SYD to SCL and flight range

  • 137 Replies
  • 8045 Views
*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2017, 03:08:38 PM »
No one is claiming that the Earth is completely level. That's ridiculous. The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
Just because it isn't flat doesn't mean it is non-Euclidean.

The flight times are what they are. I still don't understand the problem with this.
Only because you choose not to.
It is impossible for these flights to exist. It requires the planes to fly much faster than they are capable of doing, and there is no reason for the airlines to fly these routes like they do if Earth was flat.

Rayzor just thinks he's better than everyone else and can't be wrong.
No, that would be you.
I don't at all. If you'd look back and read what I said, I was just pointing out that whether the Earth is flat or round, the land is uneven in the majority of places. This would result in portions being concave and convex regardless of the shape, and thus a triangle would probably not be a perfect 180 degrees in many places.
No. Triangles would be 180 degrees. What wouldn't is curved lines or many sided shapes moving around in 3D.

I explained further.

Why are the flight times impossible? They clearly and demonstrably aren't.

I think I'm a worthless piece of shit, but thanks for knocking me down another self-esteem peg.

You're saying a triangle mapped on the surface of any convex or concave shape is going to have interior angles summing to 180 degrees? You're wrong. Simple as that.


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

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2017, 03:14:16 PM »
Why are the flight times impossible? They clearly and demonstrably aren't.
No, they are possible in reality.
They are impossible in the FE model. I explained why.

If you think they are possible in the FE model, explain how, without just shifting the problem.

You're saying a triangle mapped on the surface of any convex or concave shape is going to have interior angles summing to 180 degrees? You're wrong. Simple as that.
No. I'm saying a triangle itself, not one mapped or drawn on another surface. So no, you are wrong as you are yet again blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.

Try constructing a triangle with straight lines which does not have the angles add to 180 degrees.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2017, 03:25:27 PM »
Why are the flight times impossible? They clearly and demonstrably aren't.
No, they are possible in reality.
They are impossible in the FE model. I explained why.

If you think they are possible in the FE model, explain how, without just shifting the problem.

You're saying a triangle mapped on the surface of any convex or concave shape is going to have interior angles summing to 180 degrees? You're wrong. Simple as that.
No. I'm saying a triangle itself, not one mapped or drawn on another surface. So no, you are wrong as you are yet again blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.

Try constructing a triangle with straight lines which does not have the angles add to 180 degrees.

I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.

Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.


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

*

JerkFace

  • 10825
  • Looking for Occam
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2017, 03:45:53 PM »
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean?     Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat. 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2017, 03:55:15 PM »
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean?     Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.

I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.


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

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2017, 04:55:55 PM »
Why are the flight times impossible? They clearly and demonstrably aren't.
No, they are possible in reality.
They are impossible in the FE model. I explained why.

If you think they are possible in the FE model, explain how, without just shifting the problem.

You're saying a triangle mapped on the surface of any convex or concave shape is going to have interior angles summing to 180 degrees? You're wrong. Simple as that.
No. I'm saying a triangle itself, not one mapped or drawn on another surface. So no, you are wrong as you are yet again blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.

Try constructing a triangle with straight lines which does not have the angles add to 180 degrees.

I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.

Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

You are clearly shifting the problem.  The issue, to be clear, is that the distances involved regarding this particular flight are not possible given the known performance envelope of the aircraft involved if the earth is assumed to be flat.  They, unsurprisingly, are possible if the Earth is a sphere.

By dismissing reality and saying "the earth is flat and these flights happen" as evidence supporting an FE position is academically dishonest.  The point made, which still stands, is that Santiago to Sydney flights occurs at least four times a week, covering approximately 7,000 miles and are direct, non-stop operations.  Using any FE map, these flights are at least 16,000 miles or more, which exceed the maximum range of any commercial passenger aircraft ever built.  The burden of proof is on you to explain how this is possible. 

Alternatively, you can also admit you don't know how its possible or acknowledge that this isn't possible if the earth is flat.
With all the woes facing our planet do we need a flat earth to add to them...

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2017, 05:03:47 PM »
Why are the flight times impossible? They clearly and demonstrably aren't.
No, they are possible in reality.
They are impossible in the FE model. I explained why.

If you think they are possible in the FE model, explain how, without just shifting the problem.

You're saying a triangle mapped on the surface of any convex or concave shape is going to have interior angles summing to 180 degrees? You're wrong. Simple as that.
No. I'm saying a triangle itself, not one mapped or drawn on another surface. So no, you are wrong as you are yet again blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.

Try constructing a triangle with straight lines which does not have the angles add to 180 degrees.

I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.

Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

You are clearly shifting the problem.  The issue, to be clear, is that the distances involved regarding this particular flight are not possible given the known performance envelope of the aircraft involved if the earth is assumed to be flat.  They, unsurprisingly, are possible if the Earth is a sphere.

By dismissing reality and saying "the earth is flat and these flights happen" as evidence supporting an FE position is academically dishonest.  The point made, which still stands, is that Santiago to Sydney flights occurs at least four times a week, covering approximately 7,000 miles and are direct, non-stop operations.  Using any FE map, these flights are at least 16,000 miles or more, which exceed the maximum range of any commercial passenger aircraft ever built.  The burden of proof is on you to explain how this is possible. 

Alternatively, you can also admit you don't know how its possible or acknowledge that this isn't possible if the earth is flat.

There is no flat Earth map. Ergo, this is a nonissue.


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

*

JerkFace

  • 10825
  • Looking for Occam
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2017, 05:27:54 PM »
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean?     Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.

I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.

I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2017, 06:00:18 PM »
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean?     Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.

I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.

I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.

Quote
The sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.

Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.


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

*

JerkFace

  • 10825
  • Looking for Occam
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2017, 06:19:23 PM »
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean?     Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.

I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.

I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.

Quote
The sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.

Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.

So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth,  does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2017, 06:39:25 PM »
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean?     Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.

I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.

I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.

Quote
The sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.

Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.

So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth,  does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?

My god you're dense.


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

*

JerkFace

  • 10825
  • Looking for Occam
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2017, 07:05:41 PM »
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean?     Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.

I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.

I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.

Quote
The sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.

Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.

So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth,  does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?

My god you're dense.

So when you are backed into a corner you resort to insults.  I suspect that's all you've got left.

How about answering the question as to why spherical geometry works for flight paths and euclidean geometry doesn't.



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2017, 07:11:18 PM »
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean?     Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.

I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.

I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.

Quote
The sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.

Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.

So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth,  does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?

My god you're dense.

So when you are backed into a corner you resort to insults.  I suspect that's all you've got left.

How about answering the question as to why spherical geometry works for flight paths and euclidean geometry doesn't.

Because you think the Earth is a ball. How does your belief system prove anything about anything?


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

*

JerkFace

  • 10825
  • Looking for Occam
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2017, 07:13:56 PM »
Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.

In what sense is a flat earth non-euclidean?     Please don't bother to tell me mountains aren't flat.

I've already explained it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.

I should have been clearer, I meant an explanation that makes sense.

Quote
The sum of the angles of triangles on the surface of the earth add to more than 180 degrees, so it's non euclidean.

Since you'll apparently only listen to yourself.

So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth,  does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?

My god you're dense.

So when you are backed into a corner you resort to insults.  I suspect that's all you've got left.

How about answering the question as to why spherical geometry works for flight paths and euclidean geometry doesn't.

Because you think the Earth is a ball. How does your belief system prove anything about anything?

That's just avoiding the question,  try again.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #44 on: October 17, 2017, 07:16:07 PM »

That's just avoiding the question,  try again.

I already answered you several times. Either accept it or give me something to argue with you about.


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

*

JerkFace

  • 10825
  • Looking for Occam
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2017, 07:22:51 PM »

That's just avoiding the question,  try again.

I already answered you several times. Either accept it or give me something to argue with you about.

No insults and avoiding the question don't count, as answers.

How about answering the question as to why spherical geometry works for flight paths and euclidean geometry doesn't.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #46 on: October 17, 2017, 07:50:06 PM »
So spherical geometry works perfectly on the surface of the earth,  does that suggest anything to you about the shape of that surface?

My god you're dense.
Really?
The distance from the North Pole to the South Pole on the Globe and on the  usual flat earth map is a little over 20,000 km.
         For the Globe, according to Wikipedia, the polar circumference is 40,008 km
         For the Flat Earth "24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world", so "rim to rim" the earth is 40073 km - close enough.
So on both the Globe or the flat earth, the distance from the North pole to the equator is close enough to 10,000 km.

Now the equatorial circumference of the real earth is 40,075 km, close enough to 40,000 km.

I would like you to fit those dimensions onto your flat earth.

You insist that circumference = 2 π radius and it is on a flat surface.

But on the real earth circumference = 2 2 radius.

Now, I (we) did say elsewhere that in non-Euclidean geometry. as on the surface of a sphere, circumference ≠ 2 π radius and in
Spherical Geometry, as on the surface of a sphere circumference < 2 π radius.

The bottom line is that the Equatorial Circumference = 4 (North Pole to Equator distance) fits on a sphere but not on a plane surface.

In other words the measured dimensions of the earth will not fit on a plane surface.
[youtube]][/youtube]
The Flat Earth Myth Disproved



*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2017, 07:53:36 PM »

That's just avoiding the question,  try again.

I already answered you several times. Either accept it or give me something to argue with you about.

No insults and avoiding the question don't count, as answers.

How about answering the question as to why spherical geometry works for flight paths and euclidean geometry doesn't.

You've yet to explain how you arrive at this assertion. It's a pretty big part of the point you're trying to make.


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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40142
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2017, 08:05:57 PM »
The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
Umm...  I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.
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.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2017, 08:19:48 PM »
The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
Umm...  I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.

Meh. That's not really what I meant. I clarified I was talking about how the surface of the Earth is distorted and alternating concave/convex no matter the overall shape.


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

*

JerkFace

  • 10825
  • Looking for Occam
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #50 on: October 17, 2017, 08:51:02 PM »
The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
Umm...  I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.

Meh. That's not really what I meant. I clarified I was talking about how the surface of the Earth is distorted and alternating concave/convex no matter the overall shape.

We are discussing flight times not mountain climbing.  Stop avoiding the question.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40142
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #51 on: October 17, 2017, 08:54:40 PM »
The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
Umm...  I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.

Meh. That's not really what I meant. I clarified I was talking about how the surface of the Earth is distorted and alternating concave/convex no matter the overall shape.
With flight times, it's the overall shape that matters, not the surface features that are being overflown.
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.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #52 on: October 17, 2017, 08:59:08 PM »
The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
Umm...  I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.

Meh. That's not really what I meant. I clarified I was talking about how the surface of the Earth is distorted and alternating concave/convex no matter the overall shape.
With flight times, it's the overall shape that matters, not the surface features that are being overflown.

Right, that whole conversation was sort of off-topic. You're a little late to the party.


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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40142
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #53 on: October 17, 2017, 09:24:47 PM »
The surface of the Earth, no matter its shape, lies in 3D space, and is therefore non-euclidean.
Umm...  I'm reasonably sure that isn't what non-euclidean means.

Meh. That's not really what I meant. I clarified I was talking about how the surface of the Earth is distorted and alternating concave/convex no matter the overall shape.
With flight times, it's the overall shape that matters, not the surface features that are being overflown.

Right, that whole conversation was sort of off-topic. You're a little late to the party.
That's why I was trying to nudge it back on topic.
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.

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #54 on: October 18, 2017, 01:27:39 AM »
I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.
Earth isn't flat.
This proves it.
It was already explained above. The distance required on the FE model, and the time it takes requires an impossible velocity. This makes the flights impossible on a flat Earth.
As these flights happen, this means Earth can't be flat.

Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
Only if you try and treat the surface itself as a plane.
But no one is trying that.
People use a level surface, and large distance. In this case, the "Flat" Earth would be pretty much flat, while the round earth will start showing serious deviations from flat, as it does.

There is no flat Earth map. Ergo, this is a nonissue.
No, there are multiple (which is a problem itself and shows a FE to be impossible). The only ones which solve this issue are those which push the issue elsewhere.
Ergo, it is an issue, an issue which shows a FE is impossible.

Even without that, you can take numerous flights and use them collectively to show a FE is impossible.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2017, 01:30:29 AM »
I'm not shifting the problem. The flight happens and the Earth is flat, so it's not impossible. Explain why and how it is.
Earth isn't flat.
This proves it.
It was already explained above. The distance required on the FE model, and the time it takes requires an impossible velocity. This makes the flights impossible on a flat Earth.
As these flights happen, this means Earth can't be flat.

Euclidean triangles' interior angles sum to 180 degrees. This is not in question. I'm simply saying that this is not a good determiner for the shape of the Earth, as both the surfaces of a round and flat Earth would be non-Euclidean.
Only if you try and treat the surface itself as a plane.
But no one is trying that.
People use a level surface, and large distance. In this case, the "Flat" Earth would be pretty much flat, while the round earth will start showing serious deviations from flat, as it does.

There is no flat Earth map. Ergo, this is a nonissue.
No, there are multiple (which is a problem itself and shows a FE to be impossible). The only ones which solve this issue are those which push the issue elsewhere.
Ergo, it is an issue, an issue which shows a FE is impossible.

Even without that, you can take numerous flights and use them collectively to show a FE is impossible.

All of your points are moot in lieu of a map.

The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.


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

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #56 on: October 18, 2017, 01:45:31 AM »
All of your points are moot in lieu of a map.
No they aren't, they show it is impossible to make an accurate map, and I have provided a means to make a FE map (several contradicting ones), which these flights are impossible in.


The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.
Yes, they happen, they are possible, ON A ROUND EARTH!!!
They are impossible on a flat Earth, thus these flights prove FE is wrong.

*

JerkFace

  • 10825
  • Looking for Occam
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #57 on: October 18, 2017, 01:49:05 AM »
All of your points are moot in lieu of a map.

This evidence shows that a flat earth map is impossible.   The fact that none exists, it not surprising.

The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.

He never said they were impossible,  learn to read.  The flights are impossible if the earth is flat, map or no map.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #58 on: October 18, 2017, 02:15:06 AM »
All of your points are moot in lieu of a map.

The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.
So you only argument is still that you don't have a map!
Well, Jack, in the FAQ puts it this way:
Quote
What does the earth look like?

As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.

The earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.
Can we take that as definitive?

The whole point, that no-one is ever prepared to address, is that the measurements of the real earth make a flat earth completely impossible, no matter what sort of flat earth map you try.

The various intercontinental air routes simply provide a rough, but independent check on these measurements.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #59 on: October 18, 2017, 09:40:23 AM »
All of your points are moot in lieu of a map.

This evidence shows that a flat earth map is impossible.   The fact that none exists, it not surprising.

The flight's aren't impossible, they happen.

He never said they were impossible,  learn to read.  The flights are impossible if the earth is flat, map or no map.

Quote
He never said they were impossible

Quote
The flights are impossible


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