Proof of RET via topology

Okay I am new to FES, so please bear with me.

Now according to your FET map on the FAQ page, Sydney should be quite a ways from Santiago, Chile, correct?
and when looking at that same map Juneau seems to be about halfway between. Therefore a flight from Santiago to Juneau should take considerably less time than a flight from Santiago to Sydney.

However, in reality, they take much longer.

your avergae Santiago-Juneau flight would be about 27 hrs.
 
http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SCL&citd1=JNU&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1

yet, santiago to Sydney flights take  about 18hrs

http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SYD&citd1=SCL&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1


Plz. explain how someone could reach Sydney from Santiago in such a short amount of time.

That flight does not have the benefit of strong wind currents working for it.

That flight does not have the benefit of strong wind currents working for it.

Are those wind currents always there or do they just appear when there is a scheduled flight?

That flight does not have the benefit of strong wind currents working for it.

but even if we are to assume that wind currents could push a plane about 1.5 times as fast, those currents are in the same direction according to FET. so how can it aid in the flight from Santiago to Sydney, if that flight according to FET would go over alaska?
furthermore, explain how it would work in both directions ie, from Sydney to Santiago

 
I know I am not entitled to this,
but will an FE'er please give me a well thought out response to
my question that accounts for all criteria previously stated?

I have given my theory, (the earth is nearly a sphere, and so Santiago is closer to Sydney)
so can you please give any of yours?

thank you.

You're wasting your time guy. Of the few who claim to believe the Earth is flat, none of them generally agree on anything. And this question has been asked 46,546 times with no concise answer. Reading the FAQ is your best bet, I'm sure there's something on it there.

About altimeter/radar altimeter readings: http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183#p34679

Why Antichtone (the continent which encircles the Pacific Ocean) cannot be reached and why the paths of flights are deviated as they (the airplanes) move toward the aether screen/layer:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183#p34667 (and the folllowing messages)

Also the real distances have been modified by Mercator when he created the first globe out of the true flat earth map, the Piri Reis map.

About altimeter/radar altimeter readings: http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183#p34679

Why Antichtone (the continent which encircles the Pacific Ocean) cannot be reached and why the paths of flights are deviated as they (the airplanes) move toward the aether screen/layer:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183#p34667 (and the folllowing messages)

Also the real distances have been modified by Mercator when he created the first globe out of the true flat earth map, the Piri Reis map.

O wow, because I really trust a map that labels the America's as atlantic.
and why pray tell me is the freezing landscape of Antarctica in the same
latitude as the burning hot Australia?

I'm sure you'll say all the weather balloons, personal aircraft,
and amateur vessels are a front by the conspiracy

Okay I am new to FES, so please bear with me.

Now according to your FET map on the FAQ page, Sydney should be quite a ways from Santiago, Chile, correct?
and when looking at that same map Juneau seems to be about halfway between. Therefore a flight from Santiago to Juneau should take considerably less time than a flight from Santiago to Sydney.

However, in reality, they take much longer.

your avergae Santiago-Juneau flight would be about 27 hrs.
 
http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SCL&citd1=JNU&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1

yet, santiago to Sydney flights take  about 18hrs

http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SYD&citd1=SCL&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1


Plz. explain how someone could reach Sydney from Santiago in such a short amount of time.

This post has nothing to do with topology.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 25, 2009, 01:48:40 PM

Okay I am new to FES, so please bear with me.

Now according to your FET map on the FAQ page, Sydney should be quite a ways from Santiago, Chile, correct?
and when looking at that same map Juneau seems to be about halfway between. Therefore a flight from Santiago to Juneau should take considerably less time than a flight from Santiago to Sydney.

However, in reality, they take much longer.

your avergae Santiago-Juneau flight would be about 27 hrs.
 
http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SCL&citd1=JNU&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1

yet, santiago to Sydney flights take  about 18hrs

http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SYD&citd1=SCL&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1


Plz. explain how someone could reach Sydney from Santiago in such a short amount of time.

This post has nothing to do with topology.

au contraire, topology is a combination of group theory and geometry.
it differentiates between constructions such as spheres, circles, and mobius strips
through various properties that are independent of deformities and twisting of space:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Topology.html

the aim of this thread is to demonstrate via relative distances, that the earth belongs to
the set that spheres and ellipsoids are in. not circles

Now, just for laffs, draw the path of the sun (and moon) on that map.

notice people, how their map labels
North and South America as "atlantic"
and as I said before,
a gigantic mass of ice covered land
rests outward as much as Australia and California.

notice people, how their map labels
North and South America as "atlantic"
and as I said before,
a gigantic mass of ice covered land
rests outward as much as Australia and California.

Whoa, please don't make the mistake of thinking that levee's opinions represent those of the Flat Earth Society at large.  As far as I know he's the only one to claim that map as accurate, and I've personally never seen it before, possibly because I don't usually bother reading his posts.

Whoa, please don't make the mistake of thinking that levee's opinions represent those of the Flat Earth Society at large.  As far as I know he's the only one to claim that map as accurate, and I've personally never seen it before, possibly because I don't usually bother reading his posts.

But levee is a moderator, just like you.

That must count for something right?

But levee is a moderator, just like you.

That must count for something right?

Actually, most of us are completely bewildered at the reasons for levee being made a moderator. As far as I know, Daniel hasn't given any justification for it.

Whoa, please don't make the mistake of thinking that levee's opinions represent those of the Flat Earth Society at large.  As far as I know he's the only one to claim that map as accurate, and I've personally never seen it before, possibly because I don't usually bother reading his posts.

I believe that Lord Wilmore supports a similar map.

Actually, most of us are completely bewildered at the reasons for levee being made a moderator. As far as I know, Daniel hasn't given any justification for it.

Since when is Daniel obligated to justify his decisions about his web site to anyone but his ISP?

Since when is Daniel obligated to justify his decisions about his web site to anyone but his ISP?

I didn't say he was. Try reading my post more carefully.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 26, 2009, 05:12:03 PM

Whoa, please don't make the mistake of thinking that levee's opinions represent those of the Flat Earth Society at large.  As far as I know he's the only one to claim that map as accurate, and I've personally never seen it before, possibly because I don't usually bother reading his posts.

I believe that Lord Wilmore supports a similar map.

So he refers to North and South America as "atlantic" on his map?

If I remember correctly it's not as similar as you seem to think anyway.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 26, 2009, 05:18:11 PM

Actually, most of us are completely bewildered at the reasons for levee being made a moderator. As far as I know, Daniel hasn't given any justification for it.

Since when is Daniel obligated to justify his decisions about his web site to anyone but his ISP?

Of course he doesn't have to justify anything he does.  That doesn't make levee's being a mod any less bewildering.

Quote from: markjo on September 26, 2009, 05:26:33 PM

Since when is Daniel obligated to justify his decisions about his web site to anyone but his ISP?

I didn't say he was. Try reading my post more carefully.

Your post implied that he should. FFS Steve are we back to this kind of lame trolling? You were doing so well...

Quote from: markjo on September 26, 2009, 05:26:33 PM

I believe that Lord Wilmore supports a similar map.

So he refers to North and South America as "atlantic" on his map?

If I remember correctly it's not as similar as you seem to think anyway.

Similar in layout, not in labeling.

Yeah, you're right, they are similar in layout.  Note that one of the key points Tvor brought up was levee's labeling of the Americas as "atlantic" (in his words, "their map labels North and South America as "atlantic", boldface mine), so I still feel that pointing out that this is not our map but rather levee's was an appropriate response.

so, can anyone please counter the plane ride scenario?

Yeah, you're right, they are similar in layout.  Note that one of the key points Tvor brought up was levee's labeling of the Americas as "atlantic" (in his words, "their map labels North and South America as "atlantic", boldface mine), so I still feel that pointing out that this is not our map but rather levee's was an appropriate response.

That's why I said Wilmore supported a similar map, not the same map.

crust wrote: draw the path of the sun (and moon) on that map.

Please read the best description of the solar orbit (it improves greatly upon Rowbotham's work, which does include false data):

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p33410
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p33520
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p34143
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p34701
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35487

crust wrote: draw the path of the sun (and moon) on that map.

Please read the best description of the solar orbit (it improves greatly upon Rowbotham's work, which does include false data):

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p33410
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p33520
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p34143
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p34701
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35487

Nice dodge, man.  You are a master.

crust wrote: draw the path of the sun (and moon) on that map.

Please read the best description of the solar orbit (it improves greatly upon Rowbotham's work, which does include false data):

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p33410
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p33520
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=544&start=15#p34143
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p34701
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35487

We would very much love to see an actual diagram, an explanation on how this complicated set of figures that the Sun draws explains the observations, or anything resembling an actual scientific thought. Even an unsubstantiated hypothesis with a few measurable results would be a lot more than you have shown to this point.

crust wrote: draw the path of the sun (and moon) on that map.

Please read the best description of the solar orbit (it improves greatly upon Rowbotham's work, which does include false data):

Sorry in all those links I can't see anything which describes the solar "orbit" as applied to the map you posted.

Just post the map here with the solar orbit on.

Thanks.

Way to dodge questions people.


okay according to Parsifal, the sun's orbit at summer solstice is at 23.5 N
this brings into question, if the sun is directly above the 23.5 N latitude,
why do areas in say 70 N get 20+ hours of sunlight on the solstice,
whereas the people in the 23.5 N latitude get less than 15hrs.

okay according to Parsifal, the sun's orbit at summer solstice is at 23.5 N
this brings into question, if the sun is directly above the 23.5 N latitude,
why do areas in say 70 N get 20+ hours of sunlight on the solstice,
whereas the people in the 23.5 N latitude get less than 15hrs.

Much the same reason as in RET. A greater range of longitudes is illuminated at any one time by the Sun at higher latitudes on the June solstice.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 27, 2009, 01:20:00 PM

okay according to Parsifal, the sun's orbit at summer solstice is at 23.5 N
this brings into question, if the sun is directly above the 23.5 N latitude,
why do areas in say 70 N get 20+ hours of sunlight on the solstice,
whereas the people in the 23.5 N latitude get less than 15hrs.

Much the same reason as in RET. A greater range of longitudes is illuminated at any one time by the Sun at higher latitudes on the June solstice.

Now your just forcing things.
at the north pole, the sun never sets at the solstice.
yet, the sun is 66.5 latitudes away.
now we have set up the radius for the suns rays.
now those Aussies must be real depressed
to have no sunlight.

Once again FET has damned itself