FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE

  • 133 Replies
  • 27789 Views
?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« on: July 18, 2011, 05:42:39 PM »
The white line connects Sydney and Buenos Aires.
Then I drew a line of the same length (you can check) through the north pole.

In this picture, the earth is 40,073 km in diameter.
in this picture, there are 12 latitude lines.
Therefore, the lines line are 40,073 / (2*12) = 1670 km apart.
The length of the pink line is about 15 latitude lines long, so thats 25 050 km (about 25000 km) long.
(info given by FES.)

Using the map provided by FES,
The white is the same length as the pink, so the white is 25,000 km long.
Thus the distance from Sydney to Buenos Aires is 25,000 km.



However, using Quantas route maps (which people fly on every day),
We find the distance covered is 11,780 km.

If you think that they are wrong,
the time it takes the flight is 14hrs, 40 min (14.66 hrs)
(verified by passengers.)
If they flew direct over a flat earth, their planes would have to travel at an average of 1,705km/h, or 1059 mph.
To give a reference, the speed of sound is 761 mph at sea level.
An average jet liner travels at  500-600 mph.
The passengers would know if they went supersonic.
people in the flight path would hear regular sonic booms.

If the plane took a more circuitous route, it would have to go faster.
This means that the earth cannot be flat.

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2011, 05:57:45 PM »
That calculator in your link for flight estimates is based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It's not a globe.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2011, 06:06:59 PM »
That calculator in your link for flight estimates is based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It's not a globe.

I think his question is that the distances and times are 'shorter' than possible/plausible in the FE map.  You can bring in lots of 'delays' and 'holding patterns' but they will ADD to the time.  You need a way on FE take take time (or distance) away.

Berny
We've done this dance before?
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2011, 06:11:06 PM »
That calculator in your link for flight estimates is based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It's not a globe.

I think his question is that the distances and times are 'shorter' than possible/plausible in the FE map.  You can bring in lots of 'delays' and 'holding patterns' but they will ADD to the time.  You need a way on FE take take time (or distance) away.

Berny
We've done this dance before?

We don't know what kind of delays anyone experiences. No one has posted flight logs to say for sure. All anyone does is post links to flight calculators based on a round earth model.

You guys do the same thing for your "proof" of sunrise and sunset times at far off areas on earth. You post a link to a calculator based on RE, not any logs of the event in question.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2011, 06:44:08 PM »
That calculator in your link for flight estimates is based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It's not a globe.

I think his question is that the distances and times are 'shorter' than possible/plausible in the FE map.  You can bring in lots of 'delays' and 'holding patterns' but they will ADD to the time.  You need a way on FE take take time (or distance) away.

Berny
We've done this dance before?

We don't know what kind of delays anyone experiences. No one has posted flight logs to say for sure. All anyone does is post links to flight calculators based on a round earth model.
We don't care about delays - as stated above.  Also flight calculators are all based on the evaluation of how the proceeding flights progressed. 

Quote
You guys do the same thing for your "proof" of sunrise and sunset times at far off areas on earth. You post a link to a calculator based on RE, not any logs of the event in question.
Sunset calculators are in fact accurate and are used by people just like calculators - if you want I can start arguing like you but I am not an ethnocentric armchair philosopher.  I actually have never provided proof - but you love shooting down 'proofs'.

I think from now on I will up my TBishness.

I am watching TV.
Therefore the Earth is Round.
RE win

Berny
And I hope a zebra-hunting loin cloth wearing smelly dude will rube your nose in it.

To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2011, 07:50:00 PM »
That calculator in your link for flight estimates is based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It's not a globe.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should not have included the RE distance as it is superfluous to my argument.

My main point was that the TIME the flight takes is measurable by the passengers.
Assuming that the plane goes at 550 mph (885 km/h), and using FE distances, the flight would take 25,000 / 885 =  28.2 hrs, as opposed to 14.6 hrs. No passenger would be willing to "stay in a holding pattern" for 14 hours (the given time of the flight). Also, the passengers would be going straight the entire while.

If that doesn't convince you, note that the maximum range for a 747-400 is 14,205 km, and the maximum range for a Airbus A380 is 15,400 km. This means that the plane has to fly 10,000+ km without fuel, which is a problem.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 07:57:25 PM by momentia »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2011, 07:54:04 PM »
No Flat Earther claims to know what the earth looks like for sure, All maps provided by them are just guesses, and should not be taken as fact.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2011, 08:22:13 PM »
The white line connects Sydney and Buenos Aires.
Then I drew a line of the same length (you can check) through the north pole.

In this picture, the earth is 40,073 km in diameter.
in this picture, there are 12 latitude lines.
Therefore, the lines line are 40,073 / (2*12) = 1670 km apart.
The length of the pink line is about 15 latitude lines long, so thats 25 050 km (about 25000 km) long.
(info given by FES.)

Using the map provided by FES,
The white is the same length as the pink, so the white is 25,000 km long.
Thus the distance from Sydney to Buenos Aires is 25,000 km.



However, using Quantas route maps (which people fly on every day),
We find the distance covered is 11,780 km.

If you think that they are wrong,
the time it takes the flight is 14hrs, 40 min (14.66 hrs)
(verified by passengers.)
If they flew direct over a flat earth, their planes would have to travel at an average of 1,705km/h, or 1059 mph.
To give a reference, the speed of sound is 761 mph at sea level.
An average jet liner travels at  500-600 mph.
The passengers would know if they went supersonic.
people in the flight path would hear regular sonic booms.

If the plane took a more circuitous route, it would have to go faster.
This means that the earth cannot be flat.

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en

It should be the same on a globe, too. It isn't taking a 'circuitous route'. In either way, it's going straight there.

ALSO, WRITING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT ADD WEIGHT TO YOUR ARGUMENT.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2011, 08:47:16 PM »

It should be the same on a globe, too. It isn't taking a 'circuitous route'. In either way, it's going straight there.

ALSO, WRITING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT ADD WEIGHT TO YOUR ARGUMENT.

But notice on a globe, the path is only about 11,800km and goes near Antarctica rather than going across America.




on a FE, the path is 25,000km and is as shown above.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12224
  • Now available in stereo
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2011, 01:16:08 AM »
Sigh. In either model, you never fly in a straight line.


Yes, these aren't pictures for the specific flights you've asked about. They're old shit from an old post of a noob asking a nearly identical question (hint: use the search function in the future)
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

11cookeaw1

Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2011, 02:41:37 AM »
And that's the quickest flight path. People might notice that something is suspicious because of the land there flying over, to go route that doesn't create suspicion they'd have to go even further.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12224
  • Now available in stereo
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2011, 03:33:49 AM »
Unless they're deeply convinced that it is the quickest flight path. For example, they might think that the Earth is round, or some other nonsense like that.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2011, 08:22:08 AM »
And that's the quickest flight path. People might notice that something is suspicious because of the land there flying over, to go route that doesn't create suspicion they'd have to go even further.

You are confusing the quickest flight path with the shortest.  They are not necessarily the same.  Flight paths can be planned to take advantage of jet streams and although longer are both quicker and cheaper.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2011, 08:23:41 AM »
And that's the quickest flight path. People might notice that something is suspicious because of the land there flying over, to go route that doesn't create suspicion they'd have to go even further.

You are confusing the quickest flight path with the shortest.  They are not necessarily the same.  Flight paths can be planned to take advantage of jet streams and although longer are both quicker and cheaper.

Indeed. For example, the shortest flight path between most sets of two points on a RE model is through the Earth's crust. The flight deviates via the atmosphere in order to ease passage.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2011, 08:31:01 AM »
Flying in a winged craft, the transport method under discussion in this thread, would prove difficult without the atmosphere.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2011, 08:32:46 AM »
Flying in a winged craft, the transport method under discussion in this thread, would prove difficult without the atmosphere.

That it would. I was highlighting the difference between the shortest and quickest paths for 11cookeaw1.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2011, 11:55:39 AM »
Sigh. In either model, you never fly in a straight line.
Yes, these aren't pictures for the specific flights you've asked about. They're old shit from an old post of a noob asking a nearly identical question (hint: use the search function in the future)
(I removed the pictures from the quote for brevity. You can see them above)

Indeed. For example, the shortest flight path between most sets of two points on a RE model is through the Earth's crust. The flight deviates via the atmosphere in order to ease passage.


You misunderstood what I meant by straight line (or shortest path) on a globe. This is the shortest path between two points on a globe by traveling on the surface of a globe. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic).
In any case, the measured 11,800 km for a RE journey from Sydney to BA is fairly accurate, and my calculations do not change.

By the way, here is a FE distance calculator derived from the polar coordinate distance formula (Freebie!):



(Source: 10000\sqrt{[(1-\frac{\phi_{1}}{90})sin(\lambda_{1}\frac{\pi}{180})-(1-\frac{\phi_{2}}{90})sin(\lambda_{2}\frac{\pi}{180})]^{2}+((1-\frac{\phi_{1}}{90})cos(\lambda_{1}\frac{\pi}{180})-(1-\frac{\phi_{2}}{90})cos(\lambda_{2}\frac{\pi}{180}))^{2}})

Φ_1 and Φ_2 are the latitudes of places 1 and 2 reps. (positive if north, negative if south)
and
λ_1 and λ_2 are the longitudes of places 1 and 2 reps. (positive if west, negative if east)

If you want the derivation, I'll show you in another post.

And that's the quickest flight path. People might notice that something is suspicious because of the land there flying over, to go route that doesn't create suspicion they'd have to go even further.

You are confusing the quickest flight path with the shortest.  They are not necessarily the same.  Flight paths can be planned to take advantage of jet streams and although longer are both quicker and cheaper.

using sydney's (34.00 S, 151.00 E), and BA's (34.58S, 58.36 W), that's
Sydney: (-34.00 N, -151.00 W)
BA: (-34.58N, 58.36 W)
I calculate the distance to be 26,718 km.

Now, jet streams go from west to east in a roughly circular pattern, sydney and BA are roughly on the same latitude.
if you travel along a jet stream path from sydney to BA, the ground distance on a flat earth is
(1+34/90)*20,000 * (pi/180 * (209)) = 50,258 km going East, and
(1+34/90)*20,000 * (pi/180 * (260-209)) = 36,310 km going West.
To actually stay in the jet stream is a longer route.
Since the jet stream flows east, "going with the jet stream" will double the length of the flight path, and cannot account for making up time in an FE model.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 11:57:31 AM by momentia »

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2011, 12:10:18 PM »
There are more jet streams than just those usually thought of, i.e. the polar and the subtropical.  Easterly streams, low level streams, etc. can be utilized or avoided in flight planning depending on careful attention to timely PIREPS.  Flight planning is more than a string and a pencil.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2011, 12:13:57 PM »
It has not been shown that this flight arrives on time.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 12:21:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2011, 12:19:44 PM »
Has it been shown that they are not on time, Tom?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2011, 12:21:36 PM »
Has it been shown that they are not on time, Tom?

No. Neither one should be assumed until we have the logs in question.

Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2011, 12:37:29 PM »
Has it been shown that they are not on time, Tom?

No. Neither one should be assumed until we have the logs in question.
Is it possible to obtain these logs?


?

11cookeaw1

Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #23 on: July 19, 2011, 01:12:38 PM »
It has not been shown that this flight arrives on time.
Half an hour is not that suspicious. Many hours both ways is.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2011, 03:51:36 PM »
Maybe I'll go on a holiday to Buenos Aires at the end of the year, just to provide definitive proof.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2011, 12:32:30 AM »
You misunderstood what I meant by straight line (or shortest path) on a globe.

I did no such thing. I was illustrating Mrs. Peach's point with a tongue-in-cheek example.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2011, 11:16:28 AM »
You misunderstood what I meant by straight line (or shortest path) on a globe.

I did no such thing. I was illustrating Mrs. Peach's point with a tongue-in-cheek example.

Having to explain a straight line is dull stuff and every decent lecturer, in this case Parsifal, will add some levity to perk up the class.  Not to mention the difference between shortest and quickest.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2011, 12:54:06 PM »
Something else that should be considered - aircraft have a maximum range due to fuel management considerations. I do not have the data to hand but I would be interested to see if the vast extra distances that aircraft supposedly travel on a flat earth exceed the maximum range of the aircraft that fly them, regardless of speed.

All the flat earthers who are unable to grasp the concept of why travelling a great circle route on a globe is not the same as the stupid circular twatviews they keep posting up should not be contributing to discussions in this thread as it is very obviously beyond them.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2011, 02:19:24 PM »
Something else that should be considered - aircraft have a maximum range due to fuel management considerations. I do not have the data to hand but I would be interested to see if the vast extra distances that aircraft supposedly travel on a flat earth exceed the maximum range of the aircraft that fly them, regardless of speed.

All the flat earthers who are unable to grasp the concept of why travelling a great circle route on a globe is not the same as the stupid circular twatviews they keep posting up should not be contributing to discussions in this thread as it is very obviously beyond them.

I got you covered:

That calculator in your link for flight estimates is based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It's not a globe.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should not have included the RE distance as it is superfluous to my argument.

My main point was that the TIME the flight takes is measurable by the passengers.
Assuming that the plane goes at 550 mph (885 km/h), and using FE distances, the flight would take 25,000 / 885 =  28.2 hrs, as opposed to 14.6 hrs. No passenger would be willing to "stay in a holding pattern" for 14 hours (the given time of the flight). Also, the passengers would be going straight the entire while.

If that doesn't convince you, note that the maximum range for a 747-400 is 14,205 km, and the maximum range for a Airbus A380 is 15,400 km. This means that the plane has to fly 10,000+ km without fuel, which is a problem.

Also, I have data in this post about FE distances based on the North Pole centric FE to show that the jet streams are not an answer:

//Click on the link in the quote line.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12224
  • Now available in stereo
Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE
« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2011, 03:35:46 PM »
Something else that should be considered - aircraft have a maximum range due to fuel management considerations. I do not have the data to hand but I would be interested to see if the vast extra distances that aircraft supposedly travel on a flat earth exceed the maximum range of the aircraft that fly them, regardless of speed.
That depends on your definition of distance. By standard definition, the extra distance flown is 0 kilometers / 0 miles / 0 <unit name goes here>, which I believe will not cause many issues. If you'd like to call it vast, I'm afraid I must ask you to define distance first.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)