Does Flying Around the World in 1 Direction Prove the Earth is Round?

Please provide me with a list of things you don't make up.  Check and mate.

Any sign of a flat earth map yet?!

Goal post here, and goal post there.  I move the goal posts everywhere.  I am inquisitive. 

First of all, I am not talking about curving downward.  I am talking about turning.  If you draw a line on a ball and the line does not turn left or right, it is considered to be a section of a great circle.  A great circle path is the only path that goes straight on a ball, period.  It is also the shortest path on the ball between two points.

On a globe, the only great circle that goes east or west is at the equator.  Therefore, if you are not on the equator, and you are traveling east or west, you are turning.

I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding this.  Please, do me a favor and use Google to research a great circle.  Then, look at a globe and try to put 2 and 2 together.  You are really embarrassing yourself here.

I've been browsing this forum and I keep seeing your posts, and you are aggressive and nasty to everyone. You are a first class F-U-C-K-I-N-G DICK HEAD. A complete fanny. It occurs to me that you probably have a small appendage. Your wife is no doubt sleeping with someone else who is better endowed and sees you for the small minded nasty little C-U-N-T that you most certainly are.

Ban my account now if you want. I just signed in to send you a message - small dick..........

I've been browsing this forum and I keep seeing your posts, and you are aggressive and nasty to everyone. You are a first class F-U-C-K-I-N-G DICK HEAD. A complete fanny. It occurs to me that you probably have a small appendage. Your wife is no doubt sleeping with someone else who is better endowed and sees you for the small minded nasty little C-U-N-T that you most certainly are.

Ban my account now if you want. I just signed in to send you a message - small dick..........

john5533, 7th grade is going to be a rough 3 years for you.

john5533 only hates me because I am black and boinked his mom last night.  Quit being so racist. 

john5533 only hates me because I am black and boinked his mom last night.  Quit being so racist.

Prove you mated with his mother.

john5533 is my proof and my shame. 

john5533 is my proof and my shame.

In the bin with your stupid proof.

I also have a stained dress, if the court would allow me to present it as evidence. 

Yes, please tell me how it is possible to go east or west while not turning.

Actually, I think the discussion went into the wrong direction pretty early in the thread. You are correct that you need to distinguish between rhumb lines and great circles.

A rhumb line is a line that crosses all meridians at the same angle (i.e. true heading); a great circle, on the other hand has an always-changing true heading (because of convergence of meridians). I think that's what you meant in one of the first posts of this thread and you are right about this.

However, you're not right about the question whether an aircraft is actually turning to fly a great circle. It is not! Flying a great circle means that the aircraft is (physically/aerodynamically) not turning at all. Your true heading will constantly change when flying a great circle, but not because the aircraft turns, but because your reference changes (there are exceptions to this, namely flying along the equator or flying along a meridian). Imagine an aircraft departing JFK having an initial true heading of 090°. As it travels eastwards, it will change its true heading (because it crosses other meridians to which the longitudinal axis of the aircraft has different angles), but the aircraft doesn't actually turn. It's just the angle to the meridian that changes, because meridians converge!

This essentially means, that it cannot be the case, that an aircraft flies an actual circle over a flat earth as you have proposed in one of the first posts of this thread, because that would require the aircraft to actually turn (by using its aerodynamic capability to do so). But that is not the case when flying along a great circle.

FL390

Quote from: jroa on March 18, 2014, 12:54:05 AM

Please provide me with a list of things you don't make up.  Check and mate.

Any sign of a flat earth map yet?!

Yes.

I've got a map 

Using a metric I've derived before on this forum:

Quote from: Jane on September 01, 2016, 01:50:14 PM

The Earth is defined by the x and y axes, with the North Pole (for the sake of tradition) at 0, and the South at infinity. An infinite plane is used so that if you reach the South, you can come out the far side. Once the metric is used, the distance shouldn't actually be infinite. This is just our set.
Longitude is 0 along the line y=0, latitude is zero on the circle of radius 1 centred at the North pole.

Now then, our spectacularly awful looking metric. For points P₁=(x₁,y₁), P₂ = (x₂,y₂):

[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1}  \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]

The following map gives over half the Earth. The rest can be extended out, but it grows in size.



But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.

Quote from: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 01:00:09 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 18, 2014, 12:54:05 AM

Please provide me with a list of things you don't make up.  Check and mate.

Any sign of a flat earth map yet?!

Yes.

Quote from: Jane on November 25, 2016, 10:35:03 AM

I've got a map 

Using a metric I've derived before on this forum:

Quote from: Jane on September 01, 2016, 01:50:14 PM

The Earth is defined by the x and y axes, with the North Pole (for the sake of tradition) at 0, and the South at infinity. An infinite plane is used so that if you reach the South, you can come out the far side. Once the metric is used, the distance shouldn't actually be infinite. This is just our set.
Longitude is 0 along the line y=0, latitude is zero on the circle of radius 1 centred at the North pole.

Now then, our spectacularly awful looking metric. For points P₁=(x₁,y₁), P₂ = (x₂,y₂):

[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1}  \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]

The following map gives over half the Earth. The rest can be extended out, but it grows in size.



But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.

According to your map a flight from Sydney to Perth (which actually takes around 5 hours) would cover a much greater distance than a flight from LHR to JFK (which actually takes about 7 hours). How do you explain that?

FL390

Airline captains follow their computers. So, lets assume the people intentionally hiding the shape of earth have control of their computers. They can just make captains take the scenic route. How many people in the planes cabin can tell exactly where they are on over an ocean?

Quote from: disputeone on November 27, 2016, 09:12:12 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 01:00:09 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 18, 2014, 12:54:05 AM

Please provide me with a list of things you don't make up.  Check and mate.

Any sign of a flat earth map yet?!

Yes.

Quote from: Jane on November 25, 2016, 10:35:03 AM

I've got a map 

Using a metric I've derived before on this forum:

Quote from: Jane on September 01, 2016, 01:50:14 PM

The Earth is defined by the x and y axes, with the North Pole (for the sake of tradition) at 0, and the South at infinity. An infinite plane is used so that if you reach the South, you can come out the far side. Once the metric is used, the distance shouldn't actually be infinite. This is just our set.
Longitude is 0 along the line y=0, latitude is zero on the circle of radius 1 centred at the North pole.

Now then, our spectacularly awful looking metric. For points P₁=(x₁,y₁), P₂ = (x₂,y₂):

[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1}  \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]

The following map gives over half the Earth. The rest can be extended out, but it grows in size.



But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.

According to your map a flight from Sydney to Perth (which actually takes around 5 hours) would cover a much greater distance than a flight from LHR to JFK (which actually takes about 7 hours). How do you explain that?

FL390

Non euclidean space, did you use the distance formula?

You can't just get out a ruler and measure it.

Airline captains follow their computers. So, lets assume the people intentionally hiding the shape of earth have control of their computers. They can just make captains take the scenic route. How many people in the planes cabin can tell exactly where they are on over an ocean?

This conspiracy theory doesn't work - we nowadays mostly follow computers (but we don't always and that doesn't mean we don't have a clue about what the computers are doing) but there used to be times (and you can still do it today) where you fly without computers. And all the flight planning involved takes into account a spherical earth and guess what: it works!

Easily testable: make the flight planning manually (without using automated flight planning solutions) based on a spherical earth and compare your results to what the generated flight plan contains. And then compare your results to your actual flight and you will see that it works with a spherical earth model.

FL390

Quote from: FL390 on November 29, 2016, 02:50:39 PM

Quote from: disputeone on November 27, 2016, 09:12:12 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 01:00:09 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 18, 2014, 12:54:05 AM

Please provide me with a list of things you don't make up.  Check and mate.

Any sign of a flat earth map yet?!

Yes.

Quote from: Jane on November 25, 2016, 10:35:03 AM

I've got a map 

Using a metric I've derived before on this forum:

Quote from: Jane on September 01, 2016, 01:50:14 PM

The Earth is defined by the x and y axes, with the North Pole (for the sake of tradition) at 0, and the South at infinity. An infinite plane is used so that if you reach the South, you can come out the far side. Once the metric is used, the distance shouldn't actually be infinite. This is just our set.
Longitude is 0 along the line y=0, latitude is zero on the circle of radius 1 centred at the North pole.

Now then, our spectacularly awful looking metric. For points P₁=(x₁,y₁), P₂ = (x₂,y₂):

[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1}  \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]

The following map gives over half the Earth. The rest can be extended out, but it grows in size.



But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.

According to your map a flight from Sydney to Perth (which actually takes around 5 hours) would cover a much greater distance than a flight from LHR to JFK (which actually takes about 7 hours). How do you explain that?

FL390

Non euclidean space, did you use the distance formula?

You can't just get out a ruler and measure it.

What are the values for latitude/longitude on your earth model for the airports I've given? Your map doesn't contain the spacing between two lines of longitude / latitude.

Another question: how can you explain with your earth model, that flying along the equator does not involve the aircraft to be constantly turning (and it's the shortest distance between two defined points on the equator)?

FL390

1. It's not my model.

2. Stop attacking people.

3. Ask Jane about her formula, not me, I think you will find her far better educated and informed.

Edit, sorry maybe that was rude, I think the earth is probably a sphere, so does Jane. There's been a lot of angry noobs recently, I apologise.

I did not see this question asked or answered so here go..
IF your traveling from New York to London and the earth spins at 1040mph & the plane is going 550mph in theory you should be going 1590mph because your not touching the ground. On the way back you should be loosing about 500mph because of the earth spinning.

I did not see this question asked or answered so here go..
IF your traveling from New York to London and the earth spins at 1040mph & the plane is going 550mph in theory you should be going 1590mph because your not touching the ground. On the way back you should be loosing about 500mph because of the earth spinning.

Because the atmosphere is spinning with the earth as well. If that wasn't the case, you standing on the ground but the atmosphere not spinning with the earth would mean that you were standing within a constant airstream of 1040 mph.

FL390

I did not see this question asked or answered so here go..
IF your traveling from New York to London and the earth spins at 1040mph & the plane is going 550mph in theory you should be going 1590mph because your not touching the ground. On the way back you should be loosing about 500mph because of the earth spinning.

I think you have the earth rotating the wrong way too!

Viewed from the celestial north pole, the motion of Earth, the Moon and their axial rotations are all counter-clockwise.

Not quite! If you are going to argue against the Globe, at least understand it first.
That the plane flies in the air, and the air moves with the earth (except for winds, much slower than 1040 mph).
So, apart from headwinds or tailwinds (that can be greater than 100 mph) there is no difference.
Here are typical flight times:
New York City, USA (all airports) to London, United Kingdom (all airports), 28+ flights per day, 7h 0m duration.
and
London, United Kingdom (all airports) to New York City, USA (all airports), 23+ flights per day, 8h 15m duration.
Quite a difference due to the westerly jet-streams.


But if the earth were circumnavigated from north to south, via the South Pole and back via the North Pole to the starting point,
that would at least prove that the "Ice-Wall Map" was completely wrong.

And yes, it HAS been done a couple of times, via both poles.

First Circumnavigation via both Poles by Aircraft
Captain Elgen M. Long achieved the first circum-polar flight in a twin-engined Piper PA-31 Navajo from 5 November to 3 December 1971. He covered 62,597 km (38,896 miles) in 215 flying hours.

from: First Circumnavigation via both Poles by Aircraft, Guiness Book of Records

Charles Burton 59 a Pole-to-Pole Explorer
Charles Burton, a British explorer who took part in the first expedition to circumnavigate the globe from pole to pole, died on Monday at his family home in the English village of Framfield in Sussex. He was 59 and had suffered a heart attack, said his brother, Richard.

from: Charles Burton 59 a Pole-to-Pole Explorer, NY Times

Just a correction to your original argument.
You claim that "IF your traveling from New York to London and the earth spins at 1040mph", not true!
New York is at Lat 40°N and there the earth's surface velocity would be about 797 mph and London is a Lat 51.5°N, so the velocity would be about 647 mph - not 1040 mph.

First of all, I am not talking about curving downward.  I am talking about turning.  If you draw a line on a ball and the line does not turn left or right, it is considered to be a section of a great circle.  A great circle path is the only path that goes straight on a ball, period.  It is also the shortest path on the ball between two points.

On a globe, the only great circle that goes east or west is at the equator.  Therefore, if you are not on the equator, and you are traveling east or west, you are turning.

I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding this.  Please, do me a favor and use Google to research a great circle.  Then, look at a globe and try to put 2 and 2 together.  You are really embarrassing yourself here.

No. There are many great circles around a spherical ball or in this case a spherical earth. The equator is one. Every latitude or longitude line are also examples.

Quote from: jroa on March 11, 2014, 10:10:57 PM

First of all, I am not talking about curving downward.  I am talking about turning.  If you draw a line on a ball and the line does not turn left or right, it is considered to be a section of a great circle.  A great circle path is the only path that goes straight on a ball, period.  It is also the shortest path on the ball between two points.

On a globe, the only great circle that goes east or west is at the equator.  Therefore, if you are not on the equator, and you are traveling east or west, you are turning.

I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding this.  Please, do me a favor and use Google to research a great circle.  Then, look at a globe and try to put 2 and 2 together.  You are really embarrassing yourself here.

No. There are many great circles around a spherical ball or in this case a spherical earth. The equator is one. Every latitude or longitude line are also examples.

While latitude lines do go east/west, they are not great circle arcs except the equator.  That is why they get smaller as you move away from the equator.

Longitude lines are indeed great circle arcs; however, the only go north/south, not west/east.

It seems that you either did not even read the thread you are replying to, or you are simply ignorant about geometry and geography.  I don't want to insult you, but your post did it first. 

If you fly from California to New York then to Europe then to China then back to California, all going East, you will end up where you started, back in California. Anyone is able to do this with a few plane tickets. You can also take a ship from Central America through the Panama Canal across the Atlantic to the Middle East, through the Suez Canal, through South East Asia, across the Pacific and back to Central America all going East. Doesn't this prove the Earth is round? If this does not prove the Earth is round, please explain to me how the Earth can be flat if you can fly around the world in one direction and end up where you started.

Thank you!

Bill Clinton here, as the president I have travelled on air force one, and we use a special system on all planes in the world to use holograms to trick people to think the earth is round.
As Bill Clinton I can confirm.

You are sort of dumb, and seem to make yourself seem even dumber with every post. 

You are sort of dumb, and seem to make yourself seem even dumber with every post.

As Bill Clinton I can confirm
that you are a fucking retard.

Quote from: jroa on February 27, 2017, 08:40:13 AM

You are sort of dumb, and seem to make yourself seem even dumber with every post.

As Bill Clinton I can confirm
that you are a fucking retard.

I counter that argument with, "You are a poopy head."

Did not know a site like this exists.

Good stuff.

Quote from: Jer9999 on March 11, 2014, 07:19:17 PM

If you fly from California to New York then to Europe then to China then back to California, all going East, you will end up where you started, back in California. Anyone is able to do this with a few plane tickets. You can also take a ship from Central America through the Panama Canal across the Atlantic to the Middle East, through the Suez Canal, through South East Asia, across the Pacific and back to Central America all going East. Doesn't this prove the Earth is round? If this does not prove the Earth is round, please explain to me how the Earth can be flat if you can fly around the world in one direction and end up where you started.

Thank you!

Bill Clinton here, as the president I have travelled on air force one, and we use a special system on all planes in the world to use holograms to trick people to think the earth is round.
As Bill Clinton I can confirm.

Nice try... But don't you think that if you called yourself Donald Trump you would have been much more credible? After all, the idea of Trump being a flatist wouldn't surprise anyone.