Flight Paths

For the last time, the path that the plane flies is not made up; the shape of the ground under the plane is what I am questioning.  You assume that, just because we know the path a plane has flown, somehow it means that the Earth must be round.  The flight path is projected on a flat map and you just assume it represents a round Earth and somehow this is proof of something? 

OK you first claimed it was all a conspiracy, then you claimed tht while they may be flying open and honest routes, the ground underneath them would not be as they suggest..  Now you saying that non of that is true, simply that the map is flat not round.

Well ill tell you, if the earth was flat.. in reality (lol), and we continued using a projection of our warped, lunatic 'round' earth.. what universe would you come from if you think that would work? lol

A sphere is a different shape to a flat plane. So my 2d projection of a 3d earth, would never EVER work, if the earth was actually flat.

Again, jump on flightradar24.. wait for a plane to fly overhead.. then dash outside and look UP! ^   I think you will find that everything agrees with everything else... the only thing you wont be able to verify is speed and altitude.

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2014, 09:44:46 AM

For the last time, the path that the plane flies is not made up; the shape of the ground under the plane is what I am questioning.  You assume that, just because we know the path a plane has flown, somehow it means that the Earth must be round.  The flight path is projected on a flat map and you just assume it represents a round Earth and somehow this is proof of something? 

OK you first claimed it was all a conspiracy, then you claimed tht while they may be flying open and honest routes, the ground underneath them would not be as they suggest..  Now you saying that non of that is true, simply that the map is flat not round.

Well ill tell you, if the earth was flat.. in reality (lol), and we continued using a projection of our warped, lunatic 'round' earth.. what universe would you come from if you think that would work? lol

A sphere is a different shape to a flat plane. So my 2d projection of a 3d earth, would never EVER work, if the earth was actually flat.

Again, jump on flightradar24.. wait for a plane to fly overhead.. then dash outside and look UP! ^   I think you will find that everything agrees with everything else... the only thing you wont be able to verify is speed and altitude.

No, first and always, I claimed that we can not interpret flight path data in determining the shape of the Earth.  Then, round Earthers come out from the woodworks trying to explain to me about transponders and crap like that, which has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.  Now, you are trying to explain what a sphere is, like that will help. 

And, you people call me delusional...

If you follow enough flight data you will find a succession of flights form a circle round the world.

How do we know what our flight path is?  We just take the word of the airlines, now don't we?

Read above - that is what YOU said.

Quote from: reofcourse on February 11, 2014, 08:34:40 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 10, 2014, 09:57:11 PM

How do we know what our flight path is?  We just take the word of the airlines, now don't we?

No, we don't. You can follow the exact movement of most commercial planes online, in real time, from the comfort of your chair.

Isn't that the same as taking their word for it?

I havent worked out how to do multiple quotes so sorry for the multiple posts...  But again  read above.

If you follow enough flight data you will find a succession of flights form a circle round the world.

Yes, and this can just as easily occur on a flat Earth.

I am not saying that flight tracking systems don't work.  I am simply questioning the exact place that these systems put the flights.

And again....

in this case, once again i refer you to flightradar 24 and you can confirm for yourself that they put the flights exactly where they should be.

Quote from: jroa on February 10, 2014, 09:57:11 PM

How do we know what our flight path is?  We just take the word of the airlines, now don't we?

Read above - that is what YOU said.

Yes, and in context, I was explaining that in order to infer the shape of the Earth from the flight data, you would have to take their word for it. 

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 03:35:11 PM

If you follow enough flight data you will find a succession of flights form a circle round the world.

Yes, and this can just as easily occur on a flat Earth.

Except that there is no map with places on to follow. Have you confirmed the shortest distance from the Falklands to Australia?

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 16, 2014, 03:40:41 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 10, 2014, 09:57:11 PM

How do we know what our flight path is?  We just take the word of the airlines, now don't we?

Read above - that is what YOU said.

Yes, and in context, I was explaining that in order to infer the shape of the Earth from the flight data, you would have to take their word for it.

No, you could OBSERVE IT YOURSELF to provide certainty, as he has said three times.

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2014, 03:44:33 PM

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 16, 2014, 03:40:41 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 10, 2014, 09:57:11 PM

How do we know what our flight path is?  We just take the word of the airlines, now don't we?

Read above - that is what YOU said.

Yes, and in context, I was explaining that in order to infer the shape of the Earth from the flight data, you would have to take their word for it.

No, you could OBSERVE IT YOURSELF to provide certainty, as he has said three times.

  Just because you know a flight path, that does not mean you know the shape of the ground beneath it. 

Quote from: jtlondon83 on February 16, 2014, 03:53:27 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2014, 03:44:33 PM

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 16, 2014, 03:40:41 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 10, 2014, 09:57:11 PM

How do we know what our flight path is?  We just take the word of the airlines, now don't we?

Read above - that is what YOU said.

Yes, and in context, I was explaining that in order to infer the shape of the Earth from the flight data, you would have to take their word for it.

No, you could OBSERVE IT YOURSELF to provide certainty, as he has said three times.

  Just because you know a flight path, that does not mean you know the shape of the ground beneath it.

The flight path is based on a map, which is based on our idea of a round earth.. if the earth was flat, then the actual flight path would take a different route on the ground to that was predicted..

I don't see where you are going with this.  Are you saying that a flat Earth cannot be projected onto a flat map? 

I don't see where you are going with this.  Are you saying that a flat Earth cannot be projected onto a flat map?

you havent managed it yet, much as we keep asking for it.

Ok unless you say that your flat earth is exactly the same as our projection of a round earth, then it would make no difference to flight paths..

YOu do not say that though, you have even presented drawings of what your earth looks like, which is entirely different to the real thing....

Here's another explanaintion of a flat earth.. which further stregthens my point - this is from Sculelos:

"Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.

So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube."

Ok unless you say that your flat earth is exactly the same as our projection of a round earth, then it would make no difference to flight paths..

Interesting point this - how come planes keep arriving in the right place if they're using the wrong map everytime?

Jroa - care to sidestep answering this one?

If the map works then the premise must be right - QED

Ok unless you say that your flat earth is exactly the same as our projection of a round earth, then it would make no difference to flight paths..

Are you trying to say that your projection of a round Earth is exactly the same as the actual Earth?  You are really grasping at straws. 

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 16, 2014, 04:09:51 PM

Ok unless you say that your flat earth is exactly the same as our projection of a round earth, then it would make no difference to flight paths..

Are you trying to say that your projection of a round Earth is exactly the same as the actual Earth?  You are really grasping at straws.

Yes, for navigation it absolutely is.  I can prove this because all those planes flying above you planned their flight, and are navigating using RE maps...  if those maps accurately represent the equivalent point on the ground, then you could cross check their flight path.  You can actually check this.. its called flight radar 24.. lol

This grade 1 stuff, i not sure why you can't understand it..?

You do mean that they are navigating using flat maps, right?  Just want to clear this up. 

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 16, 2014, 04:09:51 PM

Ok unless you say that your flat earth is exactly the same as our projection of a round earth, then it would make no difference to flight paths..

Are you trying to say that your projection of a round Earth is exactly the same as the actual Earth?  You are really grasping at straws.

Why would I say that.. You're amazingly confused here mate - a map is not a replica of the thing it hopes to map but is rather a tool which, given the necessary information to interpret, can act as a guide to successful travel. However, the maps we all use are predicated on the fact that the world is round and, given that they are constantly successful at giving accurate information to, say, the pilots of all the planes you've ever been on, then they must be representative of the truth of the information that they are based on.. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE JUST THINK ABOUT THAT SENTENCE FOR ONE MINUTE!

So, let me get this straight.  The flat map that you hail, can not possibly be accurate unless it is portraying a round Earth?  You RE'ers are getting more and more desperate all the time. 

So, let me get this straight.  The flat map that you hail, can not possibly be accurate unless it is portraying a round Earth?  You RE'ers are getting more and more desperate all the time.

Only that the distances between places have to be the actual measured distances.  Simple.  Easy with a flat earth, no messing about with projections.

So, let me get this straight.  The flat map that you hail, can not possibly be accurate unless it is portraying a round Earth?  You RE'ers are getting more and more desperate all the time.

No you twat, the map we use is a representation of the earth as we believe it to be which is ROUND. As eeeeeeveryone keeps trying to get you to answer - look at the differences in the distances between two places on the two maps - they are different, obviously. That being the case, if one of the maps is an accurate representation of the real world then it will function effectively as a guidance tool, the other won't.

If everyone's wrong about the earth being round then every pilot ever has used the wrong map and has still got to where they wanted to go (mainly, i'm sure) - IS THAT JUST LUCK?

Yes, and this can just as easily occur on a flat Earth.

This is a weak argument of logic.  In effect, you're claiming that simply because something that allegedly occurs on a round earth can "just as easily" occur on a flat earth, that this helps prove that the earth is in reality flat. 

If you choose to use that logical path, then you need to suggest something or other that cannot occur on a round earth.  That would then become part of your proof—or at the least of great help to your FE theory.

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2014, 04:39:43 PM

So, let me get this straight.  The flat map that you hail, can not possibly be accurate unless it is portraying a round Earth?  You RE'ers are getting more and more desperate all the time.

No you twat, the map we use is a representation of the earth as we believe it to be which is ROUND. As eeeeeeveryone keeps trying to get you to answer - look at the differences in the distances between two places on the two maps - they are different, obviously. That being the case, if one of the maps is an accurate representation of the real world then it will function effectively as a guidance tool, the other won't.

If everyone's wrong about the earth being round then every pilot ever has used the wrong map and has still got to where they wanted to go (mainly, i'm sure) - IS THAT JUST LUCK?

I don't see how the distance from Perth to Cape Town is any better on your round Earth map.  Maybe you roundies just think more highly of yourselves than I do. 

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2014, 03:42:46 PM

Yes, and this can just as easily occur on a flat Earth.

This is a weak argument of logic.  In effect, you're claiming that simply because something that allegedly occurs on a round earth can "just as easily" occur on a flat earth, that this helps prove that the earth is in reality flat. 

If you choose to use that logical path, then you need to suggest something or other that cannot occur on a round earth.  That would then become part of your proof—or at the least of great help to your FE theory.

Is that not what you RE'ers are claiming-- that just because something could occur on a round Earth, then that is proof that the Earth is round? 

Quote from: jtlondon83 on February 16, 2014, 04:44:36 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2014, 04:39:43 PM

So, let me get this straight.  The flat map that you hail, can not possibly be accurate unless it is portraying a round Earth?  You RE'ers are getting more and more desperate all the time.

No you twat, the map we use is a representation of the earth as we believe it to be which is ROUND. As eeeeeeveryone keeps trying to get you to answer - look at the differences in the distances between two places on the two maps - they are different, obviously. That being the case, if one of the maps is an accurate representation of the real world then it will function effectively as a guidance tool, the other won't.

If everyone's wrong about the earth being round then every pilot ever has used the wrong map and has still got to where they wanted to go (mainly, i'm sure) - IS THAT JUST LUCK?

I don't see how the distance from Perth to Cape Town is any better on your round Earth map.  Maybe you roundies just think more highly of yourselves than I do. 

Because the test for 'better' in this instance is 'whether it's accurate' which, given that planes regularly fly to different countries within the timeframe they say they will, being fully aware of their potential speed etc, it must be.

If the map works, it must reflect reality - it's a NECESSARY part of a genuine map. Given that, they can't both be right but also given that the map we're championing has proved to be right constantly (evidenced by getting those planes to the right place each time) then the other one CANNOT be right - there' is only one Earth afterall

So, let me get this straight.  The flat map that you hail, can not possibly be accurate unless it is portraying a round Earth?  You RE'ers are getting more and more desperate all the time.

Is your capacity to understand really this limited?

The flat map we use is a PROJECTION of a 3D globe.. have a look at where the long and lat's lie.. the map is very distorted because it is REPRESENTING a globe..

a flat map, of a flat earth would be wildly different.

A flat map of a flat earth would have no distortions. Unfortunately, all flat maps have some level of distortion. The good ones (intended for navigation) will have information on them indicating the most accurate (undistorted) part of the map. Why would this be so if the earth were flat?

Also, I posted the following in another thread, but it might be more appropriately placed here. I would like to see your response.

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2014, 10:39:02 AM

I don't remember ever seeing a globe in the cockpit of an airplane...

We've been here before, many times.

I just pulled out a WAC* that I had lying about and checked to see what area it covered. It covers an area ~570km by ~440km. Now, go get a globe, mark out an area 570km by 440km, and tell me how much it deviates from 'flat'. Not much you say? That's why flat maps are okay for navigation on a spherical earth.

* World Aeronautical Chart, specifically number 3357. These charts are used by pilots flying VFR (visual flight rules) to plan trips and to navigate. They work. They work exceptionally well. They are slightly distorted at the edges though, due to the fact that they are a flat representation of a round surface, but because they only cover a small area (by design), the distortions are not severe enough to cause problems.

A flat map of a flat earth would have no distortions. Unfortunately, all flat maps have some level of distortion. The good ones (intended for navigation) will have information on them indicating the most accurate (undistorted) part of the map. Why would this be so if the earth were flat?

Also, I posted the following in another thread, but it might be more appropriately placed here. I would like to see your response.

Quote from: Scintific Method on February 16, 2014, 02:00:49 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2014, 10:39:02 AM

I don't remember ever seeing a globe in the cockpit of an airplane...

We've been here before, many times.

I just pulled out a WAC* that I had lying about and checked to see what area it covered. It covers an area ~570km by ~440km. Now, go get a globe, mark out an area 570km by 440km, and tell me how much it deviates from 'flat'. Not much you say? That's why flat maps are okay for navigation on a spherical earth.

* World Aeronautical Chart, specifically number 3357. These charts are used by pilots flying VFR (visual flight rules) to plan trips and to navigate. They work. They work exceptionally well. They are slightly distorted at the edges though, due to the fact that they are a flat representation of a round surface, but because they only cover a small area (by design), the distortions are not severe enough to cause problems.

In another thread, alfa156melb said that pilots do not fly VFR, they only fly IFR.  Are you now saying he is wrong?