviously 80,060 s is not equivalent to 50,968 s. Here is the point when the frog jumps into the pond. If a plane were to travel along the proposed paths at this very moment, the time elapsed from city A to city B will be roughly equivalent, allowing for some error due to wind and other minor factors. I ask you this: how can a plane, which travels at a constant speed, travel two different distances in the same amount of time?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2009, 08:32:12 AM »
1. Australia isn't on the equator.

2. The configuration of the continents and distance between them in the FE map are hypothetical only.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2009, 08:41:58 AM »
1. As I noted earlier, I acknowledged that my placement of the equator was incorrect. Please read my post. The diagram only serves to illustrate the situation.

2. You guys might want to get working on that, seeing as how geography is an important study and things like air travel will rely on knowing the location of the continents/cities. If you can provide me with an accurate map of the FE model, I will gladly use that instead.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2009, 10:11:27 AM »
If you can provide me with an accurate map of the FE model, I will gladly use that instead.

I wouldn't hold your breath.
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2009, 10:20:06 AM »
Obviously the position of the white line is meant to be the equator, though I acknowledge that it is placed incorrectly.
1. Australia isn't on the equator.

Tom Bishop employs his idiocy device when up against someone with a valid point.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2009, 10:29:45 AM »
Yes but everyone knows that the true airspeed of a Boeing 747 is classified.  Boeing is in on the conspiracy along with the government.  Think about it, if someone got ahold of a large airplane like that, they could fly it over the ice wall and off into space  :o  :o  :o

Wait, isn't that common knowledge?

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2009, 12:45:03 AM »
when is a boeing not a boeing? when its a jar

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2009, 11:44:38 AM »
Yes but everyone knows that the true airspeed of a Boeing 747 is classified.  Boeing is in on the conspiracy along with the government.  Think about it, if someone got ahold of a large airplane like that, they could fly it over the ice wall and off into space  :o  :o  :o

Wait, isn't that common knowledge?

1. Not it isn't.

2. You can buy a 747 if you have the money and fly it over the "ice wall" yourself.

3. If you're being sarcastic, sorry, I just needed to point that out before anyone else decided to reply to it.
~The Flood was here~

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2009, 01:08:30 PM »
Yes but everyone knows that the true airspeed of a Boeing 747 is classified.  Boeing is in on the conspiracy along with the government.  Think about it, if someone got ahold of a large airplane like that, they could fly it over the ice wall and off into space  :o  :o  :o

Wait, isn't that common knowledge?

The speed doesn't even matter in the equation, he is noting the difference of (in your case) an assumed speed of #, while the distance is valid. However fast the Boeing may go, there is no way it could go fast enough around the equator to reach point B upwards of 3 times as fast. ( I don't know the numbers but HerroPrease is probably one of the more intelligent members on the forum, if he wants to prove my theory of his theory right, he may do so :) )

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2009, 11:13:57 AM »
I think he's joking ;D

I'd still like to hear from a FE expert on the matter. I genuinely want to hear your argument.

*

its_amazing

  • 180
  • ?If the world were a pretzel, would it be salty?
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2009, 11:22:51 AM »
2. You can buy a 747 if you have the money and fly it over the "ice wall" yourself.

x2
even...John Travolta has one.
Having a little bit of gravity is like being a little bit pregnant.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2009, 11:40:22 AM »
1. Australia isn't on the equator.

Oh OK.

2. The configuration of the continents and distance between them in the FE map are hypothetical only.

In that case how do you know Australia isn't on the equator?

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2009, 09:04:19 PM »
2. The configuration of the continents and distance between them in the FE map are hypothetical only.

In that case how do you know Australia isn't on the equator?

HA!  That made me laugh a little in my head.
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2009, 03:11:22 AM »
There exist many high speed jet streams in the upper atmoplane, but all of them move about the North Pole. Therefore, they help to speed flights along the equatorial path, but slow flights using the polar path as they must battle crosswinds as they fly. This accounts for the fact that the flight times appear to be similar along both routes, even though the distances are vastly different.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2009, 11:48:29 AM »
Okay, good to see an interesting argument. It is true that jet streams propagate eastward forming a ring around the North Pole. However, jet streams do not form perfect rings, as they typically meander in a sort of wave. Furthermore, I wouldn't go so far as to say there are 'many' of them. The largest jet stream in the Northern Hemisphere is roughly found at 60* latitude. There is a smaller one which can be found at about 30*, but this is still quite far from the equator. These are the only two which would cause a significant impact on flight time.

Barring the fact that there isn't a large jet stream located near the equator, using the jet stream to decrease flight time only works in one direction. If a plane were to travel against the jet stream, we would see a dramatic increase in flight time.

Traveling perpendicular to these jet streams would indeed increase the flight time slightly, but considering they are only 2 or 3 miles across, the time lost fighting the cross wind would be minimal.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 04:54:09 PM by HerroPrease »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2009, 05:25:58 PM »
Okay, good to see an interesting argument. It is true that jet streams propagate eastward forming a ring around the North Pole. However, jet streams do not form perfect rings, as they typically meander in a sort of wave. Furthermore, I wouldn't go so far as to say there are 'many' of them. The largest jet stream in the Northern Hemisphere is roughly found at 60* latitude. There is a smaller one which can be found at about 30*, but this is still quite far from the equator. These are the only two which would cause a significant impact on flight time.

Barring the fact that there isn't a large jet stream located near the equator, using the jet stream to decrease flight time only works in one direction. If a plane were to travel against the jet stream, we would see a dramatic increase in flight time.

Traveling perpendicular to these jet streams would indeed increase the flight time slightly, but considering they are only 2 or 3 miles across, the time lost fighting the cross wind would be minimal.

This is true in RET. However, in FET the jet streams are much wider, much faster, much more plentiful and are accompanied by another jet stream in the opposite direction immediately above or below them, allowing two-way accelerated travel.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2009, 08:54:28 PM »
To the best of my knowledge, jet streams of this nature have not been measured. Given the right equipment, anybody on the planet is capable of measuring the location, size, and speed of jet streams. Why isn't there a single piece of evidence of these FE jet streams available, and yet many independent (read: not part of the government) studies supporting the RET jet streams?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2009, 09:21:02 PM »
To the best of my knowledge, jet streams of this nature have not been measured. Given the right equipment, anybody on the planet is capable of measuring the location, size, and speed of jet streams. Why isn't there a single piece of evidence of these FE jet streams available, and yet many independent (read: not part of the government) studies supporting the RET jet streams?

Are you calling Steve a liar?  >:(
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.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2009, 11:44:55 PM »
Okay, good to see an interesting argument. It is true that jet streams propagate eastward forming a ring around the North Pole. However, jet streams do not form perfect rings, as they typically meander in a sort of wave. Furthermore, I wouldn't go so far as to say there are 'many' of them. The largest jet stream in the Northern Hemisphere is roughly found at 60* latitude. There is a smaller one which can be found at about 30*, but this is still quite far from the equator. These are the only two which would cause a significant impact on flight time.

Barring the fact that there isn't a large jet stream located near the equator, using the jet stream to decrease flight time only works in one direction. If a plane were to travel against the jet stream, we would see a dramatic increase in flight time.

Traveling perpendicular to these jet streams would indeed increase the flight time slightly, but considering they are only 2 or 3 miles across, the time lost fighting the cross wind would be minimal.

This is true in RET. However, in FET the jet streams are much wider, much faster, much more plentiful and are accompanied by another jet stream in the opposite direction immediately above or below them, allowing two-way accelerated travel.
Again you present speculation as fact. You loose all credibility. Demonstrate the existence of these east-west, west-east jet streams and that their additive effect would be sufficient or yield.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2009, 02:12:18 AM »
To the best of my knowledge, jet streams of this nature have not been measured. Given the right equipment, anybody on the planet is capable of measuring the location, size, and speed of jet streams. Why isn't there a single piece of evidence of these FE jet streams available, and yet many independent (read: not part of the government) studies supporting the RET jet streams?

Good question. I will get back to you on that one.

Again you present speculation as fact. You loose all credibility. Demonstrate the existence of these east-west, west-east jet streams and that their additive effect would be sufficient or yield.

Please either develop your reading comprehension skills or stop responding to my posts.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2009, 02:20:41 AM »

Again you present speculation as fact. You loose all credibility. Demonstrate the existence of these east-west, west-east jet streams and that their additive effect would be sufficient or yield.

Please either develop your reading comprehension skills or stop responding to my posts.
No. Your hypocritical retorts will not stand unchallenged. Your wild speculations presented as fact will be challenged. I am not alone in this vanguard either. Deal with it.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2009, 03:24:25 AM »
No. Your hypocritical retorts will not stand unchallenged. Your wild speculations presented as fact will be challenged. I am not alone in this vanguard either. Deal with it.

There is a difference between challenging what I have said and challenging what you think I have said because you lack a proper understanding of the English language.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2009, 03:36:56 AM »
No. Your hypocritical retorts will not stand unchallenged. Your wild speculations presented as fact will be challenged. I am not alone in this vanguard either. Deal with it.

There is a difference between challenging what I have said and challenging what you think I have said because you lack a proper understanding of the English language.
Of course, that's true. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to this debate.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2009, 10:57:10 AM »
Of course, that's true. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to this debate.

It applies to nearly every response you make to one of my posts. Now, I shall not be responding to any further posts you make until you have something meaningful to say.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2009, 11:38:41 AM »
Steve, do you realize that your "multiple, bidirectional jet stream" theory almost makes your EA theory seem plausible.
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.

*

Ocius

  • Official Member
  • 7596
  • Space President
Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2009, 11:51:47 AM »
No. Your hypocritical retorts will not stand unchallenged. Your wild speculations presented as fact will be challenged. I am not alone in this vanguard either. Deal with it.

There is a difference between challenging what I have said and challenging what you think I have said because you lack a proper understanding of the English language.

You're grasping at straws. It is common for flat earth theorists pull a random theory out of nowhere when they are beaten. FE theories aren't even theories to begin with. They are the musings of morons with no scientific backing whatsoever.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2009, 05:42:14 PM »
1. Australia isn't on the equator.

Oh OK.

2. The configuration of the continents and distance between them in the FE map are hypothetical only.

In that case how do you know Australia isn't on the equator?

I don't know why, but this made me laugh hysterically for three minutes  ;D
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.

Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2009, 02:39:40 AM »
Steve, do you realize that your "multiple, bidirectional jet stream" theory almost makes your EA theory seem plausible.
It is so easily testable. ALl you need to do is release balloons filled with hydrogen and track their progress. If you see them moving at near supersonic speeds, then we can conclude that Robo Steve is correct, if not, then we can conclude that he is just making stuff up so he doesn't have to face the truth that the Earth really is Round.
Everyday household experimentation.