flight times

  • 108 Replies
  • 16134 Views
flight times
« on: January 14, 2007, 06:54:07 AM »
Hi all, greetings from an open-minded RE-er.

My question is similar to one on the FAQ, but the FAQ didn't provide me with an acceptable answer so here goes...

A direct 747 flight from Santiago, Chile to Auckland, New Zealand takes about 11 and 1/2 hours.  Hopefully we can all agree on that being a fact.  In round earth theory this tallies well with a cruising speed of around 600mph.  However, judging by the flat earth maps that are shown on this site, the distance between these cities looks to be around 18000 miles - requiring a cruising speed of around 1600mph - faster than Concorde.

What is the FE stance on this?  Are standard commercial 747s capable of this speed?  If so - since their path crosses a lot of land - how come no one ever hears the sonic boom?  Would it be necessary in FE theory to then deny either the existance of sonic booms and/or speed of sound?  

Rational explanations preferred.
Thanks for your time.

flight times
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2007, 07:41:36 AM »
Its clearly a conspiracy.... you actually don't get on the plane. The big bad government drug EVERYBODY and put them in a simulation... and when you get out, they put you in this computer program (similar to the matrix) and you think you are on holiday!!!!

ZOMGX0RZ!

 :shock:

Thats the kind of answer you are gonna get dude... Round Earther speaking here.

flight times
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2007, 09:27:31 AM »
That's because these guys use azimuthal projections as factual representation.

As a matter of fact, these have the same biases as map projections do.

This means that the "flat earth', is invalid.

flight times
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2007, 10:52:40 AM »
I appreciate the posts guys, but I would like to hear a FE response before we start a flame.

FE-ers: anyone out there?

flight times
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2007, 11:36:22 AM »
Quote from: "brit"
I appreciate the posts guys, but I would like to hear a FE response before we start a flame.

FE-ers: anyone out there?

Fat chance. I posted the same thing a long time ago, and was barely even acknowledged.
Proof that the FE model is bogus (read through the thread, or skip to page five for the math):
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7929&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2007, 11:51:04 AM »
In FE distances are relative to distances in RE.

flight times
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2007, 11:55:52 AM »
I am not really sure what you mean by that.  My question does not rely on any reference to round earth.  I'll try and make it more concrete so it only needs a yes/no answer:

1.  You MUST concede that in FE the distance involved is 18000 miles.
2.  You MUST concede that it is possible to fly the distance in 11.5hrs.
3.  Following from this, using speed=dist/time (I really hope you don't deny that), you MUST concede that the flight speed reaches in excess of 1600mph.

Yes or no?

?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2007, 12:01:17 PM »
The distance would not be "about 1,800 miles," but exactly the same as the distance in RE.

Remember, there is no scale in the FE map projections.

flight times
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2007, 12:08:07 PM »
1.  From the FAQ:
Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles

2.  If you are claiming the distance on the FE map from Chile to NZ/Aus is 6300 miles (which is about what it is in RE) then is everything else on that direct path compressed too?  Is continental America now 1/3 of the distance too?

?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2007, 12:12:07 PM »
No. America is exactly the same size as it is in RE.

Like many map projections, azimuthal projections are used for visualization, not to chart accurate distances.

flight times
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2007, 12:15:37 PM »
In that case, could you provide a scaled map that demonstrates both your assertions:

1.  That the earth is on a two-dimensional disc.
2.  That 2 given cities (or even arbitrary points) on this map can be measured to be equal to the distance between these 2 places on a round earth globe.

If the world is flat, this should be easy to do.

EDIT:
On round earth, distance from southernmost tip of South America to mid-Alaska (ie length of continental America) is about 9000 miles.  You claim that on flat earth this distance is the same.  On FE this line forms part of the longer path between Chile and NZ, a distance you've already claimed is about 6000 miles.  In other words, IRRELEVENT of any scale or projections, you are claiming the following:

Distance A:  <-------------------------------------------------->
Distance B:                    <--------------------------->

and B > A.  I hope you can see how this is impossible.
[/b]

flight times
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2007, 01:18:56 PM »
Tom, here's a picture to illustrate the point:

The time is the same in both cases. Therefore, the speed must be much higher, in order to get to the same place at the same time. If this were the case, however, the speeds required would cause a sonic boom, that many people would hear. There is no such case of this ever happening.
To get from Santiago, Chile, to Auckland, New Zealand in 11 hours is impossible on a flat earth.
Proof that the FE model is bogus (read through the thread, or skip to page five for the math):
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7929&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

flight times
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2007, 01:37:38 PM »


This was my point in response to your explanation tom.  To quote you:

1.  America is exactly the same size as it is in RE.
In RE we take this to be 9000 miles

2.  (referring to distance between Chile and NZ) The distance would not be "about 1,800 miles,"(sic) but exactly the same as the distance in RE.
In RE we take this to be 6300 miles.

Now no amount of skewing of the above map can account for what you are claiming.

?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2007, 01:52:32 PM »
The above map does not preserve distances between continents. Also, planes do not travel in that fashion.

The fallacy of your arguments is neglecting the curvature of the earth in the RE model. On a globe, you are also curving as you travel, curving around the globe. But you do not see this difference because in your mind you are traveling in a straight line on a 2D globe.

The additional distance you are curving around the globe in RE is directly proportional to the amount of perceptual distance apparent in the FE model. Distances stay the same in both models, but on a computer screen comparisons look different because the RE globe is projected onto a 2D environment.

flight times
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2007, 02:00:30 PM »
I'll ask again... can you show me a top-down map of FE that corroborates the assertions you've made.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
flight times
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2007, 02:01:58 PM »
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
The above map does not preserve distances between continents.


That's your first flaw. You said:

Quote from: "fuckin liar"
America is exactly the same size as it is in RE.


One cannot be the other, Tom. By the first quote, you have rendered your original statement false, and you have just been made a liar.

?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2007, 02:10:57 PM »
Quote
I'll ask again... can you show me a top-down map of FE that corroborates the assertions you've made.


Firstly, I am not a cartographer.

Secondly, if I were to charter another FE map it would be pointless because you will immediately take my map and compare distances to a two dimensional globe. You will then repost the maps, showing that the distance in FE is clearly longer than the distance in RE.

The distances on the FE map will always seem perceptually longer because you are not comprehending the curvature of the earth in the RE model. This additional curvature causes distances on the FE map to seem perceptually longer.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
flight times
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2007, 02:13:39 PM »
No Tom. Stop ignoring the facts.

I called you a liar. Here's why:

Quote
America is exactly the same size as it is in RE.


then you said:

Quote
The above map does not preserve distances between continents.


By your second statement, you have nullified you're first one, because the distance between coasts on an FE map would not equal the distance on an RE map.

So make up your mind Tom, and stick to it. You're giving a bad name to the FE model.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
flight times
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2007, 02:14:33 PM »
Quote from: "timewarp"
To get from Santiago, Chile, to Auckland, New Zealand in 11 hours is impossible on a flat earth.


I'm guessing you found this from my earlier post here .  You are partially right, but assuming one takes the shortest distance on the FE the distances come out much shorter.  

If you wanted to have some fun you should calculate the length of a geodesic between the two cities projected on a flat earth.

I'll give you a couple equations to use even.

Update:  I will not give you equations on second thought.  The equation of the geodesic line is a 2nd-order diff-eq with 9 terms.  I don't care that much, and I doubt you do either.

?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2007, 02:15:05 PM »
Quote
By the first quote, you have rendered your original statement false, and you have just been made a liar.


America is the same size in both models.

I do not claim any particular map in FE to be accurate representations of the flat earth. The maps you are looking at are just rough visual aids, distances are only accurate between a few points.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
flight times
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2007, 02:19:15 PM »
You did it again.

You claim that America is the same size, the same size, the same size, THE SAME GOD DAMN SIZE and then you go and say that distances are not preserved in an FE map.

Well, if they aren't preserved, then they aren't the same size, now are they?

?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2007, 02:26:12 PM »
America is almost exactly the same size in FE, geometrically. But distances are not preserved in that particular FE map. What about that does your small mind not understand?

The FE model is a theory held together with scientific proofs, not any one specific map rendition.

flight times
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2007, 02:28:13 PM »
Ok...

Tom, ignoring any distances for now, would you say that on the FE disc you can roughly draw a straight line across the diameter that goes through both Chile and New Zealand?  And by FE disc I don't mean the picture above, I just mean some top-down view of FE.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
flight times
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2007, 02:32:04 PM »
Here's an article on map projection and distance preservation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection

Your FE map was stated by you not to preserve any distances.

Yet you claim that everything would be the same size by stating America would be the same size on both. Well, logically, that means you contradicted yourself, because if distances are not preserved, then it would not be the same size on both maps.

What don't you seem to understand about that?

Quote from: "Tom"
America is almost exactly the same size in FE, geometrically.


First it was exactly, now it's almost exactly? Make up your damn mind Tom. Please, for the sake of the FE defense, make it up.

?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2007, 02:32:48 PM »
Quote from: "brit"
Ok...

Tom, ignoring any distances for now, would you say that on the FE disc you can roughly draw a straight line across the diameter that goes through both Chile and New Zealand?  And by FE disc I don't mean the picture above, I just mean some top-down view of FE.


Yes, you can. A route like that would take you across the flat earth.

Quote
Here's an article on map projection and distance preservation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection

Your FE map was stated by you not to preserve any distances.

Yet you claim that everything would be the same size by stating America would be the same size on both. Well, logically, that means you contradicted yourself, because if distances are not preserved, then it would not be the same size on both maps.

What don't you seem to understand about that?


Size as in geometry, not distance. Are you really that dense? If I meant distance I would have said distance.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
flight times
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2007, 02:34:13 PM »
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Quote from: "brit"
Ok...

Tom, ignoring any distances for now, would you say that on the FE disc you can roughly draw a straight line across the diameter that goes through both Chile and New Zealand?  And by FE disc I don't mean the picture above, I just mean some top-down view of FE.


Yes, you can. A route like that would take you across the flat earth.


He is correct, unfortunately.

flight times
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2007, 02:35:10 PM »
Ok.  So we can break that diameter up into 3 sections:

A: Distance from ice wall to Chile.
B: Distance from Chile to New Zealand.
C: Distance from New Zealand to opposite ice wall.

And A+B+C=24000 miles.  Correct?

?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2007, 02:39:25 PM »
Quote from: "brit"
Ok.  So we can break that diameter up into 3 sections:

A: Distance from ice wall to Chile.
B: Distance from Chile to New Zealand.
C: Distance from New Zealand to opposite ice wall.

And A+B+C=24000 miles.  Correct?


Where are you getting these figures from?

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
flight times
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2007, 02:41:35 PM »
You're so retarded Tom. You truly have no experience in even using a map, it's ever apparent now.

And you can't make such claims about distances and the size of something. They directly correlate with each other, numbnuts.

flight times
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2007, 02:43:42 PM »
Ok.  Start from the ice wall nearest Chile.  Using ratios (ie not absolute distances) can you make an estimation as to the distance between the ice wall and Chile.  Note I have not asked for an accurate distance, just a rough estimate, eg 1/10, as in "the distance from the ice wall to Chile is about 1/10 of the whole distance across".