Would this prove FET?

This would require the use of an aircraft, although that should not be an overly difficult problem for a dedicated researcher. First choose a departure point and an arrival point which both lie along the same approximate latitude. Now since on a spherical world the line of latitude would be straight (apart from the curve of the sphere, obviously) then it should provide the shortest possible route. However on a flat earth a straight line between the two locations would deviate from the latitude line. The test is this: fly between the two locations twice (there and back each time so you have more data to work with and you still end up near home), the first time follow the line of latitude, the second time use the straight line. The straight line should be easy to determine by drawing it on a two dimensional map showing the curve of the latitude line and following the line using the locations the line crosses. This would obviously be easier done over land but can also be done using GPS points over water. There should be a discernable difference in the times each flight takes, if the "straight" line is shorter then FE wins, if the latitude line is shorter then RE wins.
Would this work? Obviously keeping all else equal such as airspeed and altitude, etc. FE and RE opinions please and if it is considered an unreasonable test please provide reasons for this, I'm not a pilot so I won't know unless you tell me.

I just realised this would probably be better posted in Q&A, but even so can someone tell me if this would be a valid experiment? Would it provide evidence one way or the other? Over ten hours and ten views and no responses, come on FES, tell me if I have a point.

I just realised this would probably be better posted in Q&A, but even so can someone tell me if this would be a valid experiment? Would it provide evidence one way or the other? Over ten hours and ten views and no responses, come on FES, tell me if I have a point.

The experiment would not work. Too many other variables are involved.

Quote from: PunyBanner on June 09, 2010, 05:40:15 AM

I just realised this would probably be better posted in Q&A, but even so can someone tell me if this would be a valid experiment? Would it provide evidence one way or the other? Over ten hours and ten views and no responses, come on FES, tell me if I have a point.

The experiment would not work. Too many other variables are involved.

Such as?

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 09, 2010, 06:15:57 AM

Quote from: PunyBanner on June 09, 2010, 05:40:15 AM

I just realised this would probably be better posted in Q&A, but even so can someone tell me if this would be a valid experiment? Would it provide evidence one way or the other? Over ten hours and ten views and no responses, come on FES, tell me if I have a point.

The experiment would not work. Too many other variables are involved.

Such as?

Wind speed

The flight would be taken more than once.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 09, 2010, 06:35:50 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 09, 2010, 06:15:57 AM

Quote from: PunyBanner on June 09, 2010, 05:40:15 AM

I just realised this would probably be better posted in Q&A, but even so can someone tell me if this would be a valid experiment? Would it provide evidence one way or the other? Over ten hours and ten views and no responses, come on FES, tell me if I have a point.

The experiment would not work. Too many other variables are involved.

Such as?

Wind speed

Now, kids.  This is what we call a "Cop-Out".

How is wind speed not a variable?

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 09, 2010, 06:38:23 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 09, 2010, 06:35:50 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 09, 2010, 06:15:57 AM

Quote from: PunyBanner on June 09, 2010, 05:40:15 AM

I just realised this would probably be better posted in Q&A, but even so can someone tell me if this would be a valid experiment? Would it provide evidence one way or the other? Over ten hours and ten views and no responses, come on FES, tell me if I have a point.

The experiment would not work. Too many other variables are involved.

Such as?

Wind speed

Now, kids.  This is what we call a "Cop-Out".

Might be a cop out to you, but, one of my regular flights was EGNJ to EGNS with return. The flight time can easily vary by 20 mins on a flight of less than two hours mainly because of wind speed/direction.

I repeat, your experiment would not work.

The flight paths would have differences of much more than 20 minutes. The experiment would work, especially if flight times are averaged over several attempts.

The flight paths would have differences of much more than 20 minutes.

Drivel.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 09, 2010, 07:18:06 AM

The flight paths would have differences of much more than 20 minutes.

Drivel.

Please keep your low-content posts out of the serious fora.

Okay, so we define the parameters of the experiment in more detail. The experiment is done more times, say five times each way by two planes simultaniously. The proposed flight plans will last longer than two hours and have a clearly defined margin of error for each flight path, taking factors such as windspeed into consideration. I would have no idea how to calculate this margin but someone more versed in the relevant scientific and mathematic fields could do this, I assume, as variables and margins of error crop up in most scientific discussions. The times recorded for each flight are then totaled together and divided to give us the mean time for each flight path. If the margin of error is exceded by one flight path then that path would not be the quickest route and the corresponding theory would be proven wrong. If the margin of error is not exceded in either then the quickest route should prove the corresponding theory correct.
So would these refined parameters make the experiment viable?

Okay, so we define the parameters of the experiment in more detail. The experiment is done more times, say five times each way by two planes simultaniously. The proposed flight plans will last longer than two hours and have a clearly defined margin of error for each flight path, taking factors such as windspeed into consideration. I would have no idea how to calculate this margin but someone more versed in the relevant scientific and mathematic fields could do this, I assume, as variables and margins of error crop up in most scientific discussions. The times recorded for each flight are then totaled together and divided to give us the mean time for each flight path. If the margin of error is exceded by one flight path then that path would not be the quickest route and the corresponding theory would be proven wrong. If the margin of error is not exceded in either then the quickest route should prove the corresponding theory correct.
So would these refined parameters make the experiment viable?

To a scientist, yes.

To a FE believer, nothing could possibly make it viable, as they will make any excuse necessary to stop their theory from being tested.

It would only work on and south of the equator.  The latitude lines in round earth north of the equator are not straight either, while below the equator, they'd curve opposite to what they do in flat earth.

To a pilot, who is not a scientist...........Flying aircraft is by no means accurate. Even if the flight is directly between two VOR beacons, I doubt that even in still air, with the same indicated airspeed, the flights could be duplicated with enough accuracy to give the results you desire.

Factors such as air temperature, air pressure have a noticeable effect on the performance of a plane.

As your two paths, on a two hour flight, in an affordable plane, with an airspeed of approx 110 knots.(typical light plane) would in my experience be only a few yards different in length. the difference is not going to be measurable.

Okay, so we define the parameters of the experiment in more detail. The experiment is done more times, say five times each way by two planes simultaniously. The proposed flight plans will last longer than two hours and have a clearly defined margin of error for each flight path, taking factors such as windspeed into consideration. I would have no idea how to calculate this margin but someone more versed in the relevant scientific and mathematic fields could do this, I assume, as variables and margins of error crop up in most scientific discussions. The times recorded for each flight are then totaled together and divided to give us the mean time for each flight path. If the margin of error is exceded by one flight path then that path would not be the quickest route and the corresponding theory would be proven wrong. If the margin of error is not exceded in either then the quickest route should prove the corresponding theory correct.
So would these refined parameters make the experiment viable?

I vote yes, it shall work.

Now go get me two airplanes and the fuel necessary for the five round trips so we can do this experiment.

To a pilot, who is not a scientist...........Flying aircraft is by no means accurate. Even if the flight is directly between two VOR beacons, I doubt that even in still air, with the same indicated airspeed, the flights could be duplicated with enough accuracy to give the results you desire.

Factors such as air temperature, air pressure have a noticeable effect on the performance of a plane.

As your two paths, on a two hour flight, in an affordable plane, with an airspeed of approx 110 knots.(typical light plane) would in my experience be only a few yards different in length. the difference is not going to be measurable.

Pilots can't also be scientists?

Who said anything about light planes?

uhm... flying along the latitude, unless it is the equator, is not the shortest path.
the shortest path is the great circle.

unfortunately for your experiment, if you take points in the norther hemisphere, the straight line (FE) is closer to the great cricle than the latitude (RE). so the flat earth would win in this case.

however if you take points in the southern hemisphere, the latitude line (RE) is actually closer to the great circle path than the straight line (FE). in this case the round earth would win.

Who said anything about light planes?

I think it was me.

No-one else has mentioned any other plane type. I was trying to be practical to avoid wrecking the experiment.

Do you have some unaffordable plane in mind?

To a pilot, who is not a scientist...........Flying aircraft is by no means accurate. Even if the flight is directly between two VOR beacons, I doubt that even in still air, with the same indicated airspeed, the flights could be duplicated with enough accuracy to give the results you desire.

Factors such as air temperature, air pressure have a noticeable effect on the performance of a plane.

As your two paths, on a two hour flight, in an affordable plane, with an airspeed of approx 110 knots.(typical light plane) would in my experience be only a few yards different in length. the difference is not going to be measurable.

I've taken a flight from El Paso, TX to Las Vegas, NV about 6 times.  Round trips.  Each flight was right around the 2 hour mark.  These were made at various times of year in various weather conditions.  They still managed to take about the same amount of time. 

I think for the experiment suggested, the two flight patch would need to have a very large difference predicted in them.  I difference in distance that would create a difference in flight times around 2 hours.  Then, if the one predicted to take 2 hours longer did or didn't you'd have your answers.

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 09, 2010, 09:04:40 AM

To a pilot, who is not a scientist...........Flying aircraft is by no means accurate. Even if the flight is directly between two VOR beacons, I doubt that even in still air, with the same indicated airspeed, the flights could be duplicated with enough accuracy to give the results you desire.

Factors such as air temperature, air pressure have a noticeable effect on the performance of a plane.

As your two paths, on a two hour flight, in an affordable plane, with an airspeed of approx 110 knots.(typical light plane) would in my experience be only a few yards different in length. the difference is not going to be measurable.

I've taken a flight from El Paso, TX to Las Vegas, NV about 6 times.  Round trips.  Each flight was right around the 2 hour mark.  These were made at various times of year in various weather conditions.  They still managed to take about the same amount of time. 

I think for the experiment suggested, the two flight patch would need to have a very large difference predicted in them.  I difference in distance that would create a difference in flight times around 2 hours.  Then, if the one predicted to take 2 hours longer did or didn't you'd have your answers.

Commercial planes tend to vary airspeed to keep to schedules, also differing approach and departure paths because of conflicting traffic. Any timings taken from these flights are completely meaningless.

The experiment cannot be done using commercial planes

Quote from: Sliver on June 09, 2010, 04:59:37 PM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 09, 2010, 09:04:40 AM

To a pilot, who is not a scientist...........Flying aircraft is by no means accurate. Even if the flight is directly between two VOR beacons, I doubt that even in still air, with the same indicated airspeed, the flights could be duplicated with enough accuracy to give the results you desire.

Factors such as air temperature, air pressure have a noticeable effect on the performance of a plane.

As your two paths, on a two hour flight, in an affordable plane, with an airspeed of approx 110 knots.(typical light plane) would in my experience be only a few yards different in length. the difference is not going to be measurable.

I've taken a flight from El Paso, TX to Las Vegas, NV about 6 times.  Round trips.  Each flight was right around the 2 hour mark.  These were made at various times of year in various weather conditions.  They still managed to take about the same amount of time. 

I think for the experiment suggested, the two flight patch would need to have a very large difference predicted in them.  I difference in distance that would create a difference in flight times around 2 hours.  Then, if the one predicted to take 2 hours longer did or didn't you'd have your answers.

Commercial planes tend to vary airspeed to keep to schedules, also differing approach and departure paths because of conflicting traffic. Any timings taken from these flights are completely meaningless.

The experiment cannot be done using commercial planes

Are you trying to say that a commercial plane would intentionally SLOW DOWN to keep a schedule?  That seems a bit much.  You're talking about an industry that makes as many flights per day as possible.  This is how they make their money.  If a flight arrives early, no one complains!  It makes everyone happy.  And happy customers are repeat customers.

Also, I don't think anyone was suggesting using commercial planes for this experiment.  I was just mentioning MY experience with a repeated flight.

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 10, 2010, 12:53:42 AM

Quote from: Sliver on June 09, 2010, 04:59:37 PM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 09, 2010, 09:04:40 AM

To a pilot, who is not a scientist...........Flying aircraft is by no means accurate. Even if the flight is directly between two VOR beacons, I doubt that even in still air, with the same indicated airspeed, the flights could be duplicated with enough accuracy to give the results you desire.

Factors such as air temperature, air pressure have a noticeable effect on the performance of a plane.

As your two paths, on a two hour flight, in an affordable plane, with an airspeed of approx 110 knots.(typical light plane) would in my experience be only a few yards different in length. the difference is not going to be measurable.

I've taken a flight from El Paso, TX to Las Vegas, NV about 6 times.  Round trips.  Each flight was right around the 2 hour mark.  These were made at various times of year in various weather conditions.  They still managed to take about the same amount of time. 

I think for the experiment suggested, the two flight patch would need to have a very large difference predicted in them.  I difference in distance that would create a difference in flight times around 2 hours.  Then, if the one predicted to take 2 hours longer did or didn't you'd have your answers.

Commercial planes tend to vary airspeed to keep to schedules, also differing approach and departure paths because of conflicting traffic. Any timings taken from these flights are completely meaningless.

The experiment cannot be done using commercial planes

Are you trying to say that a commercial plane would intentionally SLOW DOWN to keep a schedule?  That seems a bit much.  You're talking about an industry that makes as many flights per day as possible.  This is how they make their money.  If a flight arrives early, no one complains!  It makes everyone happy.  And happy customers are repeat customers.

Also, I don't think anyone was suggesting using commercial planes for this experiment.  I was just mentioning MY experience with a repeated flight.

Some commercial planes, if ahead of schedule because of a tail wind, for example. Could very easily slow down. It saves a fair amount of fuel.
This is how they make their money..Or one way at least.

Some commercial planes, if ahead of schedule because of a tail wind, for example. Could very easily slow down. It saves a fair amount of fuel.
This is how they make their money..Or one way at least.
[/quote]
So you are seriously saying that if a pilot had the option of arriving early, he would NOT do it?

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 10, 2010, 07:02:52 AM

Some commercial planes, if ahead of schedule because of a tail wind, for example. Could very easily slow down. It saves a fair amount of fuel.
This is how they make their money..Or one way at least.

So you are seriously saying that if a pilot had the option of arriving early, he would NOT do it?
[/quote]Depends on the requirements of the airline.

So you are seriously saying that if a pilot had the option of arriving early, he would NOT do it?

This is not uncommon.

Edit: Most airlines require single engine taxi-in (and occasionally -out), for example, to save fuel.