Flight time below the equator

Don't worry, you will get the hang of flat earth physics.  I have faith in you.

Well you have to remember that it wouldn't be called 10 knots/hour it would be considered 10nm/hour in realistic terms. If I told my bos'n we are going 10knots an hour he would slap me. I actually do not think anyone uses the term "an hour" after telling someone how fast we are going.

Incorrect.  If you start at a dead stop and accelerated to exactly 10 knots in exactly 1 hour, it would be perfectly correct to say, "We are traveling at 10 knots with an acceleration of 10 knots/hour".

Don't worry, you will get the hang of flat earth physics.  I have faith in you.

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on June 11, 2012, 03:36:20 PM

Well you have to remember that it wouldn't be called 10 knots/hour it would be considered 10nm/hour in realistic terms. If I told my bos'n we are going 10knots an hour he would slap me. I actually do not think anyone uses the term "an hour" after telling someone how fast we are going.

Incorrect.  If you start at a dead stop and accelerated to exactly 10 knots in exactly 1 hour, it would be perfectly correct to say, "We are traveling at 10 knots with an acceleration of 10 knots/hour".

I understand that. you are right and I misunderstood the conversation so my bad.   

What does my speed in knots or acceleration have to do with flat Earth physics! ahhhhhh

Quote from: jroa on June 11, 2012, 03:26:35 PM

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on June 11, 2012, 03:24:47 PM

Quote from: jroa on June 11, 2012, 03:23:21 PM

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on June 11, 2012, 03:21:28 PM

So one more time...
I am making 10 knots
I can travel 10 nm in one hour
My speed is still 10 knots...

Yes, but not 10 knots/hour.

Whoa whoa whoa there cowboy...

Are you saying 10knots/hour means that the person is not making way at 10 knots?

Yes, now you have it.

Well you have to remember that it wouldn't be called 10 knots/hour it would be considered 10nm/hour in realistic terms. If I told my bos'n we are going 10knots an hour he would slap me. I actually do not think anyone uses the term "an hour" after telling someone how fast we are going.

Because the "per hour" part is automatically implied with the word "knot".  Seriously, I can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid, although I recognize that it's most likely a little of both.

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on June 11, 2012, 03:36:20 PM

Quote from: jroa on June 11, 2012, 03:26:35 PM

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on June 11, 2012, 03:24:47 PM

Quote from: jroa on June 11, 2012, 03:23:21 PM

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on June 11, 2012, 03:21:28 PM

So one more time...
I am making 10 knots
I can travel 10 nm in one hour
My speed is still 10 knots...

Yes, but not 10 knots/hour.

Whoa whoa whoa there cowboy...

Are you saying 10knots/hour means that the person is not making way at 10 knots?

Yes, now you have it.

Well you have to remember that it wouldn't be called 10 knots/hour it would be considered 10nm/hour in realistic terms. If I told my bos'n we are going 10knots an hour he would slap me. I actually do not think anyone uses the term "an hour" after telling someone how fast we are going.

Because the "per hour" part is automatically implied with the word "knot".  Seriously, I can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid, although I recognize that it's most likely a little of both.

no shit the per hour is a part of saying "we are going 10 knots" now please do not comment on something Jroa already corrected me on, while I agreed with his correction that he gave me. I agreed  I misunderstood the conversation and made a mistake.

Thanks for your dumb clarification. Move along kid.

Quote from: Paint_Box on June 06, 2012, 07:10:51 PM

The economic speed is actually closer to 460 knots/hour.

That is not a unit of speed.

You're right, that was a rather stupid mistake on my part. Apologies, but I do hope my message was clear.

I think I somehow confused knots and klicks in terms of what they measured. Extremely embarrassing, and I'm sorry.

Do we agree that the southern hemisphere on a FE map is completely erroneus?

Do we agree that the southern hemisphere on a FE map is completely erroneus?

Without a doubt.

I believe I've waited enough time for responses. 

Victory for RE.

I believe I've waited enough time for responses. 

Victory for RE.

Absolutely. When I first heard about this I did the same thing and checked flight times from the horses' mouths for flights corresponding near enough equal distant from the equator. I did Johannesburg to Perth for the Southern hemisphere and Cairo to Shanghai for the northern hemisphere. Now the Cairo flight is approx 500 km further above the equator than Johannesburg is below the equator, but Shanghai is further away from Cairo than Perth is from Johannesburg so it roughly evens out. Airlines were Egyptair and a South African one (forgot the name).

Here they are:

West to East

Cairo to Shanghai
Distance: 8125 km
Time difference: -6 hours
Depart: 23.40
Arrive: 15.20
Time for flight: 9.40

Johannesburg to Perth
Distance: 8303 km
Time difference: -6 hours
Depart:22.35               
Arrive: 13.25
Time for flight: 9.50 hours


East to west

Shanghai to Cairo
Time difference: +6
Depart: 00.30
Arrive: 5.30      
Time for flight: 11 hours

Perth to Johannesburg
Time difference: +6
Depart: 23.50
Arrive:5.20   
Time for flight: 11.30 hours


The debate is over. There is no flat earth, at least for all practical purposes.

Now, let's dissolve these threads and change it into a new theory instead shall we? Or are we going to be extremely stubborn mules? I suspect the latter.

I was about to do the same for South and North America, but after the above there is no need to. The only way FE would now work is if you start completely rearranging the UN map which makes the FE unworkable.

Good luck boys. I know you'll need it. 

All this is evidence of is that the maps currently representing the geography of this earth-plane are innaccurate.  This is not new, the maps are merely a representation of an idea.

All this is evidence of is that the maps currently representing the geography of this earth-plane are innaccurate.  This is not new, the maps are merely a representation of an idea.

So The Flat Earth Society doesn't even have a map. Nice to know...

Quote from: Kendrick on July 27, 2012, 04:53:38 PM

All this is evidence of is that the maps currently representing the geography of this earth-plane are innaccurate.  This is not new, the maps are merely a representation of an idea.

So The Flat Earth Society doesn't even have a map. Nice to know...

Thousands of cartographers and not one published flat Earth map? Now that is strange...right? What would be the point to go through all the trouble of making mercatur projection charts if the Earth is actually already flat? 

Take a space ship, and go to space, and LOOK AT THE EARTH. Fly around the earth. You all say "oh I can see that the Earth is flat because when I go outside it is, my eyes don't lie." I triple dog dare you to come back and tell me you saw a flat earth with your eyes that don't lie.

Take a space ship, and go to space, and LOOK AT THE EARTH. Fly around the earth. You all say "oh I can see that the Earth is flat because when I go outside it is, my eyes don't lie." I triple dog dare you to come back and tell me you saw a flat earth with your eyes that don't lie.

the FE fellas along with everyone els on this forum does not have the money or the resources to travel to space. So let's make a better point next time. I am all for proving to them the Earth is round, but making points like that really wont do a thing.

Take a space ship, and go to space, and LOOK AT THE EARTH.

Much easier said than done.

What are you guys talking about?  I take spaceship rides every weekend!

What are you guys talking about?  I take spaceship rides every weekend!

This is the strict moderation of flat earth debate at work here, folks.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 31, 2012, 03:14:16 PM

What are you guys talking about?  I take spaceship rides every weekend!

This is the strict moderation of flat earth debate at work here, folks.

I'm sorry, is the occasional sarcastic comment against the rules?  It's not like it wasn't on-topic.

You know if the earth was truly flat, the map would be easy 

the "official" map of the "lit portion of the disc" is flawed.
I am working on a new map that would explain flight times.
This map also does not contain an "ice wall".

You know if the earth was truly flat, the map would be easy 

Of course it would be. After all, round-Earth-assuming cartographers got things right the first time, didn't they?

How would you know how right/not right that is, considering that the true flat earth has yet to be mapped in all its glory?

How would you know how right/not right that is, considering that the true flat earth has yet to be mapped in all its glory?

One does not need to know what a correct map would look like in order to determine that a given map is incorrect. For example, North America and Australia are now known to be nothing like the shapes depicted in that map.

How do you know they don't look like that, on a true map of the earth?  It sounds like you're buying into globularist propaganda.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on August 03, 2012, 08:39:45 PM

How would you know how right/not right that is, considering that the true flat earth has yet to be mapped in all its glory?

One does not need to know what a correct map would look like in order to determine that a given map is incorrect. For example, North America and Australia are now known to be nothing like the shapes depicted in that map.

According to that theory...Antarctica is now well known to exist to be nothing like the shapes depicted in FE model.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on August 03, 2012, 08:39:45 PM

How would you know how right/not right that is, considering that the true flat earth has yet to be mapped in all its glory?

One does not need to know what a correct map would look like in order to determine that a given map is incorrect. For example, North America and Australia are now known to be nothing like the shapes depicted in that map.

your lack of intelligence when it comes to the area of charts is disgusting. You have no idea what you are talking about and you do not know the reasoning for past charts. You disgrace the very name of charts, please do not comment on anything chart related...ever.

How do you know they don't look like that, on a true map of the earth?

The residents of Seattle don't require gills to survive.

According to that theory...Antarctica is now well known to exist to be nothing like the shapes depicted in FE model.

That was not a theory, but a statement of fact. However, your post is both incorrect and irrelevant, so it hardly matters.

your lack of intelligence when it comes to the area of charts is disgusting. You have no idea what you are talking about and you do not know the reasoning for past charts. You disgrace the very name of charts, please do not comment on anything chart related...ever.

If you have something to contribute to the discussion, please do so. Otherwise, take your preaching and personal attacks elsewhere.

The residents of Seattle don't require gills to survive.

Obviously the entirety of North America isn't included on that map for reasons that are unknowable because you provided no background information on it.  Don't be silly.

your lack of intelligence when it comes to the area of charts is disgusting. You have no idea what you are talking about and you do not know the reasoning for past charts. You disgrace the very name of charts, please do not comment on anything chart related...ever.

If you have something to contribute to the discussion, please do so. Otherwise, take your preaching and personal attacks elsewhere.
[/quote]

Make more intelligent posts regarding charts and I will hold my tongue. Until then, please do not attempt to claim that past charts depict the Earth as flat or round or anything for that matter. They are simply charts made by sailors, most likely quarter masters, that did their best at charting what they see and in no way reflect the shape of the Earth.

Present day we have cartographers that are able to use resources such as satellite imaging to create accurate mercator projection charts with wich we navigate by. The charts used present day are extremely more accurate then ones used in the past. All chart references of the past are irrelevant because of the huge error in the visual charting of oceans and coastal areas.   

The residents of Seattle don't require gills to survive.

Do you have any evidence to support this?