Flight Times???

  • 136 Replies
  • 26651 Views
*

LBtheWise

  • 217
  • mmamradaww amfghe
Flight Times???
« on: June 01, 2010, 12:57:29 PM »
2 relatively equal distances (Tokyo to Toronto) and (Santiago to Sydney) takes about 13.5 hours to fly by plane according to many airline agencies (whom navigate following RET). if you don't believe that's how long it takes for planes to fly to these locations, look it up yourself or get on a plane yourself....

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_is_flight_from_Sydney_to_Santiago - Sydney to Santiago 13 hours (via Auckland)
http://www.happyzebra.com/distance-calculator/Sydney-to-Santiago.php - Sydney to Santiago 14 hours 43 minutes (according to HappyZebra)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_is_the_flight_from_Toronto_to_Tokyo - Toronto to Japan 13 hours 25 minutes (according to wiki.answers)
http://www.farecompare.com/flights/Toronto-YTO/Tokyo-TYO/market.html - Toronto to Japan 12 hours, 45 minutes (on Air Canada)

Or using the below link for estimated times...
http://www.travelmath.com/flight-time/from/Santiago,+Chile/to/Sydney,+Australia

Actual flight path from Toronto to Tokyo - 5574m
Actual Flight Path from Santiago to Sydney - 6135m
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=YYZ-NRT%0D%0ASYD-SCL&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=nm&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=



For those of you that believe in FET, explain to me how the below image verifies what current flight times already represent...
A flight from Toronto to Japan, or Santiago to Sydney takes about 14 hours. However, looking at the FET map, the distance from Sydney to Santiago is nearly 3 times greater than the distance from Toronto to Japan. WTF?

« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 01:13:43 PM by LBtheWise »

Frogger

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2010, 07:19:13 PM »
we've brought this up many times.

their answers are:

1. the airliners are in on the conspiracy
2. GPS and navigation systems are a lie
3. the space of the earth bends

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2010, 07:23:12 PM »
Don't forget Pongo's response to this.  Birds are pushing the planes south of the equator.
See below!
Because they navigate earth every single day with a Round Earth model, and it works. It's indisputable. We would either hear about the mistakes or you have to at least concede that the Flat Earth model requires that most pilots and air traffic controllers be in on the conspiracy.

Birds like to fly in the wake of fast-moving vessels, often close enough to nudge the vessel itself. The collective force of a lot of birds all nudging the vessel causes it to move faster.

This is one account for why travel times appear distorted.  No need to bring pilots and air traffic controllers into the fold.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 07:24:53 PM by Sliver »

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2010, 02:53:50 AM »
They're just going to say that map isn't correct, but not offer one that does match up with real world flight times. Anyway, it seems like the FEH (Flat Earth Hypothesis) has been refuted many times, as there are a bunch of things that just don't work or make sense if the Earth was flat, but do if it's round.

*

spanner34.5

  • 4642
  • feck arse drink
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2010, 03:19:44 AM »
'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War. Pilots were regularly flying between United Kingdom and the United States of America and they noticed that it was quicker to fly to the UK, reporting tailwinds of over 100 miles per hour. These winds blew in narrow ribbons and were named 'jet streams'.
Jet streams are narrow fast flowing "rivers" of air. They are formed by temperature differences in the upper atmosphere, between the cold polar air and the warm tropical air. This abrupt change in temperature causes a large pressure difference, which forces the air to move.
In our latitude the jet stream is generally found at around 35,000 feet and is called the Polar Front Jet Stream. The polar jet stream, as its name implies, separates the cold polar air to the north and the warm sub-tropical air to the south.

With the temperature contrast of these air masses greatest in the winter time, the jet stream is stronger at this time of the year, reaching 300 miles per hour (but have been measured at over 400 miles an hour in southwest Scotland). Jet streams are typically thousands of miles long, hundreds of miles wide and a few miles deep.
With these kinds of speeds you see why aeroplanes are so keen to use them, saving both time and fuel, and therefore money. However, to navigate in a jet stream is not as easy as you might think. Entering and leaving a jet stream can be a turbulent time for any aircraft no matter how big it is.
The strong winds along the jet stream generally blow from west to east due to the rotation of the earth. That is why, especially in winter time, flights from the USA often land early in this country as they are blown along by these very strong winds. (Incidentally it is also the reason for some "bumpy" rides with clear air turbulence). Planes never land early going the other way.

Jet streams move north and south too, following the boundary between warmer and colder air. These boundaries are also where weather fronts generally develop, so when a front passes overhead, bringing wind and rain, it is quite likely that a jet stream is passing undetected too.

The wind direction in the jet stream can change from the normal west to east to almost north to south. This is one of the methods that the Earth uses to transport excess heat from the equatorial regions towards the poles, and in turn bring cold polar air southwards. It also helps to steer our Atlantic weather depressions from their normal eastward movement. At times it can even block their movements altogether. Jet streams can strengthen up or even die out so.

Jet streams do play a more fundamental role in our weather.

Many years ago meteorologists thought that the rain bearing depressions that invade us from the Atlantic, formed at the sea level and "grew" up through the atmosphere. It now seems more likely that they start to form around the jet streams and percolate downwards.

The winds in the jet stream do not necessarily blow at a constant speed or in a straight line. Within this fast moving air there are accelerations and decelerations as the air speeds up, slows down or in fact changes direction. It is at these points in the atmosphere that high and low pressures starts to form, and either moves quickly in the wind flow, or develops into a bigger depression or anticyclone. These positive or negative acceleration points are very important to the weather forecaster and these occur at the entrance and exits of the jet stream.

Meteorologists used to spend a long time looking for them on the high level weather maps. Now this task is performed by a computer. By looking at a simple diagram of a jet stream it is possible to pick out the areas below which a depression or anticyclone is most likely to form.

This is the fundamental way that forecasters use jet streams to try to predict whether and where a rain-bearing depression will form, and if it forms whether it will develop into a full blown storm which may cause structural damage as it rushes in from the Atlantic, or whether it will just be a little blip in the fine weather that rushes along at 60 miles per hour.


Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2010, 03:34:00 AM »
Too bad there weren't any 400+ mph jetstreams measured over the area in question, or your hypothesis might've made sense. Well no not really because those flights that occur with those times occur in both directions, and the possible jetstreams would only help in one direction.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2010, 03:49:35 AM »
LBtheWise, the map from the offical FAQ is incorrect; it is a map based on a northern circumpolar distribution of the continents.

Here is the correct map:



More details here, about distances:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.0

Also, the flight from Santiago to Sydney lasts about 16-18 HOURS.

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

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2010, 04:58:53 AM »
Spanner34.5 or somebody should put his jet stream response in the FE Wiki.  :)

Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2010, 05:25:52 AM »
'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War. Pilots were regularly flying between United Kingdom and the United States of America and they noticed that it was quicker to fly to the UK, reporting tailwinds of over 100 miles per hour. These winds blew in narrow ribbons and were named 'jet streams'.
Jet streams are narrow fast flowing "rivers" of air. They are formed by temperature differences in the upper atmosphere, between the cold polar air and the warm tropical air. This abrupt change in temperature causes a large pressure difference, which forces the air to move.
In our latitude the jet stream is generally found at around 35,000 feet and is called the Polar Front Jet Stream. The polar jet stream, as its name implies, separates the cold polar air to the north and the warm sub-tropical air to the south.

With the temperature contrast of these air masses greatest in the winter time, the jet stream is stronger at this time of the year, reaching 300 miles per hour (but have been measured at over 400 miles an hour in southwest Scotland). Jet streams are typically thousands of miles long, hundreds of miles wide and a few miles deep.
With these kinds of speeds you see why aeroplanes are so keen to use them, saving both time and fuel, and therefore money. However, to navigate in a jet stream is not as easy as you might think. Entering and leaving a jet stream can be a turbulent time for any aircraft no matter how big it is.
The strong winds along the jet stream generally blow from west to east due to the rotation of the earth. That is why, especially in winter time, flights from the USA often land early in this country as they are blown along by these very strong winds. (Incidentally it is also the reason for some "bumpy" rides with clear air turbulence). Planes never land early going the other way.

Jet streams move north and south too, following the boundary between warmer and colder air. These boundaries are also where weather fronts generally develop, so when a front passes overhead, bringing wind and rain, it is quite likely that a jet stream is passing undetected too.

The wind direction in the jet stream can change from the normal west to east to almost north to south. This is one of the methods that the Earth uses to transport excess heat from the equatorial regions towards the poles, and in turn bring cold polar air southwards. It also helps to steer our Atlantic weather depressions from their normal eastward movement. At times it can even block their movements altogether. Jet streams can strengthen up or even die out so.

Jet streams do play a more fundamental role in our weather.

Many years ago meteorologists thought that the rain bearing depressions that invade us from the Atlantic, formed at the sea level and "grew" up through the atmosphere. It now seems more likely that they start to form around the jet streams and percolate downwards.

The winds in the jet stream do not necessarily blow at a constant speed or in a straight line. Within this fast moving air there are accelerations and decelerations as the air speeds up, slows down or in fact changes direction. It is at these points in the atmosphere that high and low pressures starts to form, and either moves quickly in the wind flow, or develops into a bigger depression or anticyclone. These positive or negative acceleration points are very important to the weather forecaster and these occur at the entrance and exits of the jet stream.

Meteorologists used to spend a long time looking for them on the high level weather maps. Now this task is performed by a computer. By looking at a simple diagram of a jet stream it is possible to pick out the areas below which a depression or anticyclone is most likely to form.

This is the fundamental way that forecasters use jet streams to try to predict whether and where a rain-bearing depression will form, and if it forms whether it will develop into a full blown storm which may cause structural damage as it rushes in from the Atlantic, or whether it will just be a little blip in the fine weather that rushes along at 60 miles per hour.


Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth


Surely the jetstreams are valid in both models? Ergo, they cancel each other out in comparing flight times?

*

LBtheWise

  • 217
  • mmamradaww amfghe
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2010, 05:54:35 AM »
LBtheWise, the map from the offical FAQ is incorrect; it is a map based on a northern circumpolar distribution of the continents.

Here is the correct map:



More details here, about distances:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.0

Also, the flight from Santiago to Sydney lasts about 16-18 HOURS.

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

Lol Levee. irregardless if the map in the faq is the same as the one you just posted. You're 'updated map' does not help with your argument, Sydney to Santiago is still like 2 to 3 times the distance from Toronto to Tokyo. Actually, the flight distance would more like be 5 to 6 times the distance if the plane did not fly over any land on it's way to Sydney.
Plane's travelling from Sydney to Santiago fly over the South Pacific ocean without flying over much land. In the 'correct flat earth map', a direct flight from Sydney to Santiago flies over entire South American, over South Africa, and over all of Australia. The only way a plane can convince it's passengers that it is infact flying over only the Southern Pacific ocean is to fly all the way around South America, and all the way around Australia, flying over water only.. this would make the flight distance and times MUCH longer, which does not make sense according to already established flight times...

'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War....

Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth


So you're telling me that jet streams exist only in the southern parts of the world? Jet streams exist in all parts of the world and therefore flight times from Toronto to Tokyo would also be decreased from these jet streams.... So you're jet stream ramble still does'nt make sence.

we've brought this up many times.

their answers are:

1. the airliners are in on the conspiracy
2. GPS and navigation systems are a lie
3. the space of the earth bends

1. Lol, my friend's-girlfriends-father works for an Airliner. I believe he is even a pilot; and he is not aware of any conspiracy, I can tell you that he is no Secret government FBI agent keeping secrets from the rest of the world. How many people are employed at these airlines that must have to keep this huge conspiracy secret. I'm sure if even one person admitted that there is a huge conspiracy, then these people will become famous for revealing such a thing, yet, everyone in the world has not even said a peep. Wow!

2. GPS and navigation systems lie?? i use one every time I drive somewhere new... It seems to get me to the destination i need every time! and even saves me money by finding the fastest route.... hmmmmm

3. not really sure what this means..

have they been able to back up these claims with believeable evidence or explanation??

« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 06:15:22 AM by LBtheWise »

Frogger

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2010, 06:18:52 AM »
'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War....

Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth


So you're telling me that jet streams exist only in the southern parts of the world? Jet streams exist in all parts of the world and therefore flight times from Toronto to Tokyo would also be decreased from these jet streams.... So you're jet stream ramble still does'nt make sence.




The southern hemiplane has greater cold/heat divergence.  This would account for the greater speed of the rimward jet stream.

Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2010, 06:55:08 AM »
'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War....

Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth


So you're telling me that jet streams exist only in the southern parts of the world? Jet streams exist in all parts of the world and therefore flight times from Toronto to Tokyo would also be decreased from these jet streams.... So you're jet stream ramble still does'nt make sence.




The southern hemiplane has greater cold/heat divergence.  This would account for the greater speed of the rimward jet stream.


How did you come to this conclusion?

Could you please show some evidence to support this?

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2010, 07:08:38 AM »

How did you come to this conclusion?

Could you please show some evidence to support this?

Perusal of PIREPS.  You can plough through a bunch yourself rather relying on me.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2010, 07:29:49 AM »
Quote
Impact on passenger aircraft
Effect of wind shear on aircraft trajectory. Note how merely correcting for the initial gust front can have dire consequences.

Strong outflow from thunderstorms causes rapid changes in the three-dimensional wind velocity just above ground level. Initially, this outflow causes a headwind that increases airspeed, which normally causes a pilot to reduce engine power if they are unaware of the wind shear. As the aircraft passes into the region of the downdraft, the localized headwind diminishes, reducing the aircraft's airspeed and increasing its sink rate. Then, when the aircraft passes through the other side of the downdraft, the headwind becomes a tailwind, reducing airspeed further, leaving the aircraft in a low-power, low-speed descent. This can lead to an accident if the aircraft is too low to effect a recovery before ground contact. As the result of the accidents in the 1970s and 1980s, in 1988 the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration mandated that all commercial aircraft have on-board wind shear detection systems by 1993. Between 1964 and 1985, wind shear directly caused or contributed to 26 major civil transport aircraft accidents in the U.S. that led to 620 deaths and 200 injuries. Since 1995, the number of major civil aircraft accidents caused by wind shear has dropped to approximately one every ten years, due to the mandated on-board detection as well as the addition of Doppler weather radar units on the ground. (NEXRAD)[21]


I'd hate to see how a commercial airliner manages to travel outside of a jet stream traveling over twice the speed of sound to a normal landing speed.

Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2010, 07:36:08 AM »
There is no possible way planes could ride a 400 mph tailwind.  Their structural integrity isn't great enough.  A plane would get ripped apart entering a deathtrap like a 400mph 'river of air'.

Which brings the FE'ers back to the drawing board.

Trolling makes me angry.

Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2010, 07:55:02 AM »

How did you come to this conclusion?

Could you please show some evidence to support this?

Perusal of PIREPS.  You can plough through a bunch yourself rather relying on me.

Got a link? Anything useful at all, other than your word?

Oh, and also, 500mph cruising speed, and 400mph tail wind is easily enough to rip the wings off a 737 and vibrate the whole thing apart.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2010, 08:05:43 AM »
PIREPS are available at your local airport. 

Your 500mph 'cruising speed' would still be the airspeed regardless of the speed of the air.

*

LBtheWise

  • 217
  • mmamradaww amfghe
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2010, 08:18:47 AM »
Any jetliner can cruise at 500-600mph, yes. A jetliner cannot travel at Mach speed. Only military planes can travel faster than about 600mph.
speeds reported by airliners both in the northern Hemisphere are the same as planes that fly in the southern hemisphere, about 500 - 600mph.
This does not explain how travel times are pretty much the same when travelling to and from the locations i mentioned above..

'Jet streams' were first discovered during the Second World War....

Try factoring in a possible 400mph head or tailwind. The flight times quoted are perfectly possible on the flat Earth


So you're telling me that jet streams exist only in the southern parts of the world? Jet streams exist in all parts of the world and therefore flight times from Toronto to Tokyo would also be decreased from these jet streams.... So you're jet stream ramble still does'nt make sence.


The southern hemiplane has greater cold/heat divergence.  This would account for the greater speed of the rimward jet stream.


the southern 'hemi-plane' is pretty much the same as the northern one. View the recorded temperatures here.
http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/map-current-sea-temperature-around-nz-and-australia
How, then, are there greater cold/heat divergences in the southern hemisphere??
I'm not really sure where your getting your data... Usually data is collected from "RECORDED" values and are not usually pulled out of random sections of thin air...
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 08:26:29 AM by LBtheWise »

Frogger

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2010, 08:45:57 AM »
I couldn't agree more. You should, therefore, make your recorded data available to us. If you could also include place, dates and time, it would be helpful. I've not been that far to the rimward myself and envy you your trip;  John Davis has and I shall ask if he recorded temperatures.

*

LBtheWise

  • 217
  • mmamradaww amfghe
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2010, 08:51:27 AM »
I couldn't agree more. You should, therefore, make your recorded data available to us. If you could also include place, dates and time, it would be helpful. I've not been that far to the rimward myself and envy you your trip;  John Davis has and I shall ask if he recorded temperatures.

Values are recorded every day on the hour by several weather networks. For example,

http://www.worldweather.org/

Knock yourself out.

Frogger

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2010, 08:53:04 AM »
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.

*

LBtheWise

  • 217
  • mmamradaww amfghe
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2010, 08:55:37 AM »
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.

Go to a website and look up your local weather. Tell me how accurate it is.. i'm sure it's within 1 degree maximum of your current location....

you don't think weather networks are lieing to you about the weather... stating that its below freezing although your in your swimming trucks at the beach sweating you balls off... do you?

I really don't see how you are contributing to this discussion...

Frogger

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2010, 09:29:35 AM »
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.

...
I really don't see how you are contributing to this discussion...

Flat Earth Theorists are usually present on the Flat Earth Society forums and active in discussions.  This arrangement actually manages to foster discussions. I really believe that your preferred one-sided arrangement would be a hindrance.




*

LBtheWise

  • 217
  • mmamradaww amfghe
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2010, 10:08:16 AM »
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.

...
I really don't see how you are contributing to this discussion...

Flat Earth Theorists are usually present on the Flat Earth Society forums and active in discussions.  This arrangement actually manages to foster discussions. I really believe that your preferred one-sided arrangement would be a hindrance.


I'll explain myself a little clearer for you.
Your comments are not helpful in discussing theories of Flat Earth or Round Earth discussion. Therefore, you are not contributing positively toward any conclusive results.

You are stating that Meteorologists lie about temperatures around the world. I'm sure that anyone, FE theorists or RE theorists would tell you otherwise.

Frogger

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2010, 10:24:15 AM »
You are stating that Meteorologists lie about temperatures around the world.

Please point out where she made that claim.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

LBtheWise

  • 217
  • mmamradaww amfghe
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2010, 10:31:22 AM »
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.

The discussion was about how the temperatures around the world are spread as i previously posted. Mrs. Peach said she doesnt think these temperatures are accurate. Instuments used to measure temperatures are precise and meterologists relay that data to people. By stating that these temperatures are so far off to what has been recorded suggest that meterologists are lieing about temperatures...

Please stop asking me to repeat what people say and just stick with what has been asked in my initial post. I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation

Frogger

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2010, 10:42:15 AM »
Mrs. Peach said she doesnt think these temperatures are accurate.

I haven't seen her say this anywhere. Please direct me to the relevant post.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

LBtheWise

  • 217
  • mmamradaww amfghe
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2010, 10:43:53 AM »
Mrs. Peach said she doesnt think these temperatures are accurate.

I haven't seen her say this anywhere. Please direct me to the relevant post.

the top of this page

Frogger

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2010, 10:45:47 AM »
the top of this page

All I see is her saying that she doesn't want to assume they are accurate. That's very different from claiming they are not.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Flight Times???
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2010, 10:50:01 AM »


Mrs. Peach said she doesnt think these temperatures are accurate.
I don't think I like to make the assumption that they're accurate.

...
I really don't see how you are contributing to this discussion...

Flat Earth Theorists are usually present on the Flat Earth Society forums and active in discussions.  This arrangement actually manages to foster discussions. I really believe that your preferred one-sided arrangement would be a hindrance.


I'll explain myself a little clearer for you.
Your comments are not helpful in discussing theories of Flat Earth or Round Earth discussion. Therefore, you are not contributing positively toward any conclusive results.

You are stating that Meteorologists lie about temperatures around the world. I'm sure that anyone, FE theorists or RE theorists would tell you otherwise.



Ah, it's that I'm not contributing a positive reply.  Why have a discussion at all if dissent is not welcome?


Besides, you misquoted me.  I said I did not like making the assumption that recorded temperatures are correct and would be especially so at the rim as I have no way at present to corroborate them.