Disproof of flat earth theory

  • 98 Replies
  • 17325 Views
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2010, 03:18:55 AM »
Your experiment only holds true for the conventional model. In the model I support, the trip would be the same around both poles:




Most importantly, in the map he has posted, the Pacific Theater of WW2 could not have happened. That means the allies and the axis conducted WW2 specifically to make us all think the world is round.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2010, 05:04:30 AM »
Why couldn't it have happened?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Atom Man

  • 195
  • Watch out for that tree
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2010, 06:44:29 AM »
Why couldn't it have happened?

Something about Pearl Harbor and the War in the Pacific. Just a guess. 
Urinal Etiquette is like Ghost Busting: Never Cross the Streams

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2010, 11:06:11 AM »
Why couldn't it have happened?
Look at the shape of the Pacific Theater in that projection. It is stretched out over almost half the circumference of the Earth. Time between various island hopping battles would have varied extremely from what was experienced. Of course I have no personal accounts to add, it just seems extremely historically unlikely that the US military would waste so much time going around the long way to get to Japan, and why they would care about any of those islands that on your representation are really far away from both countries.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2010, 01:18:13 PM »
Why couldn't it have happened?

Something about Pearl Harbor and the War in the Pacific. Just a guess. 


"Something about". Great argument.


Look at the shape of the Pacific Theater in that projection. It is stretched out over almost half the circumference of the Earth. Time between various island hopping battles would have varied extremely from what was experienced. Of course I have no personal accounts to add, it just seems extremely historically unlikely that the US military would waste so much time going around the long way to get to Japan, and why they would care about any of those islands that on your representation are really far away from both countries.


The goal of the pacific 'island hopping' campaign was to clear the Japanese from their outlying possessions and then move in. It wasn't just to get closer to Japan. Even assuming that the Earth is round, the Midway atoll is closer to Japan than the Marshall islands or the Soloman islands, as are the Aleutians islands. The point is, they wanted to get right next to Japan, and the only safe way to do that was to clear all their outlying possessions and then take islands like Okinawa and Iwo Jima.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Vongeo

  • Official Member
  • 6004
  • I don't get it either.
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2010, 01:36:58 PM »
I think if you Hit enough Birds or other airplanes it will change your air speed and wind comes from more than just the west, with heat fronts and what have you.

Is the mass chronically depressed, suicidal bird theory part of the FE model now?
Its not only birds, I'm sure if the conspricy really wanted to they could fly a plane in to your plane and (and this is a stretch) use the money on an insured plane, or sell money from patriotic memorabilia ( Coin commerating your Plane crash, maybe even a movie[hell, I'd see it]) Also if thats to far of a stretch I'm thinking that other pilots fly between the equator, who you would at least have to avoid.
Vongeo is a wanker, he wears a wanker hat; he always smells like urine and he thinks the Earth is flat.

No longer is this sentence is cut in half. Jekra!

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2010, 09:59:01 PM »
Why couldn't it have happened?

Something about Pearl Harbor and the War in the Pacific. Just a guess. 


"Something about". Great argument.


Look at the shape of the Pacific Theater in that projection. It is stretched out over almost half the circumference of the Earth. Time between various island hopping battles would have varied extremely from what was experienced. Of course I have no personal accounts to add, it just seems extremely historically unlikely that the US military would waste so much time going around the long way to get to Japan, and why they would care about any of those islands that on your representation are really far away from both countries.


The goal of the pacific 'island hopping' campaign was to clear the Japanese from their outlying possessions and then move in. It wasn't just to get closer to Japan. Even assuming that the Earth is round, the Midway atoll is closer to Japan than the Marshall islands or the Soloman islands, as are the Aleutians islands. The point is, they wanted to get right next to Japan, and the only safe way to do that was to clear all their outlying possessions and then take islands like Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

I was saying they would have noticed if the trip took that much longer than expected, or if the stars and north didn't remain aligned. The fact that they did a 180 degree turn on the way from the Pearl Harbor to Japan. They do measure their changes in course. Constantly. And sum them up too.

Also people would notice if Australia were bigger in than South America, or if that Africa was some now now way was bigger than South America.

Or are the cartographers in on it too?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 04:14:15 AM by Lowilru »

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2010, 05:34:33 AM »
Regarding the size of continents: the map is an approximation, and in all probability does not represent any of the continents with perfect accuracy. Its purpose is to demonstrate the concept.


Regarding the distances covered and the time it took: that would depend on the course taken. Discrepancies cannot simply be claimed, they need to be proved.


Regarding the heavens: a number of theories exist which attempt to explain th movements of the heavens. It should be noted we expect the same observations to take place on a FE - it's the cause behind those observations which we consider different to that in RET.


Regarding navigation: if by the stars, see above. If by compass, then that is also perfectly consistent with the above model.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2010, 05:49:06 AM »
Regarding the size of continents: the map is an approximation, and in all probability does not represent any of the continents with perfect accuracy. Its purpose is to demonstrate the concept.


Regarding the distances covered and the time it took: that would depend on the course taken. Discrepancies cannot simply be claimed, they need to be proved.


Regarding the heavens: a number of theories exist which attempt to explain th movements of the heavens. It should be noted we expect the same observations to take place on a FE - it's the cause behind those observations which we consider different to that in RET.


Regarding navigation: if by the stars, see above. If by compass, then that is also perfectly consistent with the above model.

You are insufferable. I flew from Chicago to Seoul two weeks ago. It was a 13 hour flight. The sun never set and the flight also took almost exactly as long as they originally said it would.

On your map we would've A) flown over Europe and much of Asia and the pilots would have to be in on the conspiracy or B) flown a northern route around everything that would've taken MUCH longer than 13 hours.

Your map is grossly wrong and makes me laugh (at you) and cry (for you) at the same time.

Being an FEer is hard!!!

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2010, 07:16:59 AM »
On your map we would've A) flown over Europe and much of Asia and the pilots would have to be in on the conspiracy or B) flown a northern route around everything that would've taken MUCH longer than 13 hours.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #40 on: March 11, 2010, 02:08:47 PM »
Goddamn Wilmore, it is exceedingly obvious on your map that the northern route takes far more distance than the eastern or western routes.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #41 on: March 11, 2010, 03:29:20 PM »
Goddamn Wilmore, it is exceedingly obvious on your map that the northern route takes far more distance than the eastern or western routes.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #42 on: March 11, 2010, 03:58:39 PM »
Goddamn Wilmore, it is exceedingly obvious on your map that the northern route takes far more distance than the eastern or western routes.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.

On your map, the most direct way (the straight line) from Chicago to Seoul is roughly east to west. Any other method would take longer. Basic geometry at its finest.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #43 on: March 11, 2010, 08:27:13 PM »
Goddamn Wilmore, it is exceedingly obvious on your map that the northern route takes far more distance than the eastern or western routes.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.

On your map, the most direct way (the straight line) from Chicago to Seoul is roughly east to west. Any other method would take longer. Basic geometry at its finest.
He's telling you to go and measure it and record the amount of time it took you to fly those distances. Take a hint.

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #44 on: March 11, 2010, 11:34:35 PM »
Goddamn Wilmore, it is exceedingly obvious on your map that the northern route takes far more distance than the eastern or western routes.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.

Don't you think someone would notice that the flight too longer than a flight from Chicago to London? Curves are longer that straight lines when connecting two points.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #45 on: March 11, 2010, 11:41:07 PM »
Goddamn Wilmore, it is exceedingly obvious on your map that the northern route takes far more distance than the eastern or western routes.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.

Don't you think someone would notice that the flight too longer than a flight from Chicago to London? Curves are longer that straight lines when connecting two points.
Same goes for you. Unless you personally know that distance and route is correct and how long it would take an aircraft to fly that route, you aren't in a position to comment on rights and wrongs.

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #46 on: March 12, 2010, 12:53:56 AM »
On your map we would've A) flown over Europe and much of Asia and the pilots would have to be in on the conspiracy or B) flown a northern route around everything that would've taken MUCH longer than 13 hours.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.

Prove what?? What am I proving?? YOU MADE UP A MAP GROUNDED IN NOTHING MORE THAN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and you're saying that I am the one that is making baseless claims? It never ceases to amaze me that you guys damn yourselves constantly with your OWN words.



There is my flight info. It is approximately 6540 miles from Seoul to Chicago on a RE map. A typical plane goes 500-550 MPH. That is basically a 13 hour flight. Which map is more accurate? The one where all you can do is say prove it or the one backed by factual data?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #47 on: March 12, 2010, 01:50:19 AM »
On your map we would've A) flown over Europe and much of Asia and the pilots would have to be in on the conspiracy or B) flown a northern route around everything that would've taken MUCH longer than 13 hours.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.
A typical plane goes 500-550 MPH.
This is an assumption.

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #48 on: March 12, 2010, 08:27:06 AM »
On your map we would've A) flown over Europe and much of Asia and the pilots would have to be in on the conspiracy or B) flown a northern route around everything that would've taken MUCH longer than 13 hours.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.
A typical plane goes 500-550 MPH.
This is an assumption.

Or, ya know, an established fact conformable by any number of sources.

Wanna play THAT game?

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #49 on: March 12, 2010, 09:22:39 AM »
On your map we would've A) flown over Europe and much of Asia and the pilots would have to be in on the conspiracy or B) flown a northern route around everything that would've taken MUCH longer than 13 hours.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.
A typical plane goes 500-550 MPH.
This is an assumption.

Or, ya know, an established fact conformable by any number of sources.

Wanna play THAT game?
ur dum. Go and use a radar gun on a plane.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #50 on: March 12, 2010, 09:24:31 AM »
On your map we would've A) flown over Europe and much of Asia and the pilots would have to be in on the conspiracy or B) flown a northern route around everything that would've taken MUCH longer than 13 hours.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.
A typical plane goes 500-550 MPH.
This is an assumption.

Or, ya know, an established fact conformable by any number of sources.

Wanna play THAT game?

i dont think you realize that you are arguing with an REer =).

Anyway, your sources are supposedly ALL from the conspiracy =).  It would take some very precise instruments to measure a plane on ground.  You may get a ballpark answer, ill try it when i get the chance, but seeing angle changes with my eyes, i can tell you my error is going to be around 50%. (being generous)

i guess supalovah has a better idea.  Although im not familiar with how a radar gun would do with something that far (for example, will you be able to aim the gun correctly fast enough? :) ).  You might need something a little more expensive.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 09:32:30 AM by brathearon »

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #51 on: March 12, 2010, 01:17:46 PM »
On your map we would've A) flown over Europe and much of Asia and the pilots would have to be in on the conspiracy or B) flown a northern route around everything that would've taken MUCH longer than 13 hours.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.
A typical plane goes 500-550 MPH.
This is an assumption.

Or, ya know, an established fact conformable by any number of sources.

Wanna play THAT game?
What fact told you that the average speed for all types of aircraft worldwide is 434.488121-477.936933 nautical miles per hour? And furthermore, is this ground-speed, or airspeed?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #52 on: March 12, 2010, 09:50:19 PM »
the average speed for all types of aircraft worldwide is 434.488121-477.936933 nautical miles per hour
lrn2significantfigures

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #53 on: March 12, 2010, 09:56:41 PM »
the average speed for all types of aircraft worldwide is 434.488121-477.936933 nautical miles per hour
lrn2significantfigures
NO.

irrelevant anyway. 434-478 knots is not a universal average aircraft speed.

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #54 on: March 13, 2010, 02:21:27 AM »
the average speed for all types of aircraft worldwide is 434.488121-477.936933 nautical miles per hour
lrn2significantfigures
NO.

irrelevant anyway. 434-478 knots is not a universal average aircraft speed.

Why are you arguing with me? A typical commercial plane flies between 500-550 MPH (Land Speed). It's verifiable by any number of sources?? Do you really think it's incalculable?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #55 on: March 13, 2010, 08:48:34 PM »
the average speed for all types of aircraft worldwide is 434.488121-477.936933 nautical miles per hour
lrn2significantfigures
NO.

irrelevant anyway. 434-478 knots is not a universal average aircraft speed.

Why are you arguing with me? A typical commercial plane flies between 500-550 MPH (Land Speed). It's verifiable by any number of sources?? Do you really think it's incalculable?
A typical commercial plane of non-de-script make or model can cruise anywhere between 120 kts (138mph) and 450kts (517mph). I'm arguing with you because you have not provided a particular plane that has this 'verifiable' speed. Cessna 208s definitely can't cruise that fast and they are common commercial aircraft.

I also doubt that you understand the difference between ground speed and airspeed.

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #56 on: March 14, 2010, 07:00:52 AM »
the average speed for all types of aircraft worldwide is 434.488121-477.936933 nautical miles per hour
lrn2significantfigures
NO.

irrelevant anyway. 434-478 knots is not a universal average aircraft speed.

Why are you arguing with me? A typical commercial plane flies between 500-550 MPH (Land Speed). It's verifiable by any number of sources?? Do you really think it's incalculable?
A typical commercial plane of non-de-script make or model can cruise anywhere between 120 kts (138mph) and 450kts (517mph). I'm arguing with you because you have not provided a particular plane that has this 'verifiable' speed. Cessna 208s definitely can't cruise that fast and they are common commercial aircraft.

I also doubt that you understand the difference between ground speed and airspeed.

You're a douchebag. Read it in context. I took a non-stop flight from Chicago, Illinois to Seoul, South Korea. Do you think it was a Cessna?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #57 on: March 14, 2010, 01:43:59 PM »

You're a douchebag. Read it in context. I took a non-stop flight from Chicago, Illinois to Seoul, South Korea. Do you think it was a Cessna?
I have no idea. You didn't tell me.

A cessna citation could make that flight anyway. So are you going to tell me what make and model the plane was? Or just throw around insults?

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #58 on: March 14, 2010, 03:37:52 PM »
I've been lucky enough to work in a field that comes with a fair bit of international travel. Not as much as i'd like to be to the Southern hemisphere. Enough though to make me very suspicious that my flight times were possible with out a supersonic aircraft. I've never done South America to Australia which would be the most telling one. I have done Australasia to Europe, I admit I didn't do any detailed calculations but I can't image it would have been possible at subsonic speeds, although the lay over makes calcaultions a little more complicated. My old housemate did do one of the round the world trips and tells me that he got from Australia to South America in around 12 hours non-stop. That would have been a stunningly fast aircraft, not to mention legendary fuel efficiency.

Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« Reply #59 on: March 16, 2010, 04:59:01 AM »
Anyway, I need to hear your response Willmore. I have evidence to back up my claims, what do you have?