Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?

  • 112 Replies
  • 19314 Views
Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« on: September 21, 2017, 05:24:33 AM »
Map:


- Distance between Dallas and Sydney on a round earth is 13,810 km and the flight takes 16 hours and 50 minutes
- Distance between Santiago and Sydney on a round earth is 11,340 km and the flight takes 14 hours and 10 minutes

However on a flat earth map the distance from Santiago to Sydney looks to be 1.5x the distance from Dallas to Sydney meaning the flight from Santiago to Sydney should be longer?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2017, 05:58:28 AM »
Map:


- Distance between Dallas and Sydney on a round earth is 13,810 km and the flight takes 16 hours and 50 minutes
- Distance between Santiago and Sydney on a round earth is 11,340 km and the flight takes 14 hours and 10 minutes

However on a flat earth map the distance from Santiago to Sydney looks to be 1.5x the distance from Dallas to Sydney meaning the flight from Santiago to Sydney should be longer?
Yes, grossly wrong!

*

napoleon

  • 913
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2017, 06:02:07 AM »
Map:


- Distance between Dallas and Sydney on a round earth is 13,810 km and the flight takes 16 hours and 50 minutes
- Distance between Santiago and Sydney on a round earth is 11,340 km and the flight takes 14 hours and 10 minutes

However on a flat earth map the distance from Santiago to Sydney looks to be 1.5x the distance from Dallas to Sydney meaning the flight from Santiago to Sydney should be longer?
Three words:
Jet streams
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2017, 06:59:03 AM »
Map:


- Distance between Dallas and Sydney on a round earth is 13,810 km and the flight takes 16 hours and 50 minutes
- Distance between Santiago and Sydney on a round earth is 11,340 km and the flight takes 14 hours and 10 minutes

However on a flat earth map the distance from Santiago to Sydney looks to be 1.5x the distance from Dallas to Sydney meaning the flight from Santiago to Sydney should be longer?
Three words:
Jet streams
Three words:
Impossible supersonic speeds.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2017, 07:25:07 AM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2017, 08:34:47 AM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.
Or even remotely accurate.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21550
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2017, 02:53:17 PM »
Three words:
Jet streams
No:
MAGIC JET STREAMS!!!!
Such magic that they flow the way the plane needs to fly.

*

JackBlack

  • 21550
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2017, 02:54:06 PM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.
And making it a different map just shifts the problem.
No map works unless you accept that it is a flat representation of a round surface and thus suffers from distortion.

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2017, 06:00:11 PM »
Common explanation is jet streams, but that map is distorted in the south, and I disagree with the ice rim, there is a south pole, and the circumference of the southern hemiplane is not larger than the north. 
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2017, 06:49:57 PM »
Common explanation is jet streams, but that map is distorted in the south, and I disagree with the ice rim, there is a south pole, and the circumference of the southern hemiplane is not larger than the north.
Then use the bipolar map. You still get the exact same flight time issues when going from one side to the other.


Jet stream would have to go both ways, along with planes flying at speeds they were not designed for in any way shape or form.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2017, 06:56:54 PM »
Common explanation is jet streams,
As i suppose you realise, there are at least three serious problems with the  jet streams excuse:
  • The jet streams are far too slow to account for the difference.
  • The Northern Hemisphere has almost the same jet streams.
  • The jet streams are always from west to east, but the flight are in both directions, and allow for the jet streams anyway.

Quote from: AltSpace
but that map is distorted in the south, and I disagree with the ice rim, there is a south pole, and the circumference of the southern hemiplane is not larger than the north.
Just saying that without showing your map is a waste of time.
So please show us at least a rough continental layout of your version of the flat earth.

How do you manage to fit these, presumably circular, hemiplanes together?

Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2017, 07:18:33 PM »
The map we're looking at here is the Polar Azimuthal Equidistant (PAE) projection, pretty much the same as on the UN flag.  It's called Polar because it was designed with the North Pole as the center point; it could have been designed with any spot on Earth as the center point - and many airports and radio stations and radio hobbyists use such maps with their hometown as the center point in order to show the proper directions and distances from there to any other spot on Earth.  On this map, all distances from the North Pole are accurate.  But not the distances between any other two places; for that you'd need a complicated formula or a chart.  The farther from the center point, the worse the distortion gets. 

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2017, 08:17:03 PM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.
Or even remotely accurate.

Or that there is even such a thing as just one flat earth map.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2017, 10:05:29 PM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.

You have a typical attitude of claiming something is wrong or right without giving the correction or the reasons why. So that map of the flat earth is wrong. Give the right one or show where it's wrong.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2017, 10:53:31 PM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.
;D ;D ;D "perfectly accurate." ;D ;D ;D
You really are an expert an understatement!

Even across the width of Australia at 30°S that map makes the width of Australia ovef 2.3 times the correct width.
Are you paid to make such a fool of yourself, or do you enjoy it?

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2017, 11:44:16 PM »
Common explanation is jet streams, but that map is distorted in the south, and I disagree with the ice rim, there is a south pole, and the circumference of the southern hemiplane is not larger than the north.
Then use the bipolar map. You still get the exact same flight time issues when going from one side to the other.


Jet stream would have to go both ways, along with planes flying at speeds they were not designed for in any way shape or form.
I don't use that map, so I don't care. Though I like it as a representation (better than the old school Mercator projection in my opinion for visualization).
Though, the south is a lot closer together than the AE. The problem would then be the flights around the poles, a bit long on that map.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2017, 11:53:36 PM »
The Northern Hemisphere has almost the same jet streams.
Not Exactly. Check this out: https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/azimuthal_equidistant=27.92,92.49,112
Quote
Just saying that without showing your map is a waste of time.
Just posting my thoughts in relevance to the topic here.
Quote
So please show us at least a rough continental layout of your version of the flat earth.
How do you manage to fit these, presumably circular, hemiplanes together?
Couldn't plot it on a 2D map, it's in bent aether. Will post the model in FE-Debate soon.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2017, 12:47:09 AM »
The Northern Hemisphere has almost the same jet streams.
Not Exactly. Check this out: https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/azimuthal_equidistant=27.92,92.49,112
I did say, "The Northern Hemisphere has almost the same jet streams."
Taking the Sydney to/from Santiago flights, QF27 and QF28 as examples.
          The shortest distance on the Globe is 11,400 km and the actual flight distances are not much more than that.
    but on the AEP map (Ice-Wall or Gleason,  same thing)  the shortest distance is about 25,400 km.
Typical jet stream velocities are about 160 km, so nowhere near enough to make a big difference.

By the way, those jet streams are caused by the Globe's rotation, just as are the rotation of high and low pressure weather systems.

Quote from: AltSpace
Quote
Just saying that without showing your map is a waste of time.
Just posting my thoughts in relevance to the topic here.
Quote
So please show us at least a rough continental layout of your version of the flat earth.
How do you manage to fit these, presumably circular, hemiplanes together?
Couldn't plot it on a 2D map, it's in bent aether. Will post the model in FE-Debate soon.
Yes, just one of my main complaints with "Flat Earth Theories" is the way guessed ideas are dragged in with no evidence or justification.

Your model seems to be just another like JRoweSkeptic's "Dual Earth Theory",  maybe you should chase it up.

But even with two separate circular hemiplanes the distance from either pole to the equator has to be very close to 10,000 km.
Thus makes the circumference of the equator a bit over 62,800 km, but the circumference of the equator on the real earth is a little over 40,000 km.
If you disagree, ask anyone who does intercontinental nevigation. Try fitting those (along with other known measurements) on your flat earth.

You flat earthers seem to relish making everything so complicated, when the rotating Globe has such simple and obvious reasons.

*

AltSpace

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 411
  • Neo-Planarist
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2017, 01:05:11 AM »
Yes, just one of my main complaints with "Flat Earth Theories" is the way guessed ideas are dragged in with no evidence or justification.
I get your point, but that is not gonna hold true all the time, but people here assume it does.
Quote
Your model seems to be just another like JRoweSkeptic's "Dual Earth Theory",  maybe you should chase it up.
Yeah, that one is interesting, has numerous differences though, but the map layout idea with two poles and hemiplanes with nearly identical circumference is consistent with what I accept.
Quote
But even with two separate circular hemiplanes the distance from either pole to the equator has to be very close to 10,000 km.
Yes, I agree with that.
Quote
Thus makes the circumference of the equator a bit over 62,800 km, but the circumference of the equator on the real earth is a little over 40,000 km.
That is incorrect, in the model I accept, the bent aether gives non-Euclidean characterisitcs in the non-inertial frame of reference of an observer on Earth.
I assume you read through it, that's good, I want it to be discussed more in the future here. My turn I guess.
Quote
You flat earthers seem to relish making everything so complicated, when the rotating Globe has such simple and obvious reasons.
I am convinced the globe earth proponents are wrong on this one.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

*

napoleon

  • 913
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2017, 01:49:20 AM »
Yes, just one of my main complaints with "Flat Earth Theories" is the way guessed ideas are dragged in with no evidence or justification.
I get your point, but that is not gonna hold true all the time, but people here assume it does.
Quote
Your model seems to be just another like JRoweSkeptic's "Dual Earth Theory",  maybe you should chase it up.
Yeah, that one is interesting, has numerous differences though, but the map layout idea with two poles and hemiplanes with nearly identical circumference is consistent with what I accept.
Quote
But even with two separate circular hemiplanes the distance from either pole to the equator has to be very close to 10,000 km.
Yes, I agree with that.
Quote
Thus makes the circumference of the equator a bit over 62,800 km, but the circumference of the equator on the real earth is a little over 40,000 km.
That is incorrect, in the model I accept, the bent aether gives non-Euclidean characterisitcs in the non-inertial frame of reference of an observer on Earth.
I assume you read through it, that's good, I want it to be discussed more in the future here. My turn I guess.
Quote
You flat earthers seem to relish making everything so complicated, when the rotating Globe has such simple and obvious reasons.
I am convinced the globe earth proponents are wrong on this one.
Non-euclidean geometry is a pure mathematical system. It is about how you define some 3D object or space.
A great example of a great example to illustrate non-euclidean geometry is how we defined the surface of our round earth. Notice the longtitude lines how they are parallel to each other, yet they intersect each other at the North Pole and the South Pole.
Perfectly explainable and nothing magical.
There is no magic non-euclidean area's in space.
snap out of it
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

*

JackBlack

  • 21550
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2017, 02:15:19 AM »
Couldn't plot it on a 2D map, it's in bent aether. Will post the model in FE-Debate soon.
So rather than bend Earth, you bend space?
What is your justification for that?

I get your point, but that is not gonna hold true all the time, but people here assume it does.
People CONCLUDE it does, because that is what all the evidence points to.
There has yet to be anything presented which favours FE models.
Instead, everything either favours the RE model or is ambiguous.

Yeah, that one is interesting, has numerous differences though, but the map layout idea with two poles and hemiplanes with nearly identical circumference is consistent with what I accept.
And is the circumference 60 000 km or 40 000 km?

I am convinced the globe earth proponents are wrong on this one.
Got any evidence for that?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2017, 03:46:36 AM »
Yes, just one of my main complaints with "Flat Earth Theories" is the way guessed ideas are dragged in with no evidence or justification.
I get your point, but that is not gonna hold true all the time, but people here assume it does.
And what is likely to change that situation?

Quote from: AltSpace
Quote
Your model seems to be just another like JRoweSkeptic's "Dual Earth Theory",  maybe you should chase it up.
Yeah, that one is interesting, has numerous differences though, but the map layout idea with two poles and hemiplanes with nearly identical circumference is consistent with what I accept.
Quote
But even with two separate circular hemiplanes the distance from either pole to the equator has to be very close to 10,000 km.
Yes, I agree with that.
Quote
Thus makes the circumference of the equator a bit over 62,800 km, but the circumference of the equator on the real earth is a little over 40,000 km.
That is incorrect, in the model I accept, the bent aether gives non-Euclidean characterisitcs in the non-inertial frame of reference of an observer on Earth.
And where is the justification for "bent aether"?  This is just another case of what I call guesses.
Sure Einstein's GR has curved spacetime but in our vicinity only by an almost imperceptible amount,
yet you propose enough curvature to, presumably, make a flat surface look like a sphere.

You cannot justify that without a sound basis, not just something you drag out of your head.

Quote from: AltSpace
I assume you read through it, that's good,
If you mean JRowe's, I have read a fair bit of it and find it full of unsubstantiated and illogical assumptions.
If you mean your "non-Euclidean" theory, no I have seen nothing on it.

Quote from: AltSpace
I want it to be discussed more in the future here. My turn I guess.
Quote
You flat earthers seem to relish making everything so complicated, when the rotating Globe has such simple and obvious reasons.
I am convinced the globe earth proponents are wrong on this one.
You are? Look at all the guesses and excuses that flat earthers have to drag in to explain such simple things as:
  • A sun that stays the same size from rising to setting and that explains sunrises and sunsets in appearance timing or direction.
  • A moon that stays the same size from rising to setting and that explains phases and lunar eclipses.
  • A map with correct distances and directions.
And all the rest.
From what I have seen, the "evidence" for your flatter than a pancake earth boils down to "the horizon looks flat".
Then you have to scrabble around looking for excuses for the numerous things that will not fit.

Guess what!  The horizon on the Globe should look flat till you reach a very high altitude.

So many,  like you, seem to dream up hypotneses that have no physical or theotetical basis, yet are so complicated that it becomes almost impossible to "prove that they are wrong".

We saw a simple case of this in that magnetic FE theory.

OK, present you hypothesis, and we'll see, but why? Where is this overwhelming evidence for a flat earth anyway?
And you seem be doing is another making another John Davis "duck theory".
If it looks like a . . . ., if it walks like a . . . . .if it quacks like a . . . . .etc, it probably is a . . . . .
Over to you.

Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2017, 04:13:33 AM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.

than you admit that this map is wrong.

show us the correct map.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2017, 07:29:08 AM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.

than you admit that this map is wrong.

show us the correct map.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours. 

Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2017, 07:35:01 AM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.

than you admit that this map is wrong.

show us the correct map.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
I would love to. One of my favorites.

Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2017, 08:51:43 AM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.

than you admit that this map is wrong.

show us the correct map.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

look at a globe, that is the correct map of the real earth.

now you

*

JackBlack

  • 21550
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2017, 01:52:57 PM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.

than you admit that this map is wrong.

show us the correct map.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Here you go:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51IAARrpjwL._SX355_.jpg

Remember, we (and by we I mean everyone as I am discussing reality) have a round Earth, so you cannot map it on a flat surface without distortion.
However, if you note the distortion produced by mapping a round surface to a flat one, then there are numerous projections you can use including the azimuthal equidistant projection above.

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2017, 04:22:14 PM »
Three words:  nobody claimed that map is perfectly accurate.
;D ;D ;D "perfectly accurate." ;D ;D ;D
You really are an expert an understatement!

Even across the width of Australia at 30°S that map makes the width of Australia ovef 2.3 times the correct width.
Are you paid to make such a fool of yourself, or do you enjoy it?

We've been over this. That's a round Earth projection. If you use the distance scale that's literally built into the map rather than just saying something looks out of proportion, you'd realise that it's the size it's supposed to be. Roughly.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

JackBlack

  • 21550
Re: Flight lengths - is the flat earth map wrong?
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2017, 04:26:12 PM »
We've been over this. That's a round Earth projection. If you use the distance scale that's literally built into the map rather than just saying something looks out of proportion, you'd realise that it's the size it's supposed to be. Roughly.
Yes, we have been over this. This shows that Earth is round, not flat, as when you account for the distortion this projection uses, it matches reality.
If you try and treat it as a flat map of a flat Earth (which would not be distorted), then it fails to match reality.