FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE

Quote from: Puttah on July 29, 2011, 05:24:55 PM

Pizzaplanet has once again managed to derail a thread by offering his "you can't travel perfectly straight on a round Earth" argument as food for trolling.

You can't travel anywhere remotely similar to a straight line on RE. As long as RE'ers don't know that, they stand little chance at proving their hypothesis.

We've been more clear about what our definition of straight line is on an RE for the first 10 times you managed to be pedantic and bring up this point. Haven't you understood it yet? Oh wait no, understanding isn't a part of the trolling process.

Oh wait no, understanding isn't a part of the trolling process.

Why do you repeatedly commit the George Scott fallacy? Whether or not I'm a troll doesn't affect the validity of my statements.

We've been more clear about what our definition of straight line is on an RE for the first 10 times you managed to be pedantic and bring up this point. Haven't you understood it yet?

Of course I have, and I've explained my point several times. Haven't you understood it yet? Oh, of course you didn't.
Here's an explanation for your convenience:
If "straightness" can be curved on a round Earth, I see no reason why it couldn't be the same on a flat Earth. In either model, traveling "straight" East or West means walking around in circles. Also, in either model traveling straight North or South will not allow you to circumnavigate the Earth - at some point you'll have to change direction from North to South (or vice-versa) - otherwise you'll be stuck at the relevant pole.

Why do you repeatedly commit the George Scott fallacy? Whether or not I'm a troll doesn't affect the validity of my statements.

Your statement was valid the first time, but with our revised definition of a straight path on RE your statement holds no grounds.

Quote from: Puttah on August 10, 2011, 12:55:50 AM

We've been more clear about what our definition of straight line is on an RE for the first 10 times you managed to be pedantic and bring up this point. Haven't you understood it yet?

Of course I have, and I've explained my point several times. Haven't you understood it yet? Oh, of course you didn't.
Here's an explanation for your convenience:
If "straightness" can be curved on a round Earth, I see no reason why it couldn't be the same on a flat Earth. In either model, traveling "straight" East or West means walking around in circles. Also, in either model traveling straight North or South will not allow you to circumvent the Earth - at some point you'll have to change direction from North to South (or vice-versa) - otherwise you'll be stuck at the relevant pole.

The only theoretical distance would be traveling along the equator. On an RE you can circumnavigate on a perfectly straight path (remember, revised definition), while on FE you can't. It's just that these miniscule deviations from a forward heading are too small to measure, thus we're left with an inconclusive result.

And by the way, the point of this thread is that *refers to title*. I know you've argued against this, but even you know better than when to give up the charade.

On an RE you can circumnavigate on a perfectly straight path (remember, revised definition), while on FE you can't.

Incorrect (remember, revised definition).

And by the way, the point of this thread is that *refers to title*. I know you've argued against this, but even you know better than when to give up the charade.

Flight paths do not disprove my FE model, since the distances are entirely uniform with RE distances. I cannot vouch for other models. And, by the way, your attempt to escape from the topic of "straight" lines is fairly unsuccessful. Unless, of course, you'd like to concede.

Quote from: Puttah on August 10, 2011, 01:13:17 AM

On an RE you can circumnavigate on a perfectly straight path (remember, revised definition), while on FE you can't.

Incorrect (remember, revised definition).

We are using the definition of straight that means without yaw (turning to left or right). Keep up to speed Pizza, and drop the semantics - oh wait, sorry, you cant, as its the only place you have left to argue from.

Pizza Planet is technically correct... the best kind of correct.

Quote from: Puttah on August 10, 2011, 01:13:17 AM

On an RE you can circumnavigate on a perfectly straight path (remember, revised definition), while on FE you can't.

Incorrect (remember, revised definition).

I was unaware that you had a revised definition of anything.

Quote from: Puttah on August 10, 2011, 01:13:17 AM

And by the way, the point of this thread is that *refers to title*. I know you've argued against this, but even you know better than when to give up the charade.

Flight paths do not disprove my FE model, since the distances are entirely uniform with RE distances. I cannot vouch for other models.

Then I've yet to see your model, because all models I've seen so far has been disproved.

And, by the way, your attempt to escape from the topic of "straight" lines is fairly unsuccessful. Unless, of course, you'd like to concede.

lol no, I've grown bored of dealing with semantics and having to explain myself each and every time.

I suggest that rather than the term "straight" being used to describe paths on a round earth, the term "without yaw" or "without left/right deviation" be used instead, to prevent the semantic nitpicking the flattists are using as a delay tactic.

I was unaware that you had a revised definition of anything.

That's good, because I didn't (at least not on this topic). I am merely applying your definition of "a straight line", meaning "a circle".

Then I've yet to see your model, because all models I've seen so far has been disproved.

I'd like to see those disproofs. I trust you'll provide them very soon. Anyway, here is the relevant thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44906.0

lol no, I've grown bored of dealing with semantics and having to explain myself each and every time.

You have to explain yourself just once. So far my understanding of the topic is that you consider circumnavigation of the RE (a circle) a straight line.

I suggest that rather than the term "straight" being used to describe paths on a round earth, the term "without yaw" or "without left/right deviation" be used instead, to prevent the semantic nitpicking the flattists are using as a delay tactic.

It's not a delay tactic. As I've explained many times now, including several times in this thread: RE can be circumnavigated without left/right deviation (definitely not by straight movement), whereas FE can be circumnavigated without up/down deviation (definitely not by straight movement). In that, they are both as "faulty" or "faultless", and any claims regarding "straight" movement are simply strawmen.

Pizza, given that it would be possible to travel in a line without yaw from any point on a flat earth to any other, and that would be the shortest distance, why is it that no planes do that? Why is it they would take the longer route that is equivalent to the great circle path on a round earth - and whats more, why do these methods agree with proven non-yaw navigation methods such as VOR radials, indicating that the planes really dont deviate to left or right?

OP's point: Navigation from Sydney to BA is not the same distance on an FE model and a RE model. Not only is it not the same distance by simple surface distance calculation but there are a number of other problems to contend with such as:

1 - The path is completely different. RE is mostly over the Ocean. FE crosses through most of North America
2 - The distance difference is so great that it conflicts with known documented flight and travel times by plenty more than normal accepted error
3 - Maximum flight distances by aircraft due to fuel capacity are far shorter than the FE model allows
4 - Trade winds are of no help to the FE model and only make things worse for the FE model

So far none of these things has been explained by the FE-ers.



Now on to the issue of "straight line" navigation. I know I'm getting trolled and I don’t care.

Firstly we have to define straight line as it has been so pedantically argued already. Perhaps this will help to define it as it relates to navigation on a RE or FE model.

Consider that the airplane being used to travel in is the center of a 3 dimensional coordinate system. So the centerline of the plane on every axis converges on a point in the middle that is XYZ zero. Consider the X axis to be along the same axis as the main wings (left and right). The Y axis is aligned with the length on the cabin (front to rear). The Z axis is vertical and roughly perpendicular to the ground.

Lets also consider that the plane is always at cruising altitude from origin to destination so we don’t have to argue about takeoff and landing arcs and how they are not "straight".

So far a straight line as argued by pizza planet is straight in all 3 axis with no deviation ix x y or z.

Taking out take off and landings and this "straight line" navigation with now deviation in each of the three axis can be achieved on a FE model. However the problems as stated above by the OP are still problems.

Taking out take of and landings and the same can be done on a RE and it all still works on RE also without going through the crust of the earth. As a plane flies from Sydney to BA and maintains a cruising altitude somewhere near 35K feet, the pilot is not constantly in a shallow dive to maintain altitude. They effective fly "straight" or level the whole time. Altitude remains basically constant and the plane flies level without making Z axis course corrections.

So while the plane may be flying around an arc in the z axis (when observed from a stationary point outside the plane) there is no z axis course correction necessary to pull this off. So it is essentially a Straight path in X and Y which is the center of the "straight" line issue to start with.

Even though I know Pizza planet knows this and hinted at it a few posts ago, it still needed to be said.
 - No airplane on a RE model will ever take a path that is truly straight. i.e. no deviation in any axis.
 
The issue is still about a "how the crow flies" approach to the applications of the FE model versus the RE model.
The FE model provides too many unsolvable problems when it comes the OP's issues, that are easily explained and much simpler to understand with a RE model.

Pizza, given that it would be possible to travel in a line without yaw from any point on a flat earth to any other, and that would be the shortest distance, why is it that no planes do that?

Given that it was possible, I'm pretty convinced they'd do it. This conclusion, however, is the result of a fallacious given.

One of the ironic things about RE navigation is that the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line, but a great circle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_navigation

One of the ironic things about RE navigation is that the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line, but a great circle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_navigation

To quell the pedants and clarify, the shortest distance on the surface of the round earth, or geodesic is a great circle.

And that's what happens, with the only exception that it's impossible to fly straight due to optical consequences of EAT.

This is how you look stupid to all who reads your babbling. Are you saying that the EAT messes with the odometer of your car and with the gyroscopes of the planes? Haven't you seen that dead reckoning has been used for centuries, without detecting the discrepancies that your EAT theory make unavoidable?

Mechanical and optical methods have been used side by side to verify each other for centuries and nobody has seen the "optical consequences" that you mention twisting the optical measurements and not the mechanical ones. And we are not talking about FE theorists who babble about subjects where they have no experience whatsoever, we are talking real sailors and real airplane pilots who might even lose their lives if they don't navigate correctly.

Quote from: Skeleton on August 11, 2011, 06:31:17 AM

Pizza, given that it would be possible to travel in a line without yaw from any point on a flat earth to any other, and that would be the shortest distance, why is it that no planes do that?

Given that it was possible, I'm pretty convinced they'd do it. This conclusion, however, is the result of a fallacious given.

So you are saying that it is not possible to travel from a point on a planar surface to another point on a planar surface using a path that is without yaw? Because thats what you are saying is fallacious. I thought it was the job of the RE crowd to make you look stupid but you seem to be beating us by a mile.

Pizza
The definition of a straight line between two points on a curved surface is a line that takes the shortest path between the two points while staying on the curve's surface.

Look up geodesic.

Are you saying that the EAT messes with the odometer of your car and with the gyroscopes of the planes?

No. I have explained dozens of times that optical observations have very little (read as: nothing) to do with mechanical experiments. You are welcome to read my distance consistency thread. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44906.0
Please be sure to read it before making any claims about its contents. It's really annoying that people imply things that can't be implied.

So you are saying that it is not possible to travel from a point on a planar surface to another point on a planar surface using a path that is without yaw?

Yes. Would you like to prove it possible? You can use any tools you wish, as long as you can prove that you're following a perfectly straight line or a perfect geodesic.

The definition of a straight line

is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_%28geometry%29
A geodesic is not a straight line.

Quote from: trig on August 11, 2011, 09:13:04 PM

Are you saying that the EAT messes with the odometer of your car and with the gyroscopes of the planes?

No. I have explained dozens of times that optical observations have very little (read as: nothing) to do with mechanical experiments. You are welcome to read my distance consistency thread. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44906.0
Please be sure to read it before making any claims about its contents. It's really annoying that people imply things that can't be implied.

Yes, that is the thread where the "mechanic not equal to electromagnetic" idea was totally demolished. You would be able to measure the same distance, say, one street block in your neighborhood, with an odometer and a laser and get different results, then go receive your Nobel Prize.

Quote from: trig on August 11, 2011, 09:13:04 PM

Are you saying that the EAT messes with the odometer of your car and with the gyroscopes of the planes?

No. I have explained dozens of times that optical observations have very little (read as: nothing) to do with mechanical experiments. You are welcome to read my distance consistency thread. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44906.0
Please be sure to read it before making any claims about its contents. It's really annoying that people imply things that can't be implied.

Quote from: Skeleton on August 12, 2011, 10:35:43 AM

So you are saying that it is not possible to travel from a point on a planar surface to another point on a planar surface using a path that is without yaw?

Yes. Would you like to prove it possible? You can use any tools you wish, as long as you can prove that you're following a perfectly straight line or a perfect geodesic.

Quote from: momentia on August 12, 2011, 11:39:23 AM

The definition of a straight line

is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_%28geometry%29
A geodesic is not a straight line.

From your source
'''The "straightness" of a line, interpreted as the property that it minimizes distances between its points, can be generalized and leads to the concept of geodesics on differentiable manifolds'''

As for your other post, google maps is a projection of the round earth onto a flat plane. Try google earth.

However, mechanical distances are measured in flight paths, so yes, unless you have bendy land and bendy air, your light argument means nothing.

As for your other post, google maps is a projection of the round earth onto a flat plane. Try google earth.

Projecting spherical areas on square areas is squaring the circle. As this is impossible, it is obvious that Google Map can only fail in doing the job correctly.

Quote from: momentia on August 26, 2011, 08:39:44 AM

As for your other post, google maps is a projection of the round earth onto a flat plane. Try google earth.

Projecting spherical areas on square areas is squaring the circle. As this is impossible, it is obvious that Google Map can only fail in doing the job correctly.

Exactly, which is why the scale is different at different latitudes and why pizza's ideas are so funky. A better representation is google earth.

Scale is different because it saves memory. I studied Google Map/Earth, and it's just a video game.

Scale is different because it saves memory. I studied Google Map/Earth, and it's just a video game.

Stop hijacking threads with nonsense.

Quote from: momentia on August 26, 2011, 08:39:44 AM

As for your other post, google maps is a projection of the round earth onto a flat plane. Try google earth.

Projecting spherical areas on square areas is squaring the circle. As this is impossible, it is obvious that Google Map can only fail in doing the job correctly.

What exactly do you mean by the impossibility of squaring the circle?

Ask Momentia, he will explain that to you. He is the expert, I am the idiot.

Quote from: Agnostic on August 26, 2011, 09:21:39 AM

Quote from: momentia on August 26, 2011, 08:39:44 AM

As for your other post, google maps is a projection of the round earth onto a flat plane. Try google earth.

Projecting spherical areas on square areas is squaring the circle. As this is impossible, it is obvious that Google Map can only fail in doing the job correctly.

What exactly do you mean by the impossibility of squaring the circle?

Quote from: Agnostic on August 26, 2011, 09:21:39 AM

Quote from: momentia on August 26, 2011, 08:39:44 AM

As for your other post, google maps is a projection of the round earth onto a flat plane. Try google earth.

Projecting spherical areas on square areas is squaring the circle. As this is impossible, it is obvious that Google Map can only fail in doing the job correctly.

What exactly do you mean by the impossibility of squaring the circle?

Ask Momentia, he will explain that to you. He is the expert, I am the idiot.

Thanks, as your language is rather odd. What you said actually means that there is no way to construct a square of the same area as a given circle using a straightedge and a compass.

What you meant to say was that there is no distance and angle preserving map from a sphere to any shape on a plane, be it a rectangle, a circle, or some other shape (that has the Euclidean metric). This is the reason why airline flights disprove FE. The distances and times flights can only happen on a round earth. Times confirmed by various bloggers as posted earlier. It has also been shown that there are some flights that would require refueling on FE, but do not refuel in real life.

You do not take in account the principles of conservation of energy which is transfered to the airplane.

As such, when loosing altitude, the AP gains speed, still most electronic devices show no change in speed, because it's not relative speed, but absolute speed regarding the stationnary universe. This is why a correction must be used with the pressure coefficient formula Cp = dP/(ρ v2 /2) .

However, you stayed strangely quiet on the fact that Google Earth is a video game. Do you trust computer softwares that much?

They can have many flaws too...

You do not take in account the principles of conservation of energy which is transfered to the airplane.

As such, when loosing altitude, the AP gains speed, still most electronic devices show no change in speed, because it's not relative speed, but absolute speed regarding the stationnary universe. This is why a correction must be used with the pressure coefficient formula Cp = dP/(ρ v2 /2) .

However, you stayed strangely quiet on the fact that Google Earth is a video game. Do you trust computer softwares that much?

They can have many flaws too...

I really need an explanation on the conservation of energy argument.

And your understanding of speed measuring instruments in planes is quite bewildering. Please ask for an explanation, because you are totally lost.

Your idea, whatever it is, about relative and absolute speeds solves the wrong problem. It does not solve the need of all FE models to mysteriously speed up some planes and not others. It would speed up all the planes or none of them. At the very least it should speed up planes in the Southern hemisphere and not those in the Northern hemisphere.

And staying quiet when an FE'er compares Google Earth with a video game is the right response: even the 30 second required to answer "What are you babbling?" is too much waste.

Please do not take it in such an arrogant manner.

I told you Google Earth is a video game because it's obviously a lot of 3D Api and data encoding and compression algorithms. As any encoding algorithm drops off information, Google Earth is not to be trusted regarding any accurate cosmological fact.

Also, you seem to improperly add your vectors, I do not see why the impact of your theoretical calculation should deny the possibility of a Flat Earth.

And finally, we do not know if the Flat Earth is perfect disc or slightly curved due to UA acceleration and mass pressure.

On this topic it is possible that the flat earth follows a Ferguson shape (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50237.0)