« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

flight times

  • 108 Replies
  • 16861 Views
*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
flight times
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2007, 04:27:15 PM »
Quote from: "brit"
eviltoothpaste, if you can calculate FE distances between any 2 earth points to absolute accuracy (and your post implies that you claim you can) then surely you can present me with an accurate top-down map of FE?


absolutely not!   There is a big difference between calculating the distance between two points on a plane and generating an image of something as complex as that.  It's not even the same general area of knowledge.  Don't get me wrong, Brit, I think the FE is ridiculous too.  I'm just trying to be scientific (to the best of my ability, which is not vast) about my arguments.
Logged
?

brit

  • 23
flight times
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2007, 04:31:36 PM »
Ok, from the map on the post you referenced (which I must say bears little resemblance to the previous map), can you estimate the distance between Capetown, South Africa and Sydney, Australia?
Logged
?

timewarp

  • 79
flight times
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2007, 04:39:18 PM »
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "brit"
So just to be clear, from everything we've agreed on in these last few posts:  on FE, the straight-line distance between Chile and NZ is, give or take, approximately 19000 miles.  Agreed?


that is not even close; you are waaay too high.  It's more like 4500 Km.  I did the exact calculation myself from Auckland to Santiago using their specific latitudes and longitudes.  

Here is my post:  http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7663&sid=7ebcdc3b67913e75c7206f358a51cde7

Wow. Good job, except that you got it all wrong.

Your first mistake? You used the diameter of the spherical earth, for calculations involving the surface of the earth.

Your second mistake? You used the same radius in both equations. For the surface area of the round earth, you are using a completely different radius than you are for the spherical earth.

Your third mistake? When calcualting the surface area of the earth, you used the diameter, instead of the radius.

Should I continue?

Nah, I don't even want to bother. Here is how to do it the right way:
Surface area of RE=4*pi*(6,378.1 km)^2= 511,185,932.523 m^2
Surface area of FE=pi*(40,076/2)^2= 1,261,416,818.729 m^2

I will convert from polar coordinates to cartesian coordinates, then just use the distance formula.

Santiago:
theta = -70.75
length from north pole = 123.47 degrees * 111.32 km (distance between one degree of latitude) = 13,744.95 km
x = length*cos(theta) = 4,531.58
y = length*sin(theta) = -12,976.46

Auckland:
theta = 174.8
length = 14,123.45
x = -14,065.32
y = 1,280.04

Distance between two points:
sqrt((x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2) = 23,432.72 km
(This is all on the flat earth model)

Speed = distance / time
Speed = 23,432.72 / 11.33
Speed = 2,067.59 km/h


In closing;
You fail. The numbers you were criticizing for being too big were, in fact, too small.
Logged
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
?

brit

  • 23
flight times
« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2007, 04:39:43 PM »
Will continue tomorrow - need to go to bed :)

BTW Tom, are you RE or FE?

EDIT: nice one, just saw the revised calculations.  Was planning to have a look at them tomorrow but you saved me the trouble.
Logged
*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
flight times
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2007, 04:51:30 PM »
well crap!
Logged
?

timewarp

  • 79
flight times
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2007, 05:04:50 PM »
So then... that's it? There is no such thing as a flat earth, as that would require flights over most of the populated earth, and at the same time, creating a sonic boom. No one has heard such a sound. Now it is mathematically proven that FE can't exist.









 :D
Logged
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
?

timewarp

  • 79
flight times
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2007, 07:25:01 PM »
I refuse to let this one go. Someone respond to this point, or concede.
Logged
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
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
flight times
« Reply #67 on: January 14, 2007, 07:39:07 PM »
Response: I concede.


Oh wait... I'm an RE. Never mind. :wink:
Logged
?

texta

  • 116
flight times
« Reply #68 on: January 14, 2007, 07:53:45 PM »
Quote from: "timewarp"
So then... that's it? There is no such thing as a flat earth, as that would require flights over most of the populated earth, and at the same time, creating a sonic boom. No one has heard such a sound. Now it is mathematically proven that FE can't exist. :D


I would reject the notion that no one has heard a sonic boom. The Concorde and many air-force jets are obvious examples of planes that do create a sonic boom. In fact Israel uses sonic booms to as a weapon of war against the Palestinians. <source>

I also think that if you entertain the notion that RE theory is a conspiracy then given it's acceptance across the world, it's clear that the conspirators have infiltrated every level of science and government and you'd have to seriously question science and technological teachings that you're basing your so called mathematical proof on.
Logged
?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #69 on: January 14, 2007, 08:14:12 PM »
Quote from: "brit"
There is a daily DIRECT Qantas service that takes 11 hours 20 minutes.

Again Tom, I ask you to answer my question.  How can a 747 achive 1650mph?


A 747 cannot travel at that speed.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
flight times
« Reply #70 on: January 14, 2007, 08:23:55 PM »
Of course they cannot.

That is not the reason.

Weather and such can be factors, not speed. They also base arrival times at each stop by speed and take into account the possible weather at that time.

Commercial jets usually fly at a speed of 600 MPH. There is a flight that makes non-stop flights for the location used in the example.

Now answer the proposed question in the proper manner without deriving from the topic, picking an an inane, insignificant piece of information which does not matter (such as spelling, wording, etc), else concede. I hope that is terribly clear for you Tom.

19,000 Miles / 11.5 Hours = ~1,652MPH

We know that commercial planes fly at 600MPH. so 19,000/600=31.6 Hours.

Explain.
Logged
?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #71 on: January 14, 2007, 08:40:09 PM »
If a plane traveled across the diameter of the earth, across the north pole, it would take around 31.6 hours. I can agree to that.

But Chile wouldn't be directly opposite of New Zealand on a flat earth map. The two locations would be much closer.

Directly opposite from Chile would be the Indian Ocean.
Logged
?

CodeMercenary

  • 29
flight times
« Reply #72 on: January 14, 2007, 08:48:35 PM »
If you force the constraint that distances between all points on your Flat-Earth map are equivalent to a Round-Earth map, then the result is that you change the topology of the Flat-Earth map into a sphere.

Consider this:  The length of the 40th parallel is equivalent to the length of the 140th parallel on a round-Earth map.  On the flat-Earth map, the lines corresponding to the 40th and 140th parallels are, in fact, circles.  By your contention that the lengths are the same, it would imply that the circumference of circles of different diameters are the same length.  What sort of geometry does your Flat-Earth map use that makes this possible?
Logged
?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #73 on: January 14, 2007, 09:12:21 PM »
CodeMercenary, have you ever flown around the world on the 140th parallel? Has anyone?

The truth is that very few "around the world" trips have taken place. And the ones that have were taken in the Northern Hemisphere or at the equator.

Most globular measurements were taken in the Northern Hemisphere on such trips, and just reversed and applied to the Southern Hemisphere.
Logged
?

CodeMercenary

  • 29
flight times
« Reply #74 on: January 14, 2007, 09:18:37 PM »
The 140th parallel, or the 50th south parallel, corresponds to a flight from Chile to New Zealand.

So yeah, there are people who have flown from Chile to New Zealand.  The flight time is 11 1/2 hours.
Logged
?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #75 on: January 14, 2007, 09:24:52 PM »
Yes, but my assertion is that traveling the opposite, or "long" way, it would take in excess of 21 hours. Longer than commonly thought. No one ever goes the long way, so no one will ever know for sure.

Only a small section of the 140'th has been measured. That section is between Chile and New Zealand.
Logged
?

CodeMercenary

  • 29
flight times
« Reply #76 on: January 14, 2007, 09:31:01 PM »
It doesn't matter how small the distance is.  It only matters how accurately the distance is measured.  If that distance is ANYTHING except the distance predicted by the arc in the flat Earth model, then the flat Earth model is wrong.

The flat-Earth model predicts a straight-line distance that is so much longer than the actual distance that, for an airplane to reach its destination in the time it actually takes, it would have to travel faster than the speed of sound.  Not only are airplanes not structurally capable of withstanding the forces associated with breaking the sound barrier, but the actual action of breaking it would be audible by all of the passengers on board.
Logged
?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #77 on: January 14, 2007, 09:42:32 PM »
Certain variables such as the 140th parallel would be different in the FE model, of course. But distances between known routes in RE, such as Chile and New Zealand, stay the same.

One thing many people are missing here is that you are curving on the RE globe too, adding additional distance to your travel. You cannot just paint a straight line on the FE and RE map and compare the two.

The additional distance you are curving around the globe in RE is directly proportional to the amount of increased perceptual distance apparent in the FE model. Distances between known routes stay the same in both models, but on a computer screen comparisons look different because the RE globe is projected onto a 2D environment, inherently warped with whatever map projection you use.
Logged
?

CodeMercenary

  • 29
flight times
« Reply #78 on: January 14, 2007, 09:47:59 PM »
No, no.  It's nothing like relative distances, or curving around the globe, or whatever.

Please, listen to what I'm saying.  The straight-line distance between ANY two points on the 140th parallel in the flat-earth model is LONGER THAN the geodesic distance between these two points on a round-earth model, UNLESS your map exists in non-Euclidan space.  In fact, the distances between any two pairs of analogous points in the Flat Earth and Round Earth model that don't lie on the Equator will *always* be different.

Here's an experiment you should conduct.  Measure the distance around the South Pole at the 89th south parallel.  Then measure the corresponding distance on the Flat Earth model.  You'll see the distances are radically different.
Logged
?

Tom Bishop

flight times
« Reply #79 on: January 14, 2007, 09:58:10 PM »
No, actually, you are curving around the globe in RE. You never go in a straight line on a globe. The only way to go straight would be to tunnel through the earth. That difference in vertical distance is exactly proportional to the added horizontal distance on a FE map.

In fact, an apparent "straight line" on a globe would look curved on a FE map.

As for the 89th South around Antarctica, it is pretty obvious that they would be different between models.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
flight times
« Reply #80 on: January 14, 2007, 11:44:18 PM »
It doesn't matter if it's a global curve. Anything south of the equator gets stretched out as you head further south. The "straight but curved" lines on the FE map are longer as you head south. That's why the 40th parallel on the FE model looks a LOT longer on all the FE maps given than it does on an RE model. And if plane pilots are crazy, they know the distances, and they know the times, as well as the rate of travel. They do the proper math, and they get the distance. Apply it to an FE map. Use the rate, and time, then plot the location where they would land on the FE map. I gauruntee it will always be short of the destination.
Logged
?

CodeMercenary

  • 29
flight times
« Reply #81 on: January 15, 2007, 01:30:00 AM »
Tom:

Look at what I'm saying.  Read it carefully, because I'm sure you're not understanding.

The geodesic of the 60th south parallel--which is curved because it's a geodesic--is SHORTER than the analogous (curved) path on the flat-Earth map.  Got that?  Shorter.

The 89th south parallel's total (curved) length is shorter than the analogous path on the flat Earth map.  Obviously, you can tell that this is the case because the 89th south parallel is basically a short ring around the south pole.  The 88th south parallel is shorter for the same reason.  So is the 87th south parallel.  So are ALL south parallels--including the 50th south parallel, which goes from Chile to New Zealand.  This is a result of the way you have constructed your map to represent the North pole as being the center of a planar Earth.
Logged
?

timewarp

  • 79
flight times
« Reply #82 on: January 15, 2007, 07:00:56 AM »
Bump.

I want answers.
Logged
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
?

timewarp

  • 79
flight times
« Reply #83 on: January 15, 2007, 11:07:05 AM »
Look, there is no point in arguing any other topic, if you FE'ers have no response to this point, then that is it. It is proof the world is round.

Seriously, there are so many other topics to play the devil's advocate with, why pick this one?
Logged
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
?

timewarp

  • 79
flight times
« Reply #84 on: January 15, 2007, 03:32:24 PM »
Someone? Come on, was that all it took to prove the world was round?
Logged
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
*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
flight times
« Reply #85 on: January 15, 2007, 03:43:50 PM »
Quote from: "timewarp"
Someone? Come on, was that all it took to prove the world was round?


Besides proving my terrible math wrong, there really isn't anyone in here that believe in a flat Earth.

sorry.
Logged
?

timewarp

  • 79
flight times
« Reply #86 on: January 15, 2007, 03:55:47 PM »
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "timewarp"
Someone? Come on, was that all it took to prove the world was round?


Besides proving my terrible math wrong, there really isn't anyone in here that believe in a flat Earth.

sorry.

Yeah, I know most people here just play the devil's advocate. So then this whole forum really isn't about the shape of the Earth at all, it's really just a place to practice debating.
Logged
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
*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
flight times
« Reply #87 on: January 15, 2007, 04:06:06 PM »
Quote from: "timewarp"
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "timewarp"
Someone? Come on, was that all it took to prove the world was round?


Besides proving my terrible math wrong, there really isn't anyone in here that believe in a flat Earth.

sorry.

Yeah, I know most people here just play the devil's advocate. So then this whole forum really isn't about the shape of the Earth at all, it's really just a place to practice debating.


Pretty much.  You should check out the "True Believers" forum.  Freaky people (sorry if you do read this, but you're freaky).
Logged
?

EnCrypto

  • 236
flight times
« Reply #88 on: January 15, 2007, 04:33:34 PM »
FE has been proved wrong on this site dozens of times, they just never concede and admit to this being simply an academic exercise, a challenge to argue Devil's Advocate.

The Sun and Moon seem to be the things that trip them up the most. Your eclipses and solstices, for example.
Logged
?

timewarp

  • 79
flight times
« Reply #89 on: January 18, 2007, 08:56:44 AM »
I was content to let this thread die, but there still seem to be believers on this forum. I want an answer from them, or an admission.
Logged
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
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
« previous next »