FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[NxNW]

Globers can't produce a real map of the globe! Why? Because the earth is a stationary plane! Get used to it!

The 787 I was traveling on had a nifty little video screen showing the progress of the plane and the flight data. When I looked out the window, not only could I see the curvature, but the coastlines and land masses matched what was on the screen. The first leg was 9 hours, and we landed within 5 minutes of the scheduled time. Given that the airlines aren't going to go to anymore trouble or burn anymore gas than they have to in order to make a profit: if your contention is that the video was entirely fake and my eyes were lying to me, then I think you'd better bring along some substantial evidence to support that ridiculous claim.

 

[rambot]

The exact same thing is being said about the heliocentric delusion.

Perfect. So we both agree that we need a different rubric to figure out what is ACTUALLY true since clearly these are both subjective positions and therefore can't be used as evidence of anything for the discussion

 

[prodromos]

Probably never been out of his house!

Or like Mark Sargent, his Mum's house.

 

[prodromos]

They're the ones touting the flights.

Au contraire, you are the one claiming they don't exist and that the flights must have stopovers

The in-flight maps are there to keep the passengers occupied. Take them with a grain of salt.

It matched what I could see out the window. Sydney to LA was over ocean all the way. It did not pass Alaska and run down the West coast of North America.

 

[Bradskii]

While a definitive flat earth map is not yet in the public domain, the azimuth equidistant projection sufficiently conveys the geographical issues associated with southern flights.

So the map I provided is sufficient. Thanks.

Currently, those issues are dealt with by stopovers or jet stream acquisition, the latter being explained in that last video which you did not watch to the end.

I've flown the route. How many times must I tell you this. There was no stopover. It was direct. We didn't fly across the US. The route was as shown in a number of posts to you. Google Earth will show your position en route. I've also flown direct to L.A. And to Houston (via Hawaii). Everything you are saying is incorrect. And you are being told that you are wrong by someone who has flown to these the places.

People who tell you these things about flying to Santiago via L.A. are lying to you. They haven't flown these routes. Obviously, because then they'd know how wrong they are.

 

[Lost4words]

So the map I provided is sufficient. Thanks.

I've flown the route. How many times must I tell you this. There was no stopover. It was direct. We didn't fly across the US. The route was as shown in a number of posts to you. Google Earth will show your position en route. I've also flown direct to L.A. And to Houston (via Hawaii). Everything you are saying is incorrect. And you are being told that you are wrong by someone who has flown to these the places.

People who tell you these things about flying to Santiago via L.A. are lying to you. They haven't flown these routes. Obviously, because then they'd know how wrong they are.

Flat earth believers cannot deal with 'real' facts or 'real' science.

 

[sjastro]

I suggest you go back and read my post #909 which clearly explains how your example also inadvertently provides the case against a flat earth.

Since the story now involves flying parallel to a flat earth let’s look at the science and maths here and consider a commercial aircraft cruising at an altitude of 10,000 m.
In the case of the aircraft flying around a spherical earth, the gravitational field has a spherical symmetry and the acceleration ‘a' is directed radially downwards and varies with height according to the formula;

View attachment 339274

where:

G is the gravitational constant (6.67430×10⁻¹¹ N⋅m²/kg²)
M is the mass of the Earth (5.972×10²⁴ kg)
R is the mean radius of the Earth (6.371×10⁶ m)
h is the altitude above the Earth's surface.

At 10,000 m altitude;

a = 9.75 m/s².

This result is confirmed by accelerometer measurements.

For a flat earth gravity does strange things, it is only at the centre of a flat earth the gravitational field accelerates objects vertically downwards.
Since flat earthers are not terribly helpful on the physical shape of the flat earth such as its thickness, we mathematicians have had to make some assumptions.

(1) The flat earth is in the shape of a disk of radius R and has an infinitesimally small thickness.
(2) The mass of the earth is uniformly distributed throughout the disk.
(3) The disk sits in the x-y plane and the aircraft on the z axis which passes through the centre of the disk, in other words it is directly above the flat earth’s centre at a vertical distance or height z.

The acceleration equation is:

View attachment 339287

The acceleration for the aircraft at 10,000 metres is found to be;

a = 19.6 m/s² nowhere near the value of 9.75 m/s².

Things get worse if that was possible when the aircraft is off-axis where the equation becomes horrendously more complicated and requires the use of elliptic functions.

As one moves away from the centre, there is a horizontal component of acceleration which becomes stronger as the vertical component weakens.
At the edge acceleration is a purely horizontal and an accelerometer on the aircraft would read zero at the edge as it measures acceleration purely in the radial (vertical) direction.

View attachment 339278
​

Gravity is yet another example which destroys this flat earth nonsense.

I think I am on to something here.
For people that are on earth rather than in planes, an individual who weighs 75 kg on a spherical earth, weighs 150 kg at the centre of a flat earth.
If the earth is flat and you want to lose weight fast, forget about those challenging weight reduction programs and get away from the centre as fast as you can.

 

[prodromos]

I gave up on the first example he used. Why in 1988 a flight from Brazil to Australia went via L.A. (gee, you guys love that place) as opposed to flying directly. Firts, there were no direct flights between the two countries until 2020. And the cheapest way to fly between the two counties was via L.A. Using the same airline. Swapping airlines gets expensive. It still is the cheapest.

https://www.united.com/en/au/traveler/choose-travelers?cartId=86d79cc2-7fea-41eb-9016-9e2da0ac8d99&typ=ext&meta_rti=variation_1&dfv=24&tqp=R-G

Why not just check? Took me two minutes.

The second example in the video isn't any better. He drones about a flight from Taipei to LAX which had to make an emergency landing in Anchorage, Alaska due to a woman giving birth. The great circle route from Taipei to LA does indeed travel close to Alaska because that is the most direct path on a globe. The path he is assuming would be shorter on the globe is actually on a flat projection which distorts the distance significantlly as you move away from the equator, which makes the straight line between the two cities appear shorter than the actual flight path taken.

Great Circle Map

Great Circle Map displays the shortest route between airports and calculates the distance. It draws geodesic flight paths on top of Google maps, so you can create your own route map.

www.greatcirclemap.com

 

[Bradskii]

The second example in the video isn't any better. He drones about a flight from Taipei to LAX which had to make an emergency landing in Anchorage, Alaska due to a woman giving birth. The great circle route from Taipei to LA does indeed travel close to Alaska because that is the most direct path on a globe. The path he is assuming would be shorter on the globe is actually on a flat projection which distorts the distance significantlly as you move away from the equator, which makes the straight line between the two cities appear shorter than the actual flight path taken.

Great Circle Map

Great Circle Map displays the shortest route between airports and calculates the distance. It draws geodesic flight paths on top of Google maps, so you can create your own route map.

www.greatcirclemap.com

That great circle map is great. You can enter any two cities and it shows the route. Hey, @Edwin Wright try it with Sydney and Santiago. See if it goes anywhere near L.A.

 

[prodromos]

That great circle map is great. You can enter any two cities and it shows the route. Hey, @Edwin Wright try it with Sydney and Santiago. See if it goes anywhere near L.A.

The drone in the video later goes on to claim that the flat earth map is 1000 years old, despite the Americas not being discovered by Europeans until a bit over 5 centuries ago, and Australia just a couple of centuries ago.

I don't think I need to waste anymore time on a 70min video that I "must watch to the end"

 

[Gene2memE]

Have you personally flown between Sydney and either Johannesburg, Buenos Aires, or Santiago?

I have. Sydney to Santiago. And Sydney-Auckland-Santiago.

Both multiple times.

 

[prodromos]

That great circle map is great. You can enter any two cities and it shows the route. Hey, @Edwin Wright try it with Sydney and Santiago. See if it goes anywhere near L.A.

I think it would be a great exercise for him to plot the great circle path for the original flight start/destination as well as where the emergency landings were made for all the examples given in the video, such as CHICAGO-DOHA which was diverted to MOSCOW.

The drone on the video keeps presenting incorrect flight paths as the "globe" path in each case in order to make his argument stronger. He either uses the flight path generated by google maps, which doesn't give the great circle path (I honestly don't know how the path is determined) or he draws a straight line on a Mercator projection (which is complete nonsense)

 

[prodromos]

I gave up on the first example he used. Why in 1988 a flight from Brazil to Australia went via L.A. (gee, you guys love that place) as opposed to flying directly. Firts, there were no direct flights between the two countries until 2020.

In 1988 there were barely any passenger aircraft with the range to be able to fly direct between Sydney and Santiago. It was not until 1984 that Qantas was able to fly direct to Los Angeles from Sydney with the Boing 747SP, a distance of 12051km

 

[prodromos]

Argh! So I've skipped through the video (never getting those 20min back) and every example he gives for the "globe" flight path uses google maps or a Mercator projection. I have no idea what method Google uses to draw its flight paths (I suspect they draw a straight line on a mercator projection and then map that to the globe) but it gives completely wrong results. If you use the great circle route (which gives the shortest flight path and lowest fuel consumption, so why wouldn't you) then the fight diversions all make perfect sense. Every example he gives is a complete fail and does not prove a flat earth.

 

[prodromos]

Now I am going to inflict myself with the drones Jetstream explanation. I don't hold much hope for it.

 

[Bradskii]

Now I am going to inflict myself with the drones Jetstream explanation. I don't hold much hope for it.

Sterling work, my man!

 

[prodromos]

Almost missed a huge clanger at just after 53min. The drone claims that anyone flying due East from the North-West coast of North America will end up crossing the equator and ending up in Africa, and not following the line of Latitude to Europe.

This is the level of intelligence that @Edwin Wright is putting forward as a defender of flat earth

 

[prodromos]

At 1:07:56, he claims the chart the pilot is showing the reporter for flights between Sydney and Santiago are straight lines and not the great circle path. however if you plot the great circle path between Sydney and Santiago then rotate the globe to bring the South pole up to where it is shown on the chart, the great circle path ends up being pretty much a straight line, so yes, the chart does show the great circle path.

Now the problem the drone has with flight times and the jetstream is that the jetstream only reduces flight time in one direction.

Global Jet Stream Map - Netweather

View the jet stream forecast for the entire globe

www.netweather.tv

There is a roughly 2 hour difference in the flight times between Sydney and Johannesburg (14Hr vs 11Hr55min) depending on which way you are going. The same is true for flights between Sydney and Santiago (12Hr30min vs 14Hr20min)

His calculations at the end are nonsense. The cruising speed of a 787 is 903km/h, and the distance between Sydney and Johannesburg is 11044km. In one direction (without the jetstream) it is a little slower and in the other direction it is a little faster.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The second example in the video isn't any better. He drones about a flight from Taipei to LAX which had to make an emergency landing in Anchorage, Alaska due to a woman giving birth. The great circle route from Taipei to LA does indeed travel close to Alaska because that is the most direct path on a globe. The path he is assuming would be shorter on the globe is actually on a flat projection which distorts the distance significantlly as you move away from the equator, which makes the straight line between the two cities appear shorter than the actual flight path taken.

Argh! So I've skipped through the video (never getting those 20min back) and every example he gives for the "globe" flight path uses google maps or a Mercator projection.

Honestly, that is embarrassing. He doesn't seem to even have a grasp of what the globe model really is. Or to have ever taken a transatlantic (or similar) flight. I've seen Iceland out the window once or twice, and certainly seen Greenland and Iceland on the mapscreen or on the flightpath map in the back of the seat airline magazine.

But nevertheless, this should be revealing. If your starting point is a Mercator projection, what these northerly digressions tell us is that the actual geography of the earth is smaller or pinched together at the north.

Many flat earthers can see that well enough, and that's why they promote something like the azimuthal projection over the north pole. It's like taking a Mercator map rolling it into a tube (so the equator is continuous as you run off the east edge of the map you reappear on the west edge). And then you have to pinch together the northern polar region. If you pinch and flatten you get those disc maps.

However, obviously this is why many of us are pointing out these flights in the Southern Hemisphere. Essentially the same effect is seen there. And for the same reason (which the flat earthers accept) that we have to pinch together the northern polar region, we also have to pinch together the southern polar region. Starting from our tube, if you pinch together the top and bottom, it's topologically a sphere.

 

[prodromos]

As I said, you need to watch the ENTIRE video.

I watched the ENTIRE video. It was painful.
The guy keeps using Google maps to show the supposed globe path of the flights instead of determining the great circle route. Google maps does NOT generate the great circle route. It appears to treat Latitude and Longitude as a rectangular grid, plots a straight line between the two locations, then maps that line onto the map projection. Every example of a globe flight path he puts forward is completely wrong, so he is in effect arguing a strawman.
If you are interested in truth you can confirm the above by using the link I provided in one of my posts above to generate the great circle flight path for each example he gave. The flight diversions all correspond to cities near the actual great circle flight paths of the original flights. His claims are bogus, as are yours.