Black listed aircraft companies: Qantas, Lan, Latam, South African, Sichuan Airl

  • 486 Replies
  • 27913 Views
*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence


https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL2036/history/20200211/1825Z/UUEE/LROP

Does anybody want to guess why Moscow to Bucharest avoids flying through Ukraine?
Flat Earth?
Or real world political issues between Russia and Ukraine?

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
This is even Better.


Wise, can you explain why the plane would almost fly in a circle to get to its destination if it was not for political reasons?





https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL1844/history/20200211/1930Z/UUEE/LUKK


Are you yet ready to accept that flight paths are a terrible way to determine distance?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
What a perfect map.  ^-^



This one is going from China to China. You can not talk about international flight zones. I guess China does not prevent China to use its air zone. Pilots fliying this route are constantly drawing two edges of rectangle, instead of a direct line equal to hypotenuse. Maybe you globalists should teach Chinese pilots the geometry.  ^-^

Link: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/CES2112/history/20200210/0720Z/ZBAA/ZLXY



this workplace is on strike

This one is going from China to China. You can not talk about international flight zones.
But you can talk about air corridors.

I guess China does not prevent China to use its air zone.
No, they do.
Most planes are restricted to specific air corridors, especially over land.

Pilots fliying this route are constantly drawing two edges of rectangle
Almost like there are a grid of corridors they are restricted to fly in.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
This one is going from China to China. You can not talk about international flight zones. I guess China does not prevent China to use its air zone. Pilots fliying this route are constantly drawing two edges of rectangle, instead of a direct line equal to hypotenuse. Maybe you globalists should teach Chinese pilots the geometry.  ^-^
Again, as you have now been told about a million times. There are a lot of reasons why flights dont go directly from one spot to the next.
We just showed you a couple, and there are probably millions more.

If your goal is to become an expert at flight path planning and international air law, I can suggest starting off by chatting to an actual pilot.
Then go learn to fly a plane.
Then fly about a 1000 hours after which you can do your Com Air licence
Then start studying international air law (remember each country has its own laws)
Then you will finally have the grasp of the basics of the topic.

All you are doing is proving that using flight paths is an unreliable way to measure distance on a map.
You are actually proving that your map is not ever going to work.

*

Stash

  • 5713
What a perfect map.  ^-^



This one is going from China to China. You can not talk about international flight zones. I guess China does not prevent China to use its air zone. Pilots fliying this route are constantly drawing two edges of rectangle, instead of a direct line equal to hypotenuse. Maybe you globalists should teach Chinese pilots the geometry.  ^-^

Link: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/CES2112/history/20200210/0720Z/ZBAA/ZLXY



Any number of reasons really. All of which have been spelled out already. Who knows really. This is a rather short flight using a smaller plane, an A321 regional jet. It's max speed on the flight was in the mid 350's mph, altitude, sub-30k feet. From overlaying the path on a topo map, looks like the route may aim to fly over as few mountain passes as possible and stay in line with major cities - Which planes tend to do, for emergencies and such.



You'd have to ask the pilot/airline why that corridor is commonly used, but I'm sure they have reasons. And I'm sure it's not because they are battling the shape of the earth.

You really need to up your game here. There are too many variables in commercial flight to strictly pin distances and conversely, there are too many variables to to discount the longer southern flights that don't fit into your model. I think a revamp/rework of your model is in order to be considered a viable alternative to what is used globally, successfully, 1000's times a day by 10,000's of people.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
This one is going from China to China. You can not talk about international flight zones. I guess China does not prevent China to use its air zone. Pilots fliying this route are constantly drawing two edges of rectangle, instead of a direct line equal to hypotenuse. Maybe you globalists should teach Chinese pilots the geometry.  ^-^
Again, as you have now been told about a million times. There are a lot of reasons why flights dont go directly from one spot to the next.
We just showed you a couple, and there are probably millions more.

If your goal is to become an expert at flight path planning and international air law, I can suggest starting off by chatting to an actual pilot.
Then go learn to fly a plane.
Then fly about a 1000 hours after which you can do your Com Air licence
Then start studying international air law (remember each country has its own laws)
Then you will finally have the grasp of the basics of the topic.

All you are doing is proving that using flight paths is an unreliable way to measure distance on a map.
You are actually proving that your map is not ever going to work.

I am not talking about proboblities or possiblities. I am giving you a direct evidence, hence you have to debunk it directly instead of bla bla.
You'd have to ask the pilot/airline why that corridor is commonly used, but I'm sure they have reasons. And I'm sure it's not because they are battling the shape of the earth.

Prove the sure evidences you are talking about instead of baseless claiming. I don't interest what you sure. Your being sure isn't an evidence and does not explain why these pilots constantly using wrong paths.


this workplace is on strike

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
Wise, all you have done is helped us prove that flight times is a bad way to measure distance.
You have given us direct evidence that flights can not and do not simply draw a direct line from point A to point B. Especially over land.
This would be even true if the world was flat.
Even if the world was Flat, this method would not work because you would STILL have all the issues we have mentioned.
Even in a flat world planes would have to plan their routes according to many many factors.

You have not given any evidence that air craft
A- Fly perfect direct routes (even if the world was flat)
B- Always maintain a perfect ground speed

Unless you can at least satisfy those claims you cant measure distance with their flight times.
Its simple geometry.

*

Stash

  • 5713
You'd have to ask the pilot/airline why that corridor is commonly used, but I'm sure they have reasons. And I'm sure it's not because they are battling the shape of the earth.

Prove the sure evidences you are talking about instead of baseless claiming. I don't interest what you sure. Your being sure isn't an evidence and does not explain why these pilots constantly using wrong paths.

I already did with your first example between Taipei and Shanghai, decidedly so. All those even minded looking at the evidence would result in, "Yeah, political boundaries, no fly zones, China vs Taiwan, all makes sense..." So hardly a 'baseless claim'. The evidence is there. You provided none for whatever assertion you were trying to make.

As for the flight from Bejing to Xi'an, I don't know. I just simply proposed some of the more common reasons commercial airplanes don't always fly in a straight line. There are many.

Underlying all of this is that your research is flawed, I hate to say it. I mean is discounts all of the reasons a plane may divert, circle, avert danger, avert political boundaries, avert traffic, the whole gamut. It's just not scientific at all. I mean 1000's of people fly all of these routes everyday, 365, and here you are saying that they're all 'doing it wrong', just doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, sorry.

The "I can't fit a flight on my map means that the flight doesn't exist" thing just doesn't work anymore. You have to do way better. And research more. I did an hour or so of research on the Taipei and Shanghai flight you originally referenced and found out all the ways it works due to politics and territories (as did others). You should do deeper dives as well.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
Wise, all you have done is helped us prove that flight times is a bad way to measure distance.
You have given us direct evidence that flights can not and do not simply draw a direct line from point A to point B. Especially over land.
This would be even true if the world was flat.
Even if the world was Flat, this method would not work because you would STILL have all the issues we have mentioned.
Even in a flat world planes would have to plan their routes according to many many factors.

You have not given any evidence that air craft
A- Fly perfect direct routes (even if the world was flat)
B- Always maintain a perfect ground speed

Unless you can at least satisfy those claims you cant measure distance with their flight times.
Its simple geometry.

It is a direct line on the flat earth map. Because the distance shown on the map is wrong. The path perfectly overlaps with a flat earth map, my flat earth map.

You'd have to ask the pilot/airline why that corridor is commonly used, but I'm sure they have reasons. And I'm sure it's not because they are battling the shape of the earth.

Prove the sure evidences you are talking about instead of baseless claiming. I don't interest what you sure. Your being sure isn't an evidence and does not explain why these pilots constantly using wrong paths.

I already did with your first example between Taipei and Shanghai, decidedly so. All those even minded looking at the evidence would result in, "Yeah, political boundaries, no fly zones, China vs Taiwan, all makes sense..." So hardly a 'baseless claim'. The evidence is there. You provided none for whatever assertion you were trying to make.

As for the flight from Bejing to Xi'an, I don't know. I just simply proposed some of the more common reasons commercial airplanes don't always fly in a straight line. There are many.

Underlying all of this is that your research is flawed, I hate to say it. I mean is discounts all of the reasons a plane may divert, circle, avert danger, avert political boundaries, avert traffic, the whole gamut. It's just not scientific at all. I mean 1000's of people fly all of these routes everyday, 365, and here you are saying that they're all 'doing it wrong', just doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, sorry.

The "I can't fit a flight on my map means that the flight doesn't exist" thing just doesn't work anymore. You have to do way better. And research more. I did an hour or so of research on the Taipei and Shanghai flight you originally referenced and found out all the ways it works due to politics and territories (as did others). You should do deeper dives as well.

Nope. I did answered it by drawing a path isn't passing the borders. But you are denying it. Repeating same thing and your BS claims do not prove I don't reply you. Because you have not enough evidences repeating same wrong things. I do not have to repeatedly reply them. I have replied it for once and it has ended. If I want to continue, I can give you examples passing on those borders. But this is childish, because you have already an excuse; national borders, high mountains, a pregnant starts to born in every plane, a corona virus everytime forces plane come back,... etc. I don't use excuses like you do. This path is a straight line in a flat map and without using excuses.

Your desperate denying the fact attemps are triggering me to create a video about it and publish it in Believers forum and youtube.


this workplace is on strike

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
So just for clarity, in your mind, all aircraft

A - fly directly to their destination the second their wheels lift off the tarmac. Ignoring all international borders, military no fly zones, areas of conflict, missile testing areas, storms and mountains.
B - all aircraft have a consistent ground speed of 1000km/h regardless of the fact that they need to gain altitude before they can get to max cruise speed. Some may be smaller prop planes. Does not matter, they all have the exact speed.

is this what your saying?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
So just for clarity, in your mind, all aircraft

A - fly directly to their destination the second their wheels lift off the tarmac. Ignoring all international borders, military no fly zones, areas of conflict, missile testing areas, storms and mountains.
B - all aircraft have a consistent ground speed of 1000km/h regardless of the fact that they need to gain altitude before they can get to max cruise speed. Some may be smaller prop planes. Does not matter, they all have the exact speed.

is this what your saying?

Not quite. There are some situations where planes have to spend time on take-off and landing, and they vary for different airports. This effect is generally higher at short distances and proportionally less at long distances. basically there is no difference whether the place where an airplane passes over 10km height (above 30.000ft) is mountainous or sea level. proceeds directly on a route at a constant speed. Similar results appear in the thousands of cases I have studied. planes are not affected by high wind. Because the atmoplane is going to less when you go above hence the wind affects go to zero when you go above. however, since the departure and return routes are shown differently on the map, they note this as the opposite wind because they actually pass the same distance faster. whereas the effect of wind does not slow down the speed of an aircraft 10k meters high. this is the effect of opening the windows as you travel in a vehicle. Although the plane slows down with the wind coming from the opposite direction, for example, its speed from 906 km / h decreases to 905 km / h. this is the effect. however, where maps are wrong, such as China, Russia, and Australia, one plane appears to be moving twice as fast as the other. To explain this, the first is said to move with the jetstream, the other is said to move against the wind. whereas all these distances are consistent and speeds are constant on a flat world map, as in real life.

In the first example above, you explained the faults of the routes with the forbidden air zone. For the second, you provided fictitious reasons. institutions that would lie with higher quality for direct reasons should have emerged.


this workplace is on strike

So just for clarity, in your mind, all aircraft

A - fly directly to their destination the second their wheels lift off the tarmac. Ignoring all international borders, military no fly zones, areas of conflict, missile testing areas, storms and mountains.
B - all aircraft have a consistent ground speed of 1000km/h regardless of the fact that they need to gain altitude before they can get to max cruise speed. Some may be smaller prop planes. Does not matter, they all have the exact speed.

is this what your saying?

Not quite. There are some situations where planes have to spend time on take-off and landing, and they vary for different airports. This effect is generally higher at short distances and proportionally less at long distances. basically there is no difference whether the place where an airplane passes over 10km height (above 30.000ft) is mountainous or sea level. proceeds directly on a route at a constant speed. Similar results appear in the thousands of cases I have studied. planes are not affected by high wind. Because the atmoplane is going to less when you go above hence the wind affects go to zero when you go above. however, since the departure and return routes are shown differently on the map, they note this as the opposite wind because they actually pass the same distance faster. whereas the effect of wind does not slow down the speed of an aircraft 10k meters high. this is the effect of opening the windows as you travel in a vehicle. Although the plane slows down with the wind coming from the opposite direction, for example, its speed from 906 km / h decreases to 905 km / h. this is the effect. however, where maps are wrong, such as China, Russia, and Australia, one plane appears to be moving twice as fast as the other. To explain this, the first is said to move with the jetstream, the other is said to move against the wind. whereas all these distances are consistent and speeds are constant on a flat world map, as in real life.

In the first example above, you explained the faults of the routes with the forbidden air zone. For the second, you provided fictitious reasons. institutions that would lie with higher quality for direct reasons should have emerged.

You are making a false claim by saying that wind don't have any effect on the airplanes at high altitude. Please explain why there is a difference in the flight time between Europe and the USA and from the USA to Europe. This can be up to an hour difference. I am eager to read your explanation on this.

Wise, all you have done is helped us prove that flight times is a bad way to measure distance.
You have given us direct evidence that flights can not and do not simply draw a direct line from point A to point B. Especially over land.
This would be even true if the world was flat.
Even if the world was Flat, this method would not work because you would STILL have all the issues we have mentioned.
Even in a flat world planes would have to plan their routes according to many many factors.

You have not given any evidence that air craft
A- Fly perfect direct routes (even if the world was flat)
B- Always maintain a perfect ground speed

Unless you can at least satisfy those claims you cant measure distance with their flight times.
Its simple geometry.

It is a direct line on the flat earth map. Because the distance shown on the map is wrong. The path perfectly overlaps with a flat earth map, my flat earth map.


And here is the problem. You are assuming that all the flights are straight lines and there for 'created' a map based on this. While in the real world there is no straight flight lines as already pointed out many times. It is the same as saying that all the railroads are straight because of the distance between 2 stations and create a map on this data.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
HEHEHE
Are you still telling all flight routes perfectly fits with your so-called globe map, shamelesly while you know they actually arent?

Answer it; if they perfectly overlap so why do you use some excuses like borders, winds, etc so and so. You can, we can, anybody can create endless excuses to support a weak argument. What does it mean? Give up the evilness. Admit it does not overlap, because it has been proven above whether or not you agree.


this workplace is on strike

HEHEHE
Are you still telling all flight routes perfectly fits with your so-called globe map, shamelesly while you know they actually arent?

Answer it; if they perfectly overlap so why do you use some excuses like borders, winds, etc so and so. You can, we can, anybody can create endless excuses to support a weak argument. What does it mean? Give up the evilness. Admit it does not overlap, because it has been proven above whether or not you agree.

I admit that not all flights are perfectly fit on the globe map, due to weather conditions, no fly zones, political issues and everything that is written. However this doesn't mean that the flight distances are not correct! If you look to the flight from Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Perth these are real and fits the globe map. However on a FE map and even on your 'map' it doesn't make sense.

However you did not answer my question for the time difference when flying from Europe to the USA and back. And why you are thinking that an airplane is not effected by a high altitude wind!

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
HEHEHE
Are you still telling all flight routes perfectly fits with your so-called globe map, shamelesly while you know they actually arent?

Answer it; if they perfectly overlap so why do you use some excuses like borders, winds, etc so and so. You can, we can, anybody can create endless excuses to support a weak argument. What does it mean? Give up the evilness. Admit it does not overlap, because it has been proven above whether or not you agree.

I admit that not all flights are perfectly fit on the globe map, due to weather conditions, no fly zones, political issues and everything that is written. However this doesn't mean that the flight distances are not correct! If you look to the flight from Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Perth these are real and fits the globe map. However on a FE map and even on your 'map' it doesn't make sense.

However you did not answer my question for the time difference when flying from Europe to the USA and back. And why you are thinking that an airplane is not effected by a high altitude wind!

Thanks for sincerety. I want to invite you to the game of our society, werepenguin, it is here: If you want to enter it, I'll be glad to accept you get in.

I have answered this question above before you have return here. As the altitude increases, the frequency of the atmosplane decreases. No matter how severe the winds at 30,000ft altitude, the effect will be less as its density decreases. this is the effect of opening the windows as you travel in a car. All those wind affect can not speed up or down a plane more than 1km/h in 1000km/h. But the globalists accept them as jet streams and impacts two hours in a route. This is literally impossibly. Imagine you're running against the wind. How much does the wind affect you? really little. and an airplane is much heavier than you and the relative impact of the wind will be much less.

Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Perth flights are different. There isn't any verified evidence about the route Sydney to Santiago. We have numerously discussed this, this is a very important issue but yet not a real evidence provided other than Qantas's baseless claims. Johannesburg to Perth flights flight time is wrong and those flights are not reliable. Those flight times are completely made up.


this workplace is on strike

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
HEHEHE
Are you still telling all flight routes perfectly fits with your so-called globe map?
Yes, Mr Wise, "all flight routes perfectly fits with the globe map" when the necessary deviations due to:
  • political restrictions,
  • local war risks, such as over Syria, Iran or the Ukraine,
  • terrain and other safety requirements,
  • prevailing winds, especially the jet streams, and
  • local severe weather conditions such as hurricanes are severe thunderstorms.
are correctly accounted for.

Quote from: wise
Answer it; if they perfectly overlap so why do you use some excuses like borders, winds, etc so and so. You can, we can, anybody can create endless excuses to support a weak argument. What does it mean?
Things "like borders, winds, etc" are not excuses but are simply facts that airlines have to accept.

And airlines have to plan what to do in the case of a high altitude loss of cabin pressure. If the plane cannot descend to a safe altitude passengers might be injured or die.
So normal passenger flights must be able to descend to below 10,000 feet in less than 15 minutes.

One example of a deviation caused by this restriction is the New Delhi to Beijing flight, Air China 947, that avoided the Himalayas and Tibet because the average altitude of the Tibetan plateau is over 14,000 ft - far above the normal 10,000 ft limit for a non-pressurized passenger jet.

So, Wise, please learn to face these simple facts!

I have answered this question above before you have return here. As the altitude increases, the frequency of the atmosplane decreases. No matter how severe the winds at 30,000ft altitude, the effect will be less as its density decreases. this is the effect of opening the windows as you travel in a car. All those wind affect can not speed up or down a plane more than 1km/h in 1000km/h. But the globalists accept them as jet streams and impacts two hours in a route. This is literally impossibly. Imagine you're running against the wind. How much does the wind affect you? really little. and an airplane is much heavier than you and the relative impact of the wind will be much less.

Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Perth flights are different. There isn't any verified evidence about the route Sydney to Santiago. We have numerously discussed this, this is a very important issue but yet not a real evidence provided other than Qantas's baseless claims. Johannesburg to Perth flights flight time is wrong and those flights are not reliable. Those flight times are completely made up.

The density that you mentioned has nothing to do with the high altitude wind. The fact is that there is flight time difference between Europe and the USA and vice versa. Which is real since I flew several times between these 2 continents. I think that you never make this flight? If you did then you can check it by yourself using your own watch.

Also the flight between Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Perth are real, just because this 'don't fit' to 'your map' doesn't make these are non existing flights.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
I have answered this question above before you have return here. As the altitude increases, the frequency of the atmosplane decreases. No matter how severe the winds at 30,000ft altitude, the effect will be less as its density decreases. this is the effect of opening the windows as you travel in a car. All those wind affect can not speed up or down a plane more than 1km/h in 1000km/h. But the globalists accept them as jet streams and impacts two hours in a route. This is literally impossibly. Imagine you're running against the wind. How much does the wind affect you? really little. and an airplane is much heavier than you and the relative impact of the wind will be much less.

Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Perth flights are different. There isn't any verified evidence about the route Sydney to Santiago. We have numerously discussed this, this is a very important issue but yet not a real evidence provided other than Qantas's baseless claims. Johannesburg to Perth flights flight time is wrong and those flights are not reliable. Those flight times are completely made up.

The density that you mentioned has nothing to do with the high altitude wind. The fact is that there is flight time difference between Europe and the USA and vice versa. Which is real since I flew several times between these 2 continents. I think that you never make this flight? If you did then you can check it by yourself using your own watch.

Also the flight between Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Perth are real, just because this 'don't fit' to 'your map' doesn't make these are non existing flights.

But, but you have gave two routes to me, Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Perth. And you have not mentioned time difference between Europe and America. Now you are puting forward it and blaming me. I have not denied time difference west-east and e-w flights. I have not to verify it. This has been caused by map mistakes.

I have examined many suspicious flights which was long distance. Here is the topic about it: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82172.0

I can control those flights by examining the videos whether or not the flights are real. so, I can verify the flights between Far East Asia and Europe, Far Asia and North America, Europe and North America,  Europe and South America and many others. You and some other globalists are claiming routes south America- Australia possible but have not an evidence other than claims of aircraft companies and their crime partners. We have not to accept it because you have not evidence. Your focring it to repeating it does not mean anything other than crying.


this workplace is on strike

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Perth flights are different. There isn't any verified evidence about the route Sydney to Santiago.
Incorrect!
The Sydney to Santiago route is regularly flown by Qantas and Latam Airlines, usually as a "codeshare".
Millions of passengers have flown that route!
Then New Zealand Airlines also flies non–stop from Aukland to Buenos Aries.

Your denying these does not change the facts one iota!

Quote from: wise
We have numerously discussed this,
No, we have not discussed! You have falsely claimed these things!
Quote from: wise
this is a very important issue but yet not a real evidence provided other than Qantas's baseless claims. Johannesburg to Perth flights flight time is wrong and those flights are not reliable. Those flight times are completely made up.
Rubbish! Your claims mean nothing!
Qantas flies non-stop Sydney to/from Johannesburg and South African Airlines fly non-stop Johannesburg to/from Perth - get used to it!

I showed the video where Greater Sapien (Jerry Williams) flew non-stop from Sydney to Johannesburg.
Here again!

GreaterSapien - The Day The Sun Stood Still

- QF63 SYD-JNB by WheresWa11y
       
Greater Sapien - Sydney to Johannessburg

(start @0:50)      by Jesse Kozlowski

I am not talking about proboblities or possiblities. I am giving you a direct evidence, hence you have to debunk it directly instead of bla bla.
No, you are not giving direct evidence.
You are giving wishy-washy garbage.

You are not showing any problem with a RE.
The flight is still completely possible on a RE.

Prove the sure evidences you are talking about instead of baseless claiming.
Follow your own advice.
Prove the "evidence" you are claiming, instead of repeating the same baseless claims.

Because the atmoplane is going to less when you go above hence the wind affects go to zero when you go above.
Plane need air to fly. They fly at speeds relative to the air. Wind effects them dramatically.

In order for the wind to have no effect (other than no wind), their can't be any air, which would mean the plane can't fly.

however, where maps are wrong, such as China, Russia, and Australia, one plane appears to be moving twice as fast as the other. To explain this, the first is said to move with the jetstream, the other is said to move against the wind. whereas all these distances are consistent and speeds are constant on a flat world map, as in real life.
No, they aren't.
By pretending the planes only fly in a straight line and aren't affected by wind, you need to have the times for both directions of a trip be the same, but that is pretty much never the case.

Look at almost any route and you will see a significant difference in time. For example, London to NY and vice versa.
Flight from London to NY takes roughly 8 hours:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW183/history/20200211/1955Z/EGLL/KJFK

But going back the other way typically takes 6.5 hours:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW182/history/20200212/0420Z/KJFK/EGLL

How do you explain this?
It makes no sense at all with what you claim.

If what you claim is true, the wind should have no effect and the planes should fly a basically direct route and thus take the same amount of time.

So by using your nonsense claims, we arrive at a contradiction and thus show your claims are wrong.

If you wish to disagree, how do you explain the time differences?
Or perhaps even simpler, what is the distance between London and NY, and how did you determine that?

Are you still telling all flight routes perfectly fits with your so-called globe map, shamelesly while you know they actually arent?
Can you provide a single flight where they don't fit?
Not a case of they aren't taking a straight line route, but a flight which is impossible on a globe?
I am yet to see any.

Answer it; if they perfectly overlap so why do you use some excuses like borders, winds, etc so and so. You can, we can, anybody can create endless excuses to support a weak argument. What does it mean? Give up the evilness. Admit it does not overlap, because it has been proven above whether or not you agree.
And how about you do the same for the London<->NY route I provided? Admit they don't overlap and your claims are garbage.

Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Perth flights are different. There isn't any verified evidence about the route Sydney to Santiago.
Stop lying.
There are mountains of evidence that these flights exist.
You not liking the evidence and deciding to reject it doesn't magically change that.

I have not denied time difference west-east and e-w flights.
But your argument relies upon it.
If there are these differences, there is no basis for your map as you cannot simply say a flight taking x time will be because of a distance of y.

Quote from: wise
As the altitude increases, the frequency of the atmosplane decreases. No matter how severe the winds at 30,000ft altitude, the effect will be less as its density decreases. this is the effect of opening the windows as you travel in a car. All those wind affect can not speed up or down a plane more than 1km/h in 1000km/h.

Looks like a deny to me. So please explain why there is a difference in flight time between east-west and west-east if it is not the wind that causes this.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22983
  • The Most Forum Legend
Quote from: wise
As the altitude increases, the frequency of the atmosplane decreases. No matter how severe the winds at 30,000ft altitude, the effect will be less as its density decreases. this is the effect of opening the windows as you travel in a car. All those wind affect can not speed up or down a plane more than 1km/h in 1000km/h.

Looks like a deny to me. So please explain why there is a difference in flight time between east-west and west-east if it is not the wind that causes this.

Firstly, wind can not affect an aircraft to cause two hours delay. Forget it, it is imposible. Secondly, the reason is mistakes of maps.

Maps have been created from west to east, inother say left to right. Map is completely wrong, but it is more true considering west-east than east-west. Since the map was prepared from left to right, the existing errors were tried to be corrected from left to right. however, it is impossible to correct in either direction. therefore, the map is wrong from left to right in terms of flight routes, but slightly wrong. the right-to-left map is much more wrong. this is not the case in europe. In Europe, the flight time is equal in east-west and west-east directions. As long as distance increases, the mistakes on the map increases hence occurs time differences.

but where the map is wrong, there is even a difference between, for example, west and east of australia or west and east of the usa.it is impossible to correct all errors but can be reduced. and this preference was chosen from west to east, that is, from the left to right, which is our direction of writing. Since the maps are written in this direction.

I hope no more questions will be required to ask.


this workplace is on strike

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
If wind does not effect aircraft, explain this video.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">


There are hundreds of videos of wind effecting aircraft wildly because aircraft fly relative to the air.
And if the air is moving, so does the plane.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
I hope no more questions will be required to ask.
Wise, your map is so wildly out of place, and your method of creating it is so suspect that I am completely shocked to think that there wont be any more questions.

Great claims require great evidence.

You are making a lot of great claims, so you need to provide a heck of a lot of evidence and explaination

Quote from: wise
As the altitude increases, the frequency of the atmosplane decreases. No matter how severe the winds at 30,000ft altitude, the effect will be less as its density decreases. this is the effect of opening the windows as you travel in a car. All those wind affect can not speed up or down a plane more than 1km/h in 1000km/h.

Looks like a deny to me. So please explain why there is a difference in flight time between east-west and west-east if it is not the wind that causes this.

Firstly, wind can not affect an aircraft to cause two hours delay. Forget it, it is imposible. Secondly, the reason is mistakes of maps.

Maps have been created from west to east, inother say left to right. Map is completely wrong, but it is more true considering west-east than east-west. Since the map was prepared from left to right, the existing errors were tried to be corrected from left to right. however, it is impossible to correct in either direction. therefore, the map is wrong from left to right in terms of flight routes, but slightly wrong. the right-to-left map is much more wrong. this is not the case in europe. In Europe, the flight time is equal in east-west and west-east directions. As long as distance increases, the mistakes on the map increases hence occurs time differences.

but where the map is wrong, there is even a difference between, for example, west and east of australia or west and east of the usa.it is impossible to correct all errors but can be reduced. and this preference was chosen from west to east, that is, from the left to right, which is our direction of writing. Since the maps are written in this direction.

I hope no more questions will be required to ask.

Still no clarification of the approx. 2 Hrs flight difference between Europe and the USA and vice versa which is real and you confirmed this. You can not 'blame' this on so called 'map errors'. Beside how can it be that an error works only in one direction? If there is an error then this error should be the same in both errors.

And your claim that only in Europe the flight distances are correct is false. Based on your false claim all the national flights in the USA should not be correct as in Australia, South America, Canada, Africa, China, Russia etc. Guess what? All the flight distances are correct in all these continents and Countries. No errors!

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Wait, are you saying that a map route in one direction is completely wrong, but the same route in the opposite direction is only a little wrong???

I must say, this thread is very entertaining!!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

?

frenat

  • 3577
Firstly, wind can not affect an aircraft to cause two hours delay. Forget it, it is imposible.
Every actual pilot in the world would disagree. Direct contradicting example: There were a few flights just last week flying from New York to London that hit 200 mph tailwinds and arrived 2 hours earlier than scheduled. Flights in the opposite direction were late along the same route. Wind DOES affect airplanes in flight whether you agree or not.

« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 11:05:59 AM by frenat »

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Quite simply, if the air is not dense enough for wind to effect ground speed, then it's not dense enough to provide aerodynamic lift.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Firstly, wind can not affect an aircraft to cause two hours delay. Forget it, it is imposible.
If you wish to assert it is impossible, then prove it.
So far all the evidence is against you. But that is typical for you.

Secondly, the reason is mistakes of maps.
Again, your argument relies upon it not being the case and instead that planes fly directly to their destination, following a straight line.
That has been your argument against the flights involving China.
If they aren't straight lines and instead the path is more complex for whatever reason, then all your mapping efforts based upon flight times are garbage.

And now you really have gotten yourself into an impossible place.
The only way out is to admit your mapping efforts are garbage.