Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo, that's two errors you at first denied and have now admitted, and one piece of information you completely left out and claim was added in the future by some other poster.
Either one of those--- on a globe--- would have been much closer than Ted Stevens.
On a globe, one would not fly due east as doing so is not the shortest path. The only reason to fly due east is if you are using a map - specifically a map with a projection that puts lines of latitude in straight lines.
27 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDid this forty years ago at school.
Quick answer: follow the path on a globe and then look at the same on a flat earth map.
We have asked you to do the same.
Get a globe.
Take two points of same latitude (not equator).
Tighten thread between these two points and you will see the shortest
distance "arcs north.south" (a very simple and practical demonstration)
Why wont you do that?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think it might be something like this:
So Freaky, now that you have demonstrated that you know nothing about maps, can't use relevant websites and cant even get your figures or story right when you post, why don't you just tell us the punchline? What was all this mean to be about before your plan went up in flames?
[1] no one here knows independently that the earth is a sphere (of sorts) [2] you can't prove it or demonstrate it yourself ~ look see how you've been bamboozled by this talk of Taiwan and Guam etc. [3] you have been told that the earth is a sphere by someone else, someone who knows about these things, that's how you know, and you have deferred to them and accepted what they have told you [4] so you should also accept what you are told about God and Jesus rising from the dead if someone who knows about these things tells you. Something along these lines.
From FreakyKBH's OP: "why does a person's thoughts matter?" I think, deep down, what he is getting at, is What do the thoughts of a person who does not accept the Truth about God and Jesus rising from the dead matter?
28 Oct 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI see, so you are trying to make a clever point about the way the Earth is an oblate spheroid in the hope that all the scientists would be making an error. Sorry to disappoint, but we knew that. The nautical mile is defined as one arc minute of longitude at a longitude of 45 degrees North; that being the approximate longitude of the UK, well in the old days - now it's defined as a multiple of a metre. The statute mile was defined differently so it's not that surprising that they are different. However, I'm guessing that your point has something to do with the way "The Earth is a Sphere" is also an approximation. The Earth is at best a lumpy oblate spheroid and not a sphere - so is that what you think you're being clever about, or are you trying to make some other point?
[b]Whether the Earth is flat or spherical would need to be established and agreed upon before even discussing flight paths, etc.
Actually, we've been operating under the assumption that we are dealing with a globe.
What is being noted, however, are the inconsistencies which present themselves.
Please answer the question put to you regarding the la ...[text shortened]... ath--- specifically, why a person can walk that straight path when an airplane allegedly cannot.[/b]
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by PatNovakWhat makes you think flights from Boston to Seattle don't loop North? They do.
[b]Please answer the question put to you regarding the lack of an arced trajectory for a flight between Boston and Seattle.
What makes you think flights from Boston to Seattle don't loop North? They do.
See: flights.expedia.com/flights-from-boston-to-seattle-bos-to-sea
Also, respond to the same concept for a person walking the same path--- spe ...[text shortened]... ath because tunneling through the Earth is an extremely inefficient and dangerous way to travel.
See: flights.expedia.com/flights-from-boston-to-seattle-bos-to-sea
They sure do!
Boston sits at 42.357452°
Seattle sits at 47.443856°
The flight you reference in the link peaks out at ~48.599842°
From Boston to the peak, we're looking at ~6°.
Each degree of latitude is ~69 miles (68.703 at the equator and 69.407 at the pole).
Let's just use 69 since we all seem to like that number.
6° x 69 = 414 miles of "looping," as you call it.
So the great circle trajectory requires an airplane to take a trajectory 414 miles off of its original point in order to take the shortest route to its destination, which is only one degree off of its peak, for a trip which is (roughly) 2,488 miles away.
Now let's look at the flight originating from Taiwan.
It was headed to LAX, roughly 6,794 miles away.
TPE lies at 25.072663°.
LAX lies at 33.942559°.
The peak to which (as they appear on flightaware.net) these types of flights achieve in such trips (both coming and going) is ~48.370848°.
The difference between TPE and the flights northernmost point is ~23°.
23° x 69 = 1,598 miles.
So, in other words, a trip which (expressed in nautical miles) is 5,904 miles, must take the great circle route and travel nearly 1600 miles north in order to then travel east to its destination, in order to take the shortest route.
Because it's in a plane?
A person doesn't walk a straight path because tunneling through the Earth is an extremely inefficient and dangerous way to travel.
I had assumed that we were discussing the straightest path along the surface.
Do you have any more smart donkey responses to distract from the point, or can you address the question?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHaha-ha.
So Freaky, now that you have demonstrated that you know nothing about maps, can't use relevant websites and cant even get your figures or story right when you post, why don't you just tell us the punchline? What was all this mean to be about before your plan went up in flames?
twhitehead is so witty and clever with the insults.
Look at twhitehead, everyone!
Isn't he clever?
Okay: you got your Scooby snack.
Let's see if you can stay focused now, mkay?
A man starts walking from Boston 42° to Seattle 47°, taking the most direct path possible.
He's walking on the surface of the earth.
No obstacles keep him from following as straight a path as possible.
Why does his path not take a trajectory any further north than his final destination?
Same man decides to do the trek again, only now, he is air walking.
Yes, that's right: air walking.
His air walking path is ten feet off of the surface of the earth, but he still will follow the most direct path possible from Boston to Seattle.
Is he able to keep a trajectory which does not require any northern deviation greater than his final destination?
Now this rascal has taken his game to a whole 'nother level.
He's freaking 25,000 feet above the surface, still air walking.
Is he able to refrain from a trajectory no further north than his final destination?
Or does he disappear in the flames--- kinda like I suspect you and Pat Novak will be doing very shortly.
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt does. What makes you think it doesn't?
Why does his path not take a trajectory any further north than his final destination?
His air walking path is ten feet off of the surface of the earth, but he still will follow the most direct path possible from Boston to Seattle.
Is he able to keep a trajectory which does not require any northern deviation greater than his final destination?
No.
Now this rascal has taken his game to a whole 'nother level.
He's freaking 25,000 feet above the surface, still air walking.
Is he able to refrain from a trajectory no further north than his final destination?
No.
Or does he disappear in the flames--- kinda like I suspect you and Pat Novak will be doing very shortly.
No.
This might interest you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System
Much of the US is divided up into square miles known as the Jefferson Grid. These square miles have been very carefully surveyed on land. However they do not all line up as they would if the earth was flat. Every now and then adjustments must be made to allow for the curvature of the earth.
So, if you had accurate surveying equipment and tried to walk in a straight line, starting out due west from Boston, you would find yourself quite a long way south of Seattle by the time you got to the west coast.
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou have just reinforced twhitehead's assessment of you.
A man starts walking from Boston 42° to Seattle 47°, taking the most direct path possible.
He's walking on the surface of the earth.
Why does his path not take a trajectory any further north than his final destination?
Same man decides to do the trek again, only now, he is air walking.
Originally posted by FMFIn reality, there are many good reasons for just about anyone to think the spherical model is valid based on their own direct observations. I for example have travelled across timelines and phone back home and asked what the time is, and confirmed for my self that the sun rises earlier in the east (Dar-es-Salaam in my case). I have also travelled further south and confirmed that in summer the sun rises earlier and sets later than it does in Zambia and in the winter it rises later and sets earlier. This sort of thing fits perfectly with a spherical earth model but does not fit a flat earth model.
I think it might be something like this:
[1] no one here knows independently that the earth is a sphere (of sorts) [2] you can't prove it or demonstrate it yourself
Incidental I have also met someone who actually sailed around the world, but there I must just take his word for it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSure. My post was expressing my conjecture as to what the clearly waylaid FreakyKBH was up to on this thread. I am saying that I think he thinks he has you bamboozled. I think it will ultimately come down to "authority" and "deference" and the "futility" of "ignorance" in the rejection of the "truth" ~ unless, of course, me speculating about this now heads him off at the pass.
In reality, there are many good reasons for just about anyone to think the spherical model is valid based on their own direct observations. [...]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is the whole point. A straight line between points on a sphere must go inside the sphere. And because a straight path cannot be taken on the surface of a sphere, the shortest path you can take between points on the surface is along a Great Circle.
A person doesn't walk a straight path because tunneling through the Earth is an extremely inefficient and dangerous way to travel.
I had assumed that we were discussing the straightest path along the surface.
Do you have any more smart donkey responses to distract from the point, or can you address the question?
Do you agree or disagree with a Great Circle being the shortest path on the surface of a sphere?
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure if you're lacking in imagination, simply being obstinate or some inexplicable combination of both.
It does. What makes you think it doesn't?
[b]His air walking path is ten feet off of the surface of the earth, but he still will follow the most direct path possible from Boston to Seattle.
Is he able to keep a trajectory which does not require any northern deviation greater than his final destination?
No.
Now this rascal has taken his game ...[text shortened]... you would find yourself quite a long way south of Seattle by the time you got to the west coast.
Starting at Boston's Logan Airport at a latitude of 42.372524° one can EASILY stay at the same latitude across the entire US--- or the entire earth, for that matter--- without any deviation whatsoever, north or south.
One step north or south, you are off that latitude by however many degrees of degrees.
The end position of longitude travel directly west of that latitude lands you in the Buena Vista State Park of the great state of Oregon, staring at the Pacific Ocean.
However, you are now about 360 miles south of the destination, SeaTac, but you are at the EXACT latitude as when you started.
The fact of the matter is, latitude is completely controllable in the situation described.
In order to get from the 42° latitude to the 47° latitude destination, one simply makes incremental alterations without going above or beyond the latitude of the final destination.
Assuming 2,200 miles between Logan and SeaTac, we're looking at an estimated 11,616,000 steps.
Since longitude travel on an due west path would place you 365 miles south of the intended destination, you would need to take 1,927,000 steps north somewhere along the path from Logan to SeaTac.
In other words, every sixth step west, take one step north.
Of course, that's not exact, but it's pretty close.
More importantly, it proves the point: a person can stand at the EXACT same latitude anywhere on earth even when their longitude position is different.
So, if you had accurate surveying equipment and tried to walk in a straight line, starting out due west from Boston, you would find yourself quite a long way south of Seattle by the time you got to the west coast.
You are fully aware that this in no way, shape or form represents what has been discussed.
The question considered whether or not a person could conceivably remain on the same latitude even while making longitude changes.
The question also considered whether one could target a latitude change which did not require excessive change in the process, i.e., more north or further south than the intended destination.
The answer to both is demonstrably a resounding yes.
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFWhoa.
Sure. My post was expressing my conjecture as to what the clearly waylaid FreakyKBH was up to on this thread. I am saying that I think [b]he thinks he has you bamboozled. I think it will ultimately come down to "authority" and "deference" and the "futility" of "ignorance" in the rejection of the "truth" ~ unless, of course, me speculating about this now heads him off at the pass.[/b]
Your insight is dazzling.
As I have concentrated my arguments to numbers and what can be demonstrated (mistakes on my part notwithstanding), your contention how there will be a deference to some subjective or arbitrary standard(s) makes exactly zero sense.
Not that I would tell another how to play it, but if you wish to get in the arena, by all means, do so.
Standing on the sidelines taking pot shots at the players contributes nothing more than unnecessary noise.