SYD to SCL and flight range

  • 137 Replies
  • 6555 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #90 on: October 19, 2017, 07:32:32 PM »
Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.

There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.
There could be a very simple reason for that.

The simple fact that the earth isn't flat would make "a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model" very difficult.

But, you refuse to even give any evidence for the earth's being other than a globe, other than "It looks flat".

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #91 on: October 19, 2017, 08:15:19 PM »
Right. You're asking me to come up with something of the same quality as a model that millions of scientists have been working on for thousands of years. That's a pretty tall order.
Rubbish!

The Globe model was developed by a few Greeks, but verified by many others, Greek, Persian, Indian etc.
Even those accepted that the sun, moon and stars were a great distance away.
They came to this conclusion by the simple reasoning that the sun and moon did not change apparent size significantly from rising to setting.

Even so Aristarchus of Samos (310 BC 230 BC) estimated that the sun was 18 to  20 times as far away as the moon, he wasn't close
and Hipparchus of Nicaea (190 BC 120 BC) estimated that the distance to the moon was 68 times the radius of the earth - the correct value is 60.3 times.
Then Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 276 BC c. 195/194 BC) measured the circumference of the earth.

Poor Eratosthenes gets hammered because of his assumption that the earth was a globe, but many others using different methods
including Aryabhata of India (AD 476550) and Abu Rayhan al-Biruni of Persia (9731048), also "measured the earth" and with consistent results.

Also the Globe is the only possible shape consistent with astronomical observations, including the movement of the sun and moon.
Many of these can easily be made by any ordinary person and others made routinely by numerous amateur astronomers.

So stop talking utter bunkum about your "millions of scientists have been working on for thousands of years".

Just open your eyes to things like sunrises, sunset, the movement of the sun, lunar phases etc, etc.

But YOU claimed that
The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
You cannot claim that is consistent with a flat earth unless to have a flat earth model.
So stop all you delaying tactics and show us how you calculate these distances.
I don't know whether to class your argument technique as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or Argumentum ad nauseam.


*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #92 on: October 19, 2017, 08:20:08 PM »
Right. You're asking me to come up with something of the same quality as a model that millions of scientists have been working on for thousands of years. That's a pretty tall order.
Rubbish!

The Globe model was developed by a few Greeks, but verified by many others, Greek, Persian, Indian etc.
Even those accepted that the sun, moon and stars were a great distance away.
They came to this conclusion by the simple reasoning that the sun and moon did not change apparent size significantly from rising to setting.

Even so Aristarchus of Samos (310 BC 230 BC) estimated that the sun was 18 to  20 times as far away as the moon, he wasn't close
and Hipparchus of Nicaea (190 BC 120 BC) estimated that the distance to the moon was 68 times the radius of the earth - the correct value is 60.3 times.
Then Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 276 BC c. 195/194 BC) measured the circumference of the earth.

Poor Eratosthenes gets hammered because of his assumption that the earth was a globe, but many others using different methods
including Aryabhata of India (AD 476550) and Abu Rayhan al-Biruni of Persia (9731048), also "measured the earth" and with consistent results.

Also the Globe is the only possible shape consistent with astronomical observations, including the movement of the sun and moon.
Many of these can easily be made by any ordinary person and others made routinely by numerous amateur astronomers.

So stop talking utter bunkum about your "millions of scientists have been working on for thousands of years".

Just open your eyes to things like sunrises, sunset, the movement of the sun, lunar phases etc, etc.

But YOU claimed that
The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
You cannot claim that is consistent with a flat earth unless to have a flat earth model.
So stop all you delaying tactics and show us how you calculate these distances.
I don't know whether to class your argument technique as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or Argumentum ad nauseam.

You're making a similarly fallacious argument by saying the flights are impossible when you have no flat Earth model to confirm this. It's baseless.


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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39107
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #93 on: October 19, 2017, 08:40:35 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.

There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.
So which non-universally non-unanimously accepted Flat Earth model does confirm the flight distances?
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 #94 on: October 19, 2017, 08:42:21 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.

There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.
So which non-universally non-unanimously accepted Flat Earth model does confirm the flight distances?

Why do you think they're not agreed upon?


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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39107
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #95 on: October 19, 2017, 08:44:49 PM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.

There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.
So which non-universally non-unanimously accepted Flat Earth model does confirm the flight distances?

Why do you think they're not agreed upon?
That's why I'm asking.
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.

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #96 on: October 19, 2017, 09:05:04 PM »
You're making a similarly fallacious argument by saying the flights are impossible when you have no flat Earth model to confirm this. It's baseless.
YOU claimed that
The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
You cannot claim that is consistent with a flat earth unless to have a flat earth model.
So stop all you delaying tactics and show us how you calculate these distances.
I don't know whether to class your argument technique as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or Argumentum ad nauseam.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #97 on: October 19, 2017, 09:09:15 PM »
You're making a similarly fallacious argument by saying the flights are impossible when you have no flat Earth model to confirm this. It's baseless.
YOU claimed that
The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.
You cannot claim that is consistent with a flat earth unless to have a flat earth model.
So stop all you delaying tactics and show us how you calculate these distances.
I don't know whether to class your argument technique as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or Argumentum ad nauseam.

Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.


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

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #98 on: October 19, 2017, 11:49:06 PM »
So stop all you delaying tactics and show us how you calculate these distances.[/center]
I don't know whether to class your argument technique as Argumentum ad ignorantiam or Argumentum ad nauseam.
Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.
Nope, my eyes were checked less than a month ago and I'm not blind yet!

What similarities?

The topic is about a flight, SYD to SCL, that does not fit the "accepted flat earth map" or any flat earth map I have seen.
JRoweSkeptic's comes close, but there are serious problems with his "model".

Maybe you don't accept that map, so show me a flat earth map or even rough "continental layout" where that map does "fit".

If you don't even have a rough idea of where the North Pole, Equator and South Pole are then you don't have a flat earth model.

But, you claim that you have flown routes that do fit "your" flat earth. How many times do I have to ask you to list them?

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #99 on: October 20, 2017, 01:17:11 AM »
Based on what, exactly? The non-existent map?
No, based upon the numerous maps providing.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Because you are ignoring it.

Well, that's an unreasonably silly assumption.
Not any more so than the assumption that Earth is flat.

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
And then try mapping these distances to a flat surface. Doesn't work.
Try mapping it to a globe. Works fine.

Person who dodges proper responses and substitutes insults and personal attacks confirmed. Possibly doesn't understand how to have a proper argument.
Confirming yourself are we?
Ignoring arguments presented to you is not a proper response.

Again, the Earth is flat
PROVE IT!!!

Right. You're asking me to come up with something of the same quality as a model that millions of scientists have been working on for thousands of years. That's a pretty tall order.
No. A simple rudimentary one showing the location of a few cities relative to each other would be fine.
Inky was working on it but gave up after realising it wont work.

You're making a similarly fallacious argument by saying the flights are impossible when you have no flat Earth model to confirm this. It's baseless.
I am using multiple flights as a set. Making a subset of them possible renders others impossible.
Flights near the poles shows a flat earth needs to be akin to the bipolar model.
Flights north and south show that each location need to be connected up, but that already is impossible.
But allowing some serious leeway, you could just get away with that part. But then connections east to west near the equator shows it is impossible.

We don't need a FE model to show it is impossible. We can use the flights to try and construct and show it is impossible.

Why do you think they're not agreed upon?
Because Earth is round, so flat representations will get some parts correct and other parts wrong. So different projections are made to have some parts correct, while other bits are wrong.

Why do you think there is only one round Earth representation (with Earth actually being round rather than flat representations of the round Earth), with the exception of ones which are known to be inaccurate to exaggerate something like the oblateness to make it easier to understand?

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #100 on: October 20, 2017, 01:23:18 AM »
Why do you think they're not agreed upon?
Because the world is a globe, so they are all completely broken.  ::)
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

JerkFace

  • 10389
  • Looking for Occam
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #101 on: October 20, 2017, 02:15:44 AM »
Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.

LOL,  I might have to raise you to one of the upper echelons of trolldom,  5/10.    persistent, but still a little too obvious. 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #102 on: October 20, 2017, 04:27:47 AM »
You're working backwards. If you take it as a given them at the Earth is flat, these flights must not be impossible on a flat Earth.
Actually, you do kinda have to work problems like this backwards.  The only problems is that you started with the wrong conclusion.  If you take it as a given that these flights are possible, then you need to figure out which earth shape allows those flights to be possible.

Both do. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?

They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Except for the fact that the whole point is to determine which model the confirmed distances support better.

There isn't a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model.

and why isn't there a universally unanimously accepted flat Earth model?

simply because there is not one evidence of the possibility of a flat earth.
there are only a lot of mind plays how a flat earth could look like.
but each and every one has his flaws.
there is not one model that can explain all the reality we can see.
each and every explanation that FEIB bring up is explainable with the global earth model.

you also still did not explain how you can prove your assumption that the earth could be flat.

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #103 on: October 20, 2017, 05:14:00 AM »
Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.

LOL,  I might have to raise you to one of the upper echelons of trolldom,  5/10.    persistent, but still a little too obvious.
He learnt on jroa's knee.

Now he's all grown up, I wish he'd get his own shtick.  One jroa is bad enough without wannabes.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #104 on: October 20, 2017, 05:50:40 AM »
Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.

LOL,  I might have to raise you to one of the upper echelons of trolldom,  5/10.    persistent, but still a little too obvious.
I actually think he's another of sceptimatic's characters.  Two things they all have in common is the use of baseless assertion as fact, and the dismissal of actual evidence without any reasonable cause.  These two things are infuriating for people who possess rational thought and are sure to provoke a response. 

For all I know, the person behind the computer doesn't even believe any of this crap, but just enjoys getting a rise out of people on various characters about various things. 

*

Sentinel

  • 570
  • Open your eyes...
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #105 on: October 20, 2017, 08:16:54 AM »
Have all of the distances between destinations been confirmed by the flat earth model?
They have been confirmed by objective reality. No Earth model is needed.
Please show us all these "distances between destinations" that have been "confirmed by objective reality".

And stop talking garbage. If as you claim the earth is flat, show us your flat "Earth Model".

I claim that the earth is a rotating globe and I do have a "model" for that.

It looks as though you have nothing more than, "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat."

You could just admit that you have no case and run away.

Oh, I didn't realise that you, alone, against all odds, put together this working model.
Forgive me.

The fact that I can take those flights right now and the price and time is consistent with certain distances confirms that these distances are proper.

Yes do it, take these flights and prove on one hand to other FEIB that they exist.
And on the other hand than prove with a map of a flat earth that it fits to the map.

I dare you to do that.

Again, the Earth is flat and the flights happen, so all it proves is the flights happen how they do regardless of the shape of the Earth.

Then prove it, as simple as that.
Until then the earth is as round as it gets, and no flattard BS might be able to change that.
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #106 on: October 20, 2017, 03:07:45 PM »
Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.

LOL,  I might have to raise you to one of the upper echelons of trolldom,  5/10.    persistent, but still a little too obvious.
I actually think he's another of sceptimatic's characters.  Two things they all have in common is the use of baseless assertion as fact, and the dismissal of actual evidence without any reasonable cause.  These two things are infuriating for people who possess rational thought and are sure to provoke a response. 

For all I know, the person behind the computer doesn't even believe any of this crap, but just enjoys getting a rise out of people on various characters about various things.

Scepti is/was a straight up noob compared to me. Check the dates.

Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?


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

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #107 on: October 20, 2017, 03:25:57 PM »
Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?
Because you are asserting that Earth is flat, with no basis. and trying to use that false assumption to conclude that these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Meanwhile we are either using commonly promoted FE maps to show these flights don't work as the distance is too great on the FE maps, or using these flights (not just the ones near the south pole, but other flights as well) and distances to show it is impossible to construct a map.

One is close to circular reasoning, where you are assuming Earth is flat to try and say that Earth is flat, or more specifically that there is nothing wrong with these flights on a flat Earth. In this case you take your assumption that Earth is flat as 100% true with no doubt at all, and thus if there are any issues raised it must be with them, not with this assumption. This is completely fallacious when the topic of discussion is if Earth is flat and if these flights are compatible with a flat Earth.

The other is a proof by contradiction, where you assume Earth is flat, and then reach a contradiction and use that to show that Earth can't be flat.

Or to put it another way:
Both have these flights being real.
One shows that these flights are impossible on a FE, and uses that to conclude Earth can't be flat.
The other baselessly asserts that Earth is flat, and uses this baseless assumption to conclude these flights are possible on a FE to then conclude they don't pose a problem for a FE.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #108 on: October 20, 2017, 03:34:46 PM »
Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?
Because you are asserting that Earth is flat, with no basis. and trying to use that false assumption to conclude that these flights are possible on a flat Earth.

I stopped reading here. You should really learn to cut your posts down to a readable size. You're a bit wordy.

Anyway, I'm simply saying that the flights are possible (obviously) completely separate from the shape of the Earth.
So, the shape of the Earth is entirely irrelevant. The flights are possible. That's it.
It's stupid to say that the flights are impossible on a flat Earth, because there is no official model by which to compare the flights and deem them impossible.


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

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #109 on: October 20, 2017, 03:42:19 PM »
Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?
I have yet to see any argument from you other than one starting from:
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Starting a debate with an assumption that cannot be falsified is not valid reasoning.

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #110 on: October 20, 2017, 03:42:46 PM »
I stopped reading here. You should really learn to cut your posts down to a readable size. You're a bit wordy.
So you can't even read a few lines?

Anyway, I'm simply saying that the flights are possible (obviously) completely separate from the shape of the Earth.
So, the shape of the Earth is entirely irrelevant. The flights are possible. That's it.
It's stupid to say that the flights are impossible on a flat Earth, because there is no official model by which to compare the flights and deem them impossible.
No you're not. You are lying, saying Earth is flat, and using that lie to claim the flights are possible on a flat Earth.
The simple fact is these flights (as in a multitude of flights) show Earth can't be flat. I have explained why. If you think there is a problem with that explanation go and show what the issue is.
I didn't appeal to any official model.

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #111 on: October 20, 2017, 03:43:49 PM »
And see what I mean about you not admitting when you are wrong?
You just ignore it when people show why you are wrong, or lie about what they or you have done to pretend you aren't wrong.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #112 on: October 20, 2017, 03:49:07 PM »
Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?
I have yet to see any argument from you other than one starting from:
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Starting a debate with an assumption that cannot be falsified is not valid reasoning.

Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.
What are you not understanding?


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

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #113 on: October 20, 2017, 03:54:38 PM »
Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.
What are you not understanding?
No we aren't.
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
What are you not understanding?

Regardless, people present a model of FE as if it was an official one, because it is what is needed for several things to make sense, but results in other things (like these flights) not making sense.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #114 on: October 20, 2017, 04:02:04 PM »
Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.
What are you not understanding?
No we aren't.
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.

Where, exactly?


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

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #115 on: October 20, 2017, 04:13:30 PM »
Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.
What are you not understanding?
No we aren't.
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
Where, exactly?
Do you mean where I have used that or where these flights are?

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #116 on: October 20, 2017, 04:35:37 PM »
Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.
What are you not understanding?
No we aren't.
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
Where, exactly?
Do you mean where I have used that or where these flights are?

Quote
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
Where?


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

Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #117 on: October 20, 2017, 05:04:50 PM »
Quote
We are using these flights to show you can't have a FE model that works.
Where?
So rather than answer a simple question you pretty much just repeat the same question.

Fine, I explained it here, among other places:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72377.msg1972270#msg1972270

Now going to actually address it, or just continue your pretence of wilful ignorance?

*

rabinoz

  • 24908
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #118 on: October 20, 2017, 07:20:14 PM »
Anyway, how is my argument any less valid than the current counter argument?
I have yet to see any argument from you other than one starting from:
You start with the assumption that the Earth is flat. These flights clearly are NOT impossible. Thus, these flights are possible on a flat Earth.
Starting a debate with an assumption that cannot be falsified is not valid reasoning.

Right. You are including the assumption that there is an official flat Earth model, and on it these flights don't work. This is demonstrably false.
What are you not understanding?
I am understanding everything quite well, thank you. You are the one pleading argumentum ad ignorantiam.

No, I am claiming that the air route distances cannot fit on any flat surface.

For example take the international airports at Johannesburg (JNB), Dubai (DBX), Beijing (PEK) and Sydney (SYD).
The nominal distances between these airports (from Great Circle Mapper) is:
   
DBX
   
PEK
   
SYD
JNB
   
6,390 km
   
11,699 km
   
11,045 km
DBX
   
xxx
   
5,857 km
   
12,039 km
PEK
   
xxx
   
xxx
   
8,934 km

Now if we take the Johannesburg (JNB) to Sydney (Syd) flight (11,119 km) as a baseline we can use
      the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to DXB and JNB to DXB to calculate the location of Dubai, relative to Johannesburg and Sydney and use
      the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to PEK and SYD to PEK to calculate the location of Beijing, relative to Johannesburg and Sydney.
Then the distance from Dubai to Beijing can be calculated or scaled off a diagram - I did both.

This shown here:

JNB-DBX-PEK-SYD Flat Air Routes
This distance from Dubai to Beijing is 7,591 km calculated in Excel.
But the actual air route distance from Dubai to Beijing is not 7,608 km but 5,857 km.
So these flight distances do not fit on any flat surface.

Now the distances I have used are just the nominal distances and real flight distances would all be a little longer.

Some other kind person might like to go to the trouble of looking up actual flights on FlightRadar24 or FlightAware, QANTAS QFA64, JNB to SYD.


<< Distance Sydney to Beijing corrected - little effect of result >>
« Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 05:41:30 AM by rabinoz »

*

JerkFace

  • 10389
  • Looking for Occam
Re: SYD to SCL and flight range
« Reply #119 on: October 20, 2017, 08:05:24 PM »
Do you not see the similarities here?
I think you need to get your eyes checked if that is the case.

LOL,  I might have to raise you to one of the upper echelons of trolldom,  5/10.    persistent, but still a little too obvious.
I actually think he's another of sceptimatic's characters.  Two things they all have in common is the use of baseless assertion as fact, and the dismissal of actual evidence without any reasonable cause.  These two things are infuriating for people who possess rational thought and are sure to provoke a response. 

For all I know, the person behind the computer doesn't even believe any of this crap, but just enjoys getting a rise out of people on various characters about various things.

Head of nail,  meet the hammer. 

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.