SYD to SCL and flight range

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2017, 04:35:37 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?

My willful ignorance?

Seriously?

You keep doing the same thing. You're trying to prove your point with demonstrably flawed, non-agreed-upon models.

If we had a model akin to the dogmatic one of the round Earth, and the flights didn't work, that would tell us something. Proving that it doesn't work on broken models that random people made is not helping anything.

Do you see the problem yet? Do I need to word it a few more ways?

There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2017, 03:49:07 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on October 20, 2017, 03:42:19 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2017, 03:07:45 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:

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 19, 2017, 05:44:22 AM

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 TravelAids, Flight Distance Mileage Calculator) is:

		DBX		PEK		SYD
JNB		6,380 km		11,699 km		11,119 km
DBX		xxx		5,860 km		12,008 km
PEK		xxx		xxx		8,774 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 read from the diagram is 7607 km or 7,608 km calculated in Excel.

But the actual air route distance from Dubai to Beijing is not 7,608 km but 5,860 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.

Isn't that inconsistent with your model? Shouldn't the flights be longer than what flat geometry would suggest? If you take a flat line and curve it, it gets larger, not smaller.

There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.

Bzzzt,   Sorry, fatal logic error.   The flight times disprove all possible flat earth maps.   

The fact that you didn't understand the differences between euclidean and non-euclidean is your downfall. 

My willful ignorance?

Yes, with you continually ignoring what I have said.
You have knowledge presented to you which you are wilfully choosing to ignore/reject.
That means you are wilfully ignorant.

You keep doing the same thing. You're trying to prove your point with demonstrably flawed, non-agreed-upon models.

I keep doing the same thing, proving that Earth can't be flat.
Yes, these models are demonstrably flawed, because Earth isn't flat.
But I used the flights to show what attributes the model must have assuming Earth is flat and reached a contradiction, showing Earth isn't flat.

If we had a model akin to the dogmatic one of the round Earth, and the flights didn't work, that would tell us something. Proving that it doesn't work on broken models that random people made is not helping anything.

No, not a dogmatic one, one which matches reality.
The fact you have so many flawed models and not a single working model while RE has a single working model, tells us something.
It tells us your FE garbage cannot explain reality, that you need to appeal to different models for different parts.

Do you see the problem yet? Do I need to word it a few more ways?

Yes, I see the problem, EARTH ISN'T FLAT!!
It is impossible to construct a working model of Earth which is flat.
And the other problem is that you don't give a shit about the truth or reality and are happy to just keep spouting ignorant garbage.

There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.

Again, the lack of an official model doesn't mean we can't prove that it's impossible.
We can show what attributes the model MUST have and show that it contradicts itself.

Isn't that inconsistent with your model? Shouldn't the flights be longer than what flat geometry would suggest? If you take a flat line and curve it, it gets larger, not smaller.

No. It isn't inconsistent with our model.
Why would taking a flat line and curving it make it larger rather than smaller?
Perhaps you should try thinking about it the other way. You take a round surface, and then stretch it out so it is flat.

Quote from: rabinoz on October 20, 2017, 07:20:14 PM

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 TravelAids, Flight Distance Mileage Calculator) is:
<< see below >>
Now if we take the Johannesburg (JNB) to Sydney (Syd) flight (11,045 km) as a baseline we can use
      the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to DXB and SYD 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, say using Excel.

This shown here:

JNB-DBX-PEK-SYD Flat Air Routes

This distance from Dubai to Beijing read from the diagram is 7951 km calculated in Excel.

But the actual air route distance from Dubai to Beijing is not 7951 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.

Isn't that inconsistent with your model? Shouldn't the flights be longer than what flat geometry would suggest? If you take a flat line and curve it, it gets larger, not smaller.

Not at all I am not trying to compare the distanEs between Dubai and Beijing on the flat earth and the Globe.

What I have done is to show that the following set of air route distances cannot fit on any flat surface.

In those calculations the location of
      Dubai is determined by the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to DXB and SYD to DXB and of
      Beijing is determined by the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to PEK and SYD to PEK.
Then the resulting Dubai to Beijing distance is found not to match the real distance.

Three locations make a triangle that can always be fitted onto a plane, but a fourth with flights to the other three will not necessarily fit onto a plane surface.

You try some other combinations or routes and see if you can fit them onto a plane.

When I get onto a computer I'll show the points on the Globe.

<< Distances "tidied up, esp Sydney to Beijing - little effect on result >>

Quote from: JackBlack on October 20, 2017, 05:04:50 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2017, 04:35:37 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?

My willful ignorance?

Seriously?

You keep doing the same thing. You're trying to prove your point with demonstrably flawed, non-agreed-upon models.

If we had a model akin to the dogmatic one of the round Earth, and the flights didn't work, that would tell us something. Proving that it doesn't work on broken models that random people made is not helping anything.

Do you see the problem yet? Do I need to word it a few more ways?

There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.

You do not need a flat earth 'model', just need to map times and distances to a 2 dimensional flat surface.  Draw some lines and see if they fit.

You keep doing the same thing. You're trying to prove your point with demonstrably flawed, non-agreed-upon models.

This from a flatter, priceless.

Maybe you guys need to dumb it down a bit for AltSkepti/R2dc3po.

Here's an easy experiment that this flatter with a degree in science can perform.

Equipment needed:
 1 ball
Wrapping paper

Instructions :

1. Wrap ball without cutting, folding, creasing, or wetting paper

2.  Flee thread

...

There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.

You are as unlogisch as you can be.
You now claim that because there is no evidence for your claim, you can not be proven wrong.

OK than I can claim you are dump as a door nail, and because I have no proven for it you can not disprove the prove and therefore you can not disprove me therefore I am right.
See I am right that you are dump as a door nail. 

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 21, 2017, 01:28:49 AM

...

There is no official flat Earth model, and so no way to prove that it's impossible.

You are as unlogisch as you can be.
You now claim that because there is no evidence for your claim, you can not be proven wrong.

OK than I can claim you are dump as a door nail, and because I have no proven for it you can not disprove the prove and therefore you can not disprove me therefore I am right.
See I am right that you are dump as a door nail. 

... Dump as a doornail?

You can claim anything you want. It doesn't make it true, necessarily. If you have no way to prove a claim wrong, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, Newton's Flaming Laser Sword applies. Thus, this (flight times) is not a topic worthy of debate.

If you have no way to prove a claim wrong, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, Newton's Flaming Laser Sword applies. Thus, this (flight times) is not a topic worthy of debate.

Except that flight times can be falsified.  In fact, they're falsified all the time by the airline industry and passengers who take those flights.

You can claim anything you want. It doesn't make it true, necessarily. If you have no way to prove a claim wrong, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, Newton's Flaming Laser Sword applies. Thus, this (flight times) is not a topic worthy of debate.

Following your line of BS (it isn't logical and I'm not going to call it that), what this would actually mean is that the FE is an unfalsifiable hypothesis and thus not a topic worthy of debate.
Your response seems to repeatedly be that there is no official FE model and thus nothing to falsify.
So it is FE that is garbage unworthy of debate.

The flight times can be falsified.

But of course, that is still just a load of BS.
You don't need an official model to falsify it.
You can show requirements that the model must have, and show they lead to a contradiction, as I did, which you ignored.
So not only can FE be falsified using flight times/distances, it has been.

You can claim anything you want. It doesn't make it true, necessarily. If you have no way to prove a claim wrong, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, Newton's Flaming Laser Sword applies. Thus, this (flight times) is not a topic worthy of debate.

Flight distances,  confirmed by flight times, cannot be fitted onto any flat surface.

Therefore, since as you have admitted these flights exist, the earth cannot be flat.

End of story.

If you want to dispute the above conclusion, you try fitting the distances of the following flights onto any flat surface:
London to Beijing, Beijing to Los Angeles and Los Angeles to London.
Then:
Johannesburg to Sydney, Sydney to Santiago, Santiago to Buenos Aires and Buenos Aires to Johannesburg.

I doubt that you'll manage that, but a few connecting flights will put the kibosh on that.

Have fun on your Pizza Planet!

Can we now claim that if the stated air route distances are reasonably close that given by the airlines then
Any objections?

Wow, you guys really take this stuff and run with it! So here's more! We talked about an upper limit to the distance that a commercial flight can have based on flight time, speed, and range; but I think we can also talk about a lower limit. This would enable northern hemisphere flights to contradict FE models, by showing that an airliner cannot fly too slowly and hide that from the passengers. I'll spare the forum the details of the calculation, but based on my original comparison where the FE and RE models share the same equatorial circumference, the flight from NYC to Dubai (similar time and distance as the SYD to SCL) would have to fly with a nose up pitch of about 9 degrees in order to make the flight time work out right on the FE model. I'd have to revise this based on the amount of fuel onboard and the size of the FE model, but the basic premise holds that flights also cannot fly too slow without passengers noticing. You can use the lift equation to make this fairly simple calculation based on air density, speed, wing area, and angle of attack.

So here's more! We talked about an upper limit to the distance that a commercial flight can have based on flight time, speed, and range; but I think we can also talk about a lower limit. This would enable northern hemisphere flights to contradict FE models, by showing that an airliner cannot fly too slowly and hide that from the passengers. I'll spare the forum the details of the calculation, but based on my original comparison where the FE and RE models share the same equatorial circumference,

Fine, but on the "standard North Polar AEP map" (that no-one will admit is "the official map") the diameter of the "so-called known earth" is given as 24,900 miles or 40,073 km.
This makes the equatorial circumference 62,947 km, far bigger that the equatorial circumference of the real earth.

the flight from NYC to Dubai (similar time and distance as the SYD to SCL) would have to fly with a nose up pitch of about 9 degrees in order to make the flight time work out right on the FE model. I'd have to revise this based on the amount of fuel onboard and the size of the FE model, but the basic premise holds that flights also cannot fly too slow without passengers noticing. You can use the lift equation to make this fairly simple calculation based on air density, speed, wing area, and angle of attack.

I think that you need to present your flat earth distances first, because from what I can see in much of Northern Hemisphere, the AEP map is not "very" far out. Here are a couple of FE maps with some of my distaces.Though I haven't looked at your route yet.

Best of luck.

Yes, I agree that the FE model size is relevant for determining the angle of attack that a commercial flight must have to maintain the speed that matches the duration of the flight. My main point is that the size of the FE model becomes irrelevant when you consider the SYD-SCL flight and the JFK-DXB flights simultaneously. The two cannot coexist on any size FE model: too small, and the JFK-DXB requires an extreme flight attitude and too large, and the SYD-SCL requires surpassing mach 1.

Yes, I agree that the FE model size is relevant for determining the angle of attack that a commercial flight must have to maintain the speed that matches the duration of the flight. My main point is that the size of the FE model becomes irrelevant when you consider the SYD-SCL flight and the JFK-DXB flights simultaneously. The two cannot coexist on any size FE model: too small, and the JFK-DXB requires an extreme flight attitude and too large, and the SYD-SCL requires surpassing mach 1.

Also, just a suggestion, but if you take two sets of routes, one circumnavigating the earth in the Northern Hemisphere,
         say, LHR to PEK, PEK to LAX and LAX to London.
And one circumnavigating the earth in the Southern Hemisphere,
         say, JNB to SYD, SYD to SCL, SCL to EZE and EZE to JNB.
It will totally impossible to fit those distances onto any flat surface, especially if a couple of North-South routes are added,
         say, LHR to JNB and PEK to SYD.

I might tackle it one day, but rather than simply relying of Globe distances, I would like to get actual flight distances, flight times and aircraft speeds.

One day.