• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


legend7 said:
Aye honestly mate planes do fly over the sea for good distances, it's less than 5000 miles from south america to south Africa.
Click to expand...
Of course, they do, but not the massive distances between the biggest oceans to the landmass.
legend7 said:
So on your map which landmasses would they cross for safety reasons when flying from south america to south Africa?
Click to expand...
Before I answer that, show me direct flights to those countries.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
Failed to make your model, yes but then again turning a globe into a circle requires massive alteration unless you discard the southern hemisphere and offer the bits of landmass into the circle.

Yes.
Click to expand...

Nobody's talking about a globe except you. You've failed to make the accepted distances between cities work on your cellworld because there's no way to make them work. That's fine, there's nothing shameful about admitting you were wrong. There's absolute shame in denying it and lying to others and to yourself the way you're doing.
 
fyl2u said:
Nobody's talking about a globe except you. You've failed to make the accepted distances between cities work on your cellworld because there's no way to make them work. That's fine, there's nothing shameful about admitting you were wrong. There's absolute shame in denying it and lying to others and to yourself the way you're doing.
Click to expand...
Your argument is based on a globe.
Otherwise where's the argument?
legend7 said:
Maybe there isn't one in the air at the minute?
Click to expand...
Let me know when there is because there weren't any in the air yesterday either.
Do you see on your little cheap flight map where the red lines are curved?
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
But the reality of a globe would actually only offer that by a sea of angle into the sky to level flight to then raise height over the globe unless it somehow follows the curve of it, magically.
Click to expand...

I think the autocorrect on your phone has messed up this sentence. Could you try typing it again please?

Nukehasslefan said:
But seeing as we're dealing with this then you have to get that the distances have to be based on curvature.
No other way to argue for it from your side.
Click to expand...

The extra distance covered by a plane taking off and flying to cruising height then coming back down to land is minimal compared with the distance from South Africa to Argentina or Australia. It wouldn't throw off the distances on a map by anywhere near the enormous margins we're seeing on your cellworld map, nor would it mean a flight from South Africa to Australia would have to travel over Europe en route.

Nukehasslefan said:
Yes, a curved surface as we are told.
Distances would be massively skewed.
Click to expand...

They would only be skewed if you talking to someone who had dug a tunnel between the two cities and was trying to argue that the cities were actually a lot closer to each other than the airline pilot or ship's captain would argue. It's simply not a point of view that any rational person would express.
Nukehasslefan said:
Failed to make your model, yes but then again turning a globe into a circle requires massive alteration unless you discard the southern hemisphere and offer the bits of landmass into the circle.
Click to expand...

That's because the planet is an oblate spheroid, so trying to lay all the countries out on a cell-shape is never going to work.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
And as I said this is what you're arguing for.
You claimed you weren't.

Won't flightradar capture it?
Click to expand...
It will, keep an eye on it when it takes off.
It will go straight across the sea, which you say is totally flat, they will obviously go the quickest route wouldn't you think?. They will obviously want to know where they are and what distance was left to travel as its quite critical to safety.
So then maybe we can agree that this known flown distance is correct?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Your argument is based on a globe.
Otherwise where's the argument?
Click to expand...

My argument is based on the accepted distances between different cities, as have been charted by ship and by land for centuries and by air for a hundred years.

When these distances are represented to scale by using let's say, pieces of string or strips of paper cut to the right scale lengths, the shape of the world gradually begins to form as you add more and more cities to the model.

That shape is an oblate spheroid, because that's what shape the planet is.

The globe shape is a consequence of the observations, not the other way around like you're implying.
Nukehasslefan said:
And as I said this is what you're arguing for.
You claimed you weren't.
Click to expand...

I'm not. I'm arguing for the reported distances between places, that's all.

The shape of the planet is a result of those reported distances.
 
Last edited:
The redirection of flattening supposed curves is equal to, but not exceeding, the angles required not only upward (and of course downward) but also across in the three known directions to replace known and acknowledged factors represented in factual pictogram based renderings. Or other waffle based distracting bull shit that has no actual meaning.
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
They do if you're not being deliberately stupid.

Or are stupid.
Click to expand...
My mistake... should read " or are not stupid"
You can fanny on for weeks about how that curve messes up measurements but it doesn't. You can make the journey take longer if you go around the ring road a few times, get lost and retrace your steps, but the start and end points are still in the same places, still the same distance apart.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
And as I said this is what you're arguing for.
You claimed you weren't.

Won't flightradar capture it?
Click to expand...
To answer your deliberate obtuseness, that flight doesn't operate anymore because SAA went bankrupt and is only now starting to pull out of it. They flew the route for years, though.

As others said, your model should work for any other city as well. Let's pick one that has a massive airline hub with flights to all those places and isn't conveniently located near the center of your mp: Dubai.

Where is Dubai on that map, given that Emirates flies to all those places (okay, Buenos Aires was suspended during COVID and it resumes next month) with the following known distances based on flights flown within the last two days (indeed, most have one in the air this second):

LHR ~3,500 miles
South Africa - ~4,000 miles
Tokyo ~5,000 miles
New York - ~6,850 miles
Sydney - ~7,500 miles

A simple point on the map will suffice, but as a hint for the next step, you might need to be prepared to explain why the Tokyo and Sydney flights don't fly over Europe or Africa.
Nukehasslefan said:
Do you think planes would be risked over vast oceans to landmass or do you think they would offer close proximity to regular landmass/airports?
Click to expand...
Well I've flown from San Francisco to New Zealand and back several times. Wasn't a whole lot of land down below, to say the least.

In case you have any actual curiosity on the subject of long overwater flights, look up the term ETOPS.
 
Last edited:
legend7 said:
It will, keep an eye on it when it takes off.
It will go straight across the sea, which you say is totally flat, they will obviously go the quickest route wouldn't you think?. They will obviously want to know where they are and what distance was left to travel as its quite critical to safety.
So then maybe we can agree that this known flown distance is correct?
Click to expand...
Ok. Not seeing anything yet...are you?
The Snockerty Friddle said:
They do if you're not being deliberately stupid.

Or are stupid.
Click to expand...
You know I'm stupid you and otehrs said I was, so there's no need to debate it, surely.
fyl2u said:
My argument is based on the accepted distances between different cities, as have been charted by ship and by land for centuries and by air for a hundred years.
Click to expand...
Aye and what did they use centuries ago?
fyl2u said:
When these distances are represented to scale by using let's say, pieces of string or strips of paper cut to the right scale lengths, the shape of the world gradually begins to form as you add more and more cities to the model.
Click to expand...
By following what?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top