How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth

Quote from: Pongo on June 04, 2010, 01:22:04 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 03, 2010, 08:49:36 AM

Fact #1: Birds are observed to fly at high altitudes.
Fact #2: High altitude flight is not the shortest possible path, regardless of the model of the shape of the earth you use.

Care to respond to that, Pongo?

The added distance in a flight due to ascending and descending from high altitudes is negligible when compared to the distance added by flying so far at such a high altitudes on a supposed round earth.

How would the flight distance be any different on a flat earth as opposed to a round one?

Pongo still wants to play with unquantified "negligible" quantities, even though the approximate numbers are already in my posts? Maybe it is the effect of the order in which the posts got published...

Assume a trip all around the world (40000 km) at 3 km of altitude above sea level. The trip at sea level is 40000 km (obviously) and the trip at 3 km above sea level is (2 x pi) x ((40000 / (2 x pi)) + 3) = 40000 + (3 x 2 x pi) = 40000 + 18.8 km. The added distance for a trip all around Earth is 18.8 km.

Now, if we take into account that a real migration would be more like 5000 km ( 1/8 of the full circumference of Earth) the added distance would be 18.8/8 = 2.4 km. Now, 2.4 kilometers of additional trip is about 0.05% of the total trip, which is impossible to sense for a bird, and less than the vertical 3 kilometers the bird would have to climb.

As I already said, Pongo should run away from this thread, totally embarrassed by the time he took from all the other contributors by not doing the arithmetic before blurting out this "hypothesis". He seems to have done so, so maybe there is some hope for him after all.

If it is a "negligible quantity" on round earth, why would the same not be true on flat earth?


I'm glad I asked. Because Pongo enjoys trolling with "proofs" like this in which he poorly understands scientific principles, does not account for all variables, and ignores any evidence which proves them wrong.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 04, 2010, 05:48:01 PM

Quote from: Pongo on June 04, 2010, 01:22:04 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 03, 2010, 08:49:36 AM

Fact #1: Birds are observed to fly at high altitudes.
Fact #2: High altitude flight is not the shortest possible path, regardless of the model of the shape of the earth you use.

Care to respond to that, Pongo?

The added distance in a flight due to ascending and descending from high altitudes is negligible when compared to the distance added by flying so far at such a high altitudes on a supposed round earth.

How would the flight distance be any different on a flat earth as opposed to a round one?

Pongo still wants to play with unquantified "negligible" quantities, even though the approximate numbers are already in my posts? Maybe it is the effect of the order in which the posts got published...

Assume a trip all around the world (40000 km) at 3 km of altitude above sea level. The trip at sea level is 40000 km (obviously) and the trip at 3 km above sea level is (2 x pi) x ((40000 / (2 x pi)) + 3) = 40000 + (3 x 2 x pi) = 40000 + 18.8 km. The added distance for a trip all around Earth is 18.8 km.

Now, if we take into account that a real migration would be more like 5000 km ( 1/8 of the full circumference of Earth) the added distance would be 18.8/8 = 2.4 km. Now, 2.4 kilometers of additional trip is about 0.05% of the total trip, which is impossible to sense for a bird, and less than the vertical 3 kilometers the bird would have to climb.

As I already said, Pongo should run away from this thread, totally embarrassed by the time he took from all the other contributors by not doing the arithmetic before blurting out this "hypothesis". He seems to have done so, so maybe there is some hope for him after all.

Can you verify the accuracy of these estimations?

It's very simple math...the only thing you have to take into account is his initial assumptions, which is how high birds fly, and how far they travel.

Quote from: trig on June 04, 2010, 08:11:54 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 04, 2010, 05:48:01 PM

Quote from: Pongo on June 04, 2010, 01:22:04 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 03, 2010, 08:49:36 AM

Fact #1: Birds are observed to fly at high altitudes.
Fact #2: High altitude flight is not the shortest possible path, regardless of the model of the shape of the earth you use.

Care to respond to that, Pongo?

The added distance in a flight due to ascending and descending from high altitudes is negligible when compared to the distance added by flying so far at such a high altitudes on a supposed round earth.

How would the flight distance be any different on a flat earth as opposed to a round one?

Pongo still wants to play with unquantified "negligible" quantities, even though the approximate numbers are already in my posts? Maybe it is the effect of the order in which the posts got published...

Assume a trip all around the world (40000 km) at 3 km of altitude above sea level. The trip at sea level is 40000 km (obviously) and the trip at 3 km above sea level is (2 x pi) x ((40000 / (2 x pi)) + 3) = 40000 + (3 x 2 x pi) = 40000 + 18.8 km. The added distance for a trip all around Earth is 18.8 km.

Now, if we take into account that a real migration would be more like 5000 km ( 1/8 of the full circumference of Earth) the added distance would be 18.8/8 = 2.4 km. Now, 2.4 kilometers of additional trip is about 0.05% of the total trip, which is impossible to sense for a bird, and less than the vertical 3 kilometers the bird would have to climb.

As I already said, Pongo should run away from this thread, totally embarrassed by the time he took from all the other contributors by not doing the arithmetic before blurting out this "hypothesis". He seems to have done so, so maybe there is some hope for him after all.

Can you verify the accuracy of these estimations?

Okay so you won't give any of your own (seemingly nonexistent) estimations yet you exercise irrational skepticism of an RE'ers estimates even though they need only be within an order of magnitude of their correct values to get their point across(0.05% or 0.5%, it doesn't matter, the point is made either way)

I'd like to see YOUR estimates on the length of a reasonable trip, the altitude of flight, and the angle of incline and decline at the beginning and end of the flights. I'd gladly accept your numbers as long as you don't mind if I rip your theory to shreds with them as other RE'ers have already done using their own reasonable numbers. But you might want to just give up before taking me up on this offer, as even a ridiculous altitude of 100 km will produce only a 65/64 ratio of flight distance or a ~1.5% difference.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 13, 2010, 04:36:44 AM

Quote from: Pongo on May 13, 2010, 04:19:28 AM

Could you please elaborate on the migration patterns of moles.

Note the: "laughable and failing to take numerous potential variables into account" part.

We are talking about migration, citing moles as an example is irrelevant and you should feel bad for having posted it.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 13, 2010, 04:36:44 AM

Quote from: Pongo on May 13, 2010, 04:19:28 AM

Birds share no advantage in wasting energy during flight.  Your analogy is flawed.

What advantage do warblers have in collecting obscure objects?  What advantage do peacocks have in displaying bright colors?  You'll note in my post that I said:  "You and Pongo seem to think...that remnants from earlier forms of a species can't be kept even if they're apparently harmful at first glance."  Just because you don't immediately recognize an advantage doesn't mean there isn't one--and even if there isn't, it could just be a mostly neutral byproduct from their ancestors.  It doesn't come anywhere near living up to the "proof" claim in the thread title.

Warblers are fulfilling an urge to build nests and Peacocks are brightly colored because of sexual selection.  Both a well built nest and bright colors improve chances of successful reproduction.  Are there any other areas of evolution that I can clear up for you?

Seems it is quite possible for a species to have unadapted or harmful traits; hence the human appendix, which was useful at one time, but no longer is and remains a detriment to some degree for our survival.

And it occurs to me that bird's may fly high for many reasons; some of which have already been cited.  Lack of predators in great numbers, less correction of obstacles, a good vantage point for determining where to land for rest, and in some cases they may even fly high to escape adverse weather and winds.

You are only concerned with one (unlikely) possibility.  You must consider the others.

Appendix really isn't a good example, but the blind spot in our eyes is. Cephalopods have developed eyes without the blindspot, but we humans fail.

I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.

I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.

Good luck with that.

I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.

The diagram is posted a few pages back. The difference is so small that even in the diagram it is very hard to see. With the numbers I have used, it is an additional 0.05% of flight, so you need birds with GPS receivers and a course on Mathematics to find out that difference.

Remember that birds don't have to know there is a difference to experience the effects of that difference. But in any case, the difference could not even be statistically realized, as the effects of other factors are GIGANTIC compared to 0.05%.

Now you have to show that there is a less than .05% advantage to their survival in migrating to their real location compared to the "closer" location.

Now you have to show that there is a less than .05% advantage to their survival in migrating to their real location compared to the "closer" location.

You cannot stop beating the dead horse, do you?

As has been said by me and others in this thread, there are lots of characteristics in the migratory paths of birds that make a real difference in survival rates. An advantage of 0.05% is what a bird gets when a 50 km/h tail wind lasts 4 minutes more than usual. Are you telling me that the survival of birds is so tenuous that four more or less minutes of tailwind make a substantial change in survival rate?

This is one of the ultimate trolling techniques of the FE'rs: no matter the numbers, argue endlessly about the exact source where a very specific and totally evident detail is proved in the literature. In this case, of course, it is difficult to find a serious researcher that has tried a 0.05% change in the energy used in a migration.

Quote from: Raist on June 08, 2010, 11:37:05 AM

Now you have to show that there is a less than .05% advantage to their survival in migrating to their real location compared to the "closer" location.

You cannot stop beating the dead horse, do you?

As has been said by me and others in this thread, there are lots of characteristics in the migratory paths of birds that make a real difference in survival rates. An advantage of 0.05% is what a bird gets when a 50 km/h tail wind lasts 4 minutes more than usual. Are you telling me that the survival of birds is so tenuous that four more or less minutes of tailwind make a substantial change in survival rate?

This is one of the ultimate trolling techniques of the FE'rs: no matter the numbers, argue endlessly about the exact source where a very specific and totally evident detail is proved in the literature. In this case, of course, it is difficult to find a serious researcher that has tried a 0.05% change in the energy used in a migration.

Your numbers were based on assumptions gleaned from maps of a round earth.  In particular, the distance variable.  Therefore, they are sadly skewed to an erroneous model.  I hope you did not spend long retrieving the numbers or on the calculations.

Your numbers were based on assumptions gleaned from maps of a round earth.  In particular, the distance variable.  Therefore, they are sadly skewed to an erroneous model.  I hope you did not spend long retrieving the numbers or on the calculations.

And more trolling.

My numbers come from both the real Earth and the supposed flat Earth, exactly as proposed in the OP. The distances along meridians have been proposed to be the same on both models by all the FE theorists, it is not my invention. It is not my problem that the Earth is so big, and therefore the effect proposed in the OP is proportionally so small.

Pongo knows that if the OP refers to two models, the data in discussion has to come from those models. He is playing with the words "sadly skewed to an erroneous model" because he cannot do anything to make the OP make sense. Otherwise, he could come up with his own numbers and formulas.

Pongo knows that if the OP refers to two models, the data in discussion has to come from those models. He is playing with the words "sadly skewed to an erroneous model" because he cannot do anything to make the OP make sense. Otherwise, he could come up with his own numbers and formulas.

I, like you I suspect, are in no place to verify the distances you suggested.  If however, I am wrong and you can verify these outlandish claims, I would very much like to read your findings.

Quote from: trig on June 09, 2010, 12:21:10 AM

Pongo knows that if the OP refers to two models, the data in discussion has to come from those models. He is playing with the words "sadly skewed to an erroneous model" because he cannot do anything to make the OP make sense. Otherwise, he could come up with his own numbers and formulas.

I, like you I suspect, are in no place to verify the distances you suggested.  If however, I am wrong and you can verify these outlandish claims, I would very much like to read your findings.

Now I am almost sure you are trolling. Or, are you really unaware that the whole calculation comes from one of the simplest equations in all of High School maths: radius times 3.1415926 times 2 equals circumference.

The data I used for my calculations are simple:

• I assume a round Earth of 40000 km in diameter or a flat Earth with an Equator of 40000 km of circumference, just as your fellow FE'rs have defined.
• I assume a height of the migration path of 3000 m, but you can choose your own. The birds would have to fly above the stratosphere before the roundness of Earth becomes a significant issue.
• The length of the migration is proportional to the added length due to the roundness of the Earth, so for a height of migration of 3000 m the added length will be approx. 0.05%, no matter how long the migration.

Now, I am pretty certain you are going the way of Tom Bishop, trolling with the story that he saw plants growing to maturity without light, or Parsifal, trolling with the story that trees are in the Conspiracy to fake optical illusions. If for some reason you are not trolling and are really asking where the calculations come from, please go to your High School or Primary maths teacher and get an explanation, then come back.

I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.

*cough*
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.

Evolution doesn't prove FET for crap.  "Birds would be more efficient if the Earth was flat, so because natural selection, blah blah, FET win."... that's like saying, "It'd be much more efficient for birds if their annual migration destinations were thousands of miles NORTH, saving them a huge distance!  Therefore, the South is really actually close... blah blah."

This was a stupid argument to begin with.

Quote from: Raist on June 08, 2010, 11:37:05 AM

Now you have to show that there is a less than .05% advantage to their survival in migrating to their real location compared to the "closer" location.

You cannot stop beating the dead horse, do you?

As has been said by me and others in this thread, there are lots of characteristics in the migratory paths of birds that make a real difference in survival rates. An advantage of 0.05% is what a bird gets when a 50 km/h tail wind lasts 4 minutes more than usual. Are you telling me that the survival of birds is so tenuous that four more or less minutes of tailwind make a substantial change in survival rate?

This is one of the ultimate trolling techniques of the FE'rs: no matter the numbers, argue endlessly about the exact source where a very specific and totally evident detail is proved in the literature. In this case, of course, it is difficult to find a serious researcher that has tried a 0.05% change in the energy used in a migration.

If you actually read what I was saying I was agreeing with you, and saying the OP needs to show that there is said advantage.

Quote from: The Question1 on June 07, 2010, 08:02:11 PM

I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.

*cough*
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.

It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.

Quote from: The Question1 on June 09, 2010, 07:15:47 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on June 07, 2010, 08:02:11 PM

I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.

*cough*
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.

It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.

Which they would still have to do on a flat earth.

Quote from: Pongo on June 10, 2010, 02:51:37 AM

Quote from: The Question1 on June 09, 2010, 07:15:47 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on June 07, 2010, 08:02:11 PM

I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.

*cough*
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.

It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.

Which they would still have to do on a flat earth.

That makes me wonder why there are 9 pages worth of 'debate'.  There's nothing about evolution (concerning the shape of the Earth) to debate, really.

Because a bunch of people getting trolled kept debating bumping it

Too bad I can't get any FE'ers on my thread, yet they flock to this thread like there's a prize to win.  Quick question, though, any idea how to do a link? (as in, clicking a word, which sends you to the desired link).

Not trying to derail the thread... just a quick question that's not worth making a new thread about.

Too bad I can't get any FE'ers on my thread, yet they flock to this thread like there's a prize to win.  Quick question, though, any idea how to do a link? (as in, clicking a word, which sends you to the desired link).

Not trying to derail the thread... just a quick question that's not worth making a new thread about.

Maybe you should make your threads more interesting.

word


Now quote my post and that is the format for hyperlinking a word. Protip: the "http://" is automatically added to the url once it is posted.

Quote from: The Question1 on June 09, 2010, 07:15:47 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on June 07, 2010, 08:02:11 PM

I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.

*cough*
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.

It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.

Ok,how is that different in the two models?

Quote from: The Question1 on June 09, 2010, 07:15:47 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on June 07, 2010, 08:02:11 PM

I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.

*cough*
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.

It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.

It has been repeatedly confirmed that it would take the same energy to maintain altitude on a fe or a re.

I thought the topic was about distances between places on a fe versus a re.

Too bad I can't get any FE'ers on my thread, yet they flock to this thread like there's a prize to win.  Quick question, though, any idea how to do a link? (as in, clicking a word, which sends you to the desired link).

I share your disappointment. This thread could be about showing people some erroneous notions about evolution, like the idea that it creates the best possible organisms for a given task, or the idea that evolution improves species. And yet, we are discussing the effect of a kilometer or two in a 5000 kilometer migration.

We could even have a site dedicated to what evolution is and what evolution is not, just like we could have a site dedicated to the real discussion of the topics that appear recurrently in this site, like Relativity, Quantum Physics, Physics in general, Astronomy, Navigation, and so much more. But we are discussing endlessly the "seems flat to me", "gravitation is acceleration", "you are the one with the burden of proof".

Google

Yeehaw.  Thanks, Raist.

And what do you mean by "more interesting"?

...It's pretty sad that I have to use flashy colors, etc, to catch the attention of FE'ers.  I was hoping the promise of a satisfying debate/discussion would be enough, but I forgot where I was.