FET map fail?

I figure if the FE guys were all so sure about their theory that they claim is a fact because they have so many theory's proving that their theory is a fact... Why don't you have a map that can represent the day to day life we experience. My globe which is a sphere does that pretty well.





Lets say i want to travel from Buenos Aires to Sydney Australia:



It should take me roughly the same amount of time to travel from Maine in the US to Japan (please note that this may have 1 or 2 stops adding a few hours to the travel time):



Your maps all fail at doing this. People make these flights all the time... if the times were wrong i am sure you would hear about this on the news... people would want their money back.
Please don't bring up the Jet Stream, i'm a Meteorologist... i'll debunk that pretty quick.

See:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22288.0

Coup de grāce.

Well done sir. Expect Wilmore to drop it with his own map, but I'm sure you will have no problem debunking it with the same process you used on the other map.

He hasn't debunked anything. All he's said is 'If I want to do this, I can on RET, but I can't on FET! Here are some flight times, and watch out, I have a black belt in meteorology!'


My understanding is that 'debunking' something involves a little more than just declaring that you've done so.

He hasn't debunked anything. All he's said is 'If I want to do this, I can on RET, but I can't on FET! Here are some flight times, and watch out, I have a black belt in meteorology!'


My understanding is that 'debunking' something involves a little more than just declaring that you've done so.

I agree with the italicized point, but that's not what happened.

Point out the flaw in his analysis. Are you proposing that those times are inaccurate? If you can do something in RET (something that happens all the time) but not in FET, doesn't that mean that FET is flawed?

He hasn't debunked anything. All he's said is 'If I want to do this, I can on RET, but I can't on FET! Here are some flight times, and watch out, I have a black belt in meteorology!'


My understanding is that 'debunking' something involves a little more than just declaring that you've done so.

All you said was i used the word debunk in the wrong context... does this mean you admit your wrong about the rest?

It's true. In the Flat Earth Theory, if you fly across Antarctica, or anywhere in the southern hemisphere, it would take much longer than it actually does.

Point out the flaw in his analysis.

The flaw in his analysis is that there isn't any. All he's done is declare that these flight times aren't possible in these models. That's just a statement, he hasn't proved anything.

All you said was i used the word debunk in the wrong context... does this mean you admit your wrong about the rest?

Wrong about what? I don't even support these models. See above.

Quote from: Canadark on February 10, 2010, 12:53:05 PM

Point out the flaw in his analysis.

The flaw in his analysis is that there isn't any. All he's done is declare that these flight times aren't possible in these models. That's just a statement, he hasn't proved anything.

Quote from: spacemanjones on February 10, 2010, 04:23:05 PM

All you said was i used the word debunk in the wrong context... does this mean you admit your wrong about the rest?

Wrong about what? I don't even support these models. See above.

So do you believe that these flight times will work in the flat earth model?

So do you believe that these flight times will work in the flat earth model?

Once again, I don't support this model, but that doesn't change the fact that he needs to show why they're wrong, instead of just claiming they are.

Statements of truth are proof.

Undoubtedly. Come back to me when you have some.

You'd now need to show how these flight times are possible in a flat earth model. It would require some pretty supersonic craft tarvelling in some very peculiar trajectories.

Why do I need to prove that? You're the one claiming they wouldn't work, so you need to come up with proof. Again, I don't even support this model, so I'm hardly going to spend time trying to prove it's right. The point is, you haven't proved it wrong, whatever you may think.

Quote from: Canadark on February 11, 2010, 07:50:40 AM

So do you believe that these flight times will work in the flat earth model?

Once again, I don't support this model, but that doesn't change the fact that he needs to show why they're wrong, instead of just claiming they are.

I was actually thinking about your own flat earth model. Do flight times work in it?

Obviously.

Obviously.

These flight estimates are based off of a round earth model. On your map the distance between Vancouver and Hong Kong (just to use an example) is much longer than it would be on a globe, is it not?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 11, 2010, 11:13:20 AM

Obviously.

These flight estimates are based off of a round earth model. On your map the distance between Vancouver and Hong Kong (just to use an example) is much longer than it would be on a globe, is it not?

You tell me. Get a real flight, it's actual route, and get the time it took to travel that route. If you find a serious incongruity, come back to me.

Wilmore, the problem with your map is that it has no scale associated with it, therefore it's impossible to estimate any flight times based on that map.  But I have a feeling that you already know this.

The shortest time for a flight from LAX to JFK is approximately 5 hours and 1 minute.
Nonstop flight from LAX to JFK:
http://www.orbitz.com/App/ViewFlightSearchResults?null&retrieveParams=true&z=5268&r=pp
Distance:
http://www.gcmap.com/dist?P=LAX-JFK&DU=mi&SU=mph
Flight Path:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LAX-JFK&DU=mi&SU=mph


The shortest time for a flight from Hong Kong to LAX is approximately 12 hours and 30 minutes.
Nonstop flight for a flight from HKG to LAX:
http://www.orbitz.com/App/ViewFlightSearchResults?null&retrieveParams=true&z=4117&r=1oe
Distance:
http://www.gcmap.com/dist?P=LAX-HKG&DU=mi&DM=&SG=&SU=mph
Flight Path:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LAX-HKG&DU=mi&SU=mph

Do you believe that these flight paths and distances will be consistent with your own map? If not then I will map out how this would look on your earth model.

Do you believe that these flight paths and distances will be consistent with your own map? If not then I will map out how this would look on your earth model.

Obviously.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 11, 2010, 05:52:19 AM

Quote from: Plebb on February 11, 2010, 10:52:18 AM

Statements of truth are proof.

Undoubtedly. Come back to me when you have some.

You've been given some. The flight times are proof. Or maybe you want to pretend they don't happen.

They may be proof that a certain flight takes a certain amount of time (and I stress 'may be'), but that's all.

Which one is Wilmores "supermapofcandoanythings" anyway?

Quote from: Canadark on February 11, 2010, 11:58:45 AM

Do you believe that these flight paths and distances will be consistent with your own map? If not then I will map out how this would look on your earth model.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 11, 2010, 11:13:20 AM

Obviously.

Quote from: Plebb on February 11, 2010, 12:11:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 11, 2010, 05:52:19 AM

Quote from: Plebb on February 11, 2010, 10:52:18 AM

Statements of truth are proof.

Undoubtedly. Come back to me when you have some.

You've been given some. The flight times are proof. Or maybe you want to pretend they don't happen.

They may be proof that a certain flight takes a certain amount of time (and I stress 'may be'), but that's all.

There is no FET map of any size or scale to test the most fundamental part of FET, the shape of the earth. If the FES is without a testable model then FET is not a theory or a hypothesis, just an idea.

Quote from: Canadark on February 11, 2010, 11:58:45 AM

Do you believe that these flight paths and distances will be consistent with your own map? If not then I will map out how this would look on your earth model.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 11, 2010, 11:13:20 AM

Obviously.

Quote from: Plebb on February 11, 2010, 12:11:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 11, 2010, 05:52:19 AM

Quote from: Plebb on February 11, 2010, 10:52:18 AM

Statements of truth are proof.

Undoubtedly. Come back to me when you have some.

You've been given some. The flight times are proof. Or maybe you want to pretend they don't happen.

They may be proof that a certain flight takes a certain amount of time (and I stress 'may be'), but that's all.

I thought that you didn't believe that antarctica was a rim continent - therefore in your beliefs system, the earth isn't necessarily a disk. Perhaps you could gather information on flight times to the magical land of the mammoths.

Where did I say it was a disc?

Wilmore's model doesn't put the north pole in the centre, nor does it suggest that the plane is finite. However, UA and the infinite plane model are mutually exclusive, though I don't know what Wilmore's position is on this.

My understanding is that 'debunking' something involves a little more than just declaring that you've done so.

depends on your budget..