Airline travel in the southern hemisphere?

According to FE theory, what is the distance between Santiago, Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand?

I just checked Travelocity, and a jet airliner traveling non-stop makes the trip in 13 hours. 

Are you looking for the distance, or the time it takes to fly?

for argument's sake, why not give both?

Well, he's given the latter, and I don't know the former.

Are you looking for the distance, or the time it takes to fly?

I know the time it takes to fly.  What is the distance according to FE theory?

Well, he's given the latter, and I don't know the former.

Is there ANYONE in the forum who is familiar enough with the flat earth map to give me even an approximate distance?  (To repeat, the distance between Santiago, Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand)

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 03, 2010, 01:16:39 PM

Well, he's given the latter, and I don't know the former.

Is there ANYONE in the forum who is familiar enough with the flat earth map to give me even an approximate distance?  (To repeat, the distance between Santiago, Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand)

No, because there is no flat earth map, only a representation.

well its simple choose two points equidistant from the north pole (will call it a). Then multiply it by 2 pi (2*pi*a). Then multiply that by the angle between the two points (b) over 360 (2*pi*a*(b/360)). That will give you the distance between the two points on a disk (assuming you are using a compass it will appear as though you are flying in a straight line rather than a semicircle).

next we take the same principal with two different points, only we keep the same angle. This will give us a new distance from the pole (c). So the equation should look like this (2*pi*c(b/360)). Now according to how the real world works these equations would only be useful to compare points equidistant from the south pole as to the points being compared to in relation to the north pole. But if the world was flat then you could use this method to calculate the difference in distance between two points that would appear to be the same distance apart on a round earth. Bah that second part really doesn't make sense. I'm just tired, can't convey my ideas.

ok hears what I'm trying to do. pick two points 100 miles from the north pole that are 100 miles apart. Then pick two points that are 100 miles from the south pole that are 100 miles apart. *Because the earth is round the angle will be the same showing that 100 miles from either pole the distances from each of the two points ( points in a and the points in c) are the same. Aplying theses same points to a flat earth model we get the following.*

lets say it is a 1,000 miles from the north pole to the south pole (I know its not) and put the numbers into my equation, if the world was flat then this equation would be true (360((2*pi*a)/d) = 360((2*pi*c)/e)) where D is the distance between the first two point and e is the distance between the second.

Reducing the equation (removing similar things from each side) leaves us with a/d = c/e or 100/100 = 900/100 or 1 = 9. Seeing as this cannot be right that means that the points from the south must be further apart than they are. Meaning that the true distance must be 900 miles not 100 miles which means that it should take 9 times as long to travel than the points in the north. And the travel distances get worse the further south you go, as opposed to better which is the case for a round earth.

I hope that helps and wasn't too much rambling. If I'm up to it I will post pictures tomorrow... or today. What ever it is I'm goin to bed.

*made changes this morning, not to all of it but some*

... what?

A = 100 (distance from north pole to first set of coordinates)
B = (I don't know pick something it doesn't matter)
C = 900 (distance from north pole to second set of coordinates)
D = 2*pi*a*(b/360) (distance between the first two coordinates in relation to the north pole)
E = 2*pi*c*(b/360) (distance between the second two coordinates in relation to the north pole)

That's not exactly right, I'll show you why later.

I'm quite certain that it is right. It may not be the best example but it's good enough. Please respond anyway, there may be something I missed. I am not above fallacy, I am only human.

For the rest of us mere mortals - WTF are you talking about?

Thanks jack for the picture.

For the rest of us mere mortals - WTF are you talking about?

Well on a round earth when you get close to the poles it takes less time to fly around to return to your starting position than it would if you where at the equator.

Now on flat earth that works fine and dandy if your at the north pole. But the second you go further south than the equator then the length of time to return to your start position increases even further.

The more your distance from the north pole (a) the greater the circumference of the circle you have to fly (2*pi*a).

yea we didn't really need an essay to prove this point. Everyone know this fact

Well he wanted flight times and I gave him a way to find out.

My favorite part is the fact that Antarctica is 14600 nautical miles in circumference which means that the earth is 14600/(2*pi) or 2,323.66 nautical miles from north to south pole. This also means that the total area of the earth is pi*2,323.66^2 or 16,962,733.84 nautical miles. Funny how we manage to fit 275,413,491.18 nautical miles of our earth into that area.

k. Well anyway, like SupahLovah said, you're kinda wrong. An aircraft doesn't fly in an arc to get where it's going. If the earth were flat, it would cut the corner and go straight.

[insert] you can use the edit button to add stuff to your post. double posting is just annoying

Well no it wouldn't because the pilot is under the assumption that the world is round and follows his compass which in a flat earth means he goes in an arc. also on a round earth an arc would appear straight to the pilot.

The only way to travel in a straight line on a round earth would be to fly straight at your target and never increase or decrease altitude (thus keeping you in a straight line over the surface of the earth as the ground comes flying at you and then sinks away again)

p.s. I have been using the edit button. It was a completely different thought so I made it a different post.

I agree unless planes are secretly supersonic then travel between many southern hemisphere cities seems suspiciously slow. I think in principal their engines are powerful enough to take them to the speed of sound but their air frames are not designed survive the stresses as you pass the sound barrier. Thats why concorde was a somewhat different shape. Either way it would be pretty obvious from the cabin if you passed the sound barrier.

Shipping is a better example as the times are longer. Circumnavigation of the southern ocean is a fairly common practice now for both commerical and explorational/tourist shipping. I'm not going to bother to do precise calculations on the time difference for the same reason I don't use geometry to work out whether i've just circumnavigated a 400m racetrack or the city I live in.

Pilots don't use compasses. They use Gyros which they line up to their compass before flight, thus allowing them to fly straight with no reference to magnetic field lines at all.

But they still fly over the curve of the earth, and either way it still leaves you with a further distance the further south you go. And it would also mean  (assuming shortest distance based on a flat earth) a flight from south America to Australia could make a stop in new york if it was in trouble, then it would fly over the north pole, could stop in Russia or China, before ever getting to Australia. And if they flew in a straight line (pilot amusing round earth) then they would go right over the edge in our flat earth model.

Pilots don't use compasses. They use Gyros which they line up to their compass before flight, thus allowing them to fly straight with no reference to magnetic field lines at all.

This is a good point that I had forgotten, and it totally discredits Wilmore's flat earth model.

OK, I did it myself.  Using the map (or is it just a "representation"?) and a given diameter of 24900 miles--both obtained in the Q&A on this website, I measured the distance between Santiago, Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand to be 16451 miles.  According to an airline schedule in Travelocity, the travel time for an airliner between those cities is about 13 hours.  This means a speed of 1265 MPH, which of course is more than twice as fast than  a (non-supersonic) jet aircraft can travel.

For you FEers, is there any error in my calculations?  If the map shown is not reasonably accurate, do you have an accurate map?  If not, why not?

For all of you, as an exercise:  Use  the flight times given for airline travel between cities on continents south of the equator and correlate this with the measured distance between those cities. 

OK, I did it myself.  Using the map (or is it just a "representation"?) and a given diameter of 24900 miles--both obtained in the Q&A on this website, I measured the distance between Santiago, Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand to be 16451 miles.  According to an airline schedule in Travelocity, the travel time for an airliner between those cities is about 13 hours.  This means a speed of 1265 MPH, which of course is more than twice as fast than  a (non-supersonic) jet aircraft can travel.

For you FEers, is there any error in my calculations?  If the map shown is not reasonably accurate, do you have an accurate map?  If not, why not?

For all of you, as an exercise:  Use  the flight times given for airline travel between cities on continents south of the equator and correlate this with the measured distance between those cities. 

Was this a straight line? or did you follow the path it actually takes on RE and warped it to fit FE? Because the latter will generate and even longer distance, disproving them entirely

Flat is flat.  I used a straight line--the shortest distance between two points on a plane. 

I find it significant that no FEers have responded.  IMO most of the purported FEers on this forum are in fact stringing us along--they do not really believe in a flat earth.  We should recognize this and stop playing into their game.

Flat is flat.  I used a straight line--the shortest distance between two points on a plane. 

I find it significant that no FEers have responded.  IMO most of the purported FEers on this forum are in fact stringing us along--they do not really believe in a flat earth.  We should recognize this and stop playing into their game.

Don't use a straight line. Aircraft fly over specific way points (eg, NZ - Japan you fly over New Caledonia). You need to bend you FE flight paths to measure their distance because we KNOW where they fly.

My favorite part is the fact that Antarctica is 14600 nautical miles in circumference which means that the earth is 14600/(2*pi) or 2,323.66 nautical miles from north to south pole. This also means that the total area of the earth is pi*2,323.66^2 or 16,962,733.84 nautical miles. Funny how we manage to fit 275,413,491.18 nautical miles of our earth into that area.

Nautical miles are not valid units for area.

OK how about

16,801.68 miles (27,039.2 km) circumference making an area of 19,520,714.103 miles (31,414,983.07 km) to fit our globes area of 316,945,845.65 miles (510,065,785.67 km)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=length+converter