28 Oct 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not upset. On the contrary, I am having a good laugh at your expense.
I am not upset. On the contrary, I am having a good laugh at your expense.
[b]There is no "clearly" to the situation as you have reframed it.
It is clear to everyone but you.
I even helped you out by quoting the original question:
But you quoted it out of context. Earlier in the same post you stated that he was "taking the most d ...[text shortened]... think you will fail to find anyone who thinks you are not either totally delusional or trolling.[/b]
I don't doubt it.
Your refusal/inability to answer the questions put forth betray your lack of grasp on the fundamentals of the topic: what else do you have left, but laughter?
It is clear to everyone but you.
Lots of people sitting there in the basement with you?
But you quoted it out of context.
It can only be out of context if the general nature of the question has been altered.
It did no such thing, therefore you are, once again, in error.
The concepts in question have been, and remain, the same:
1. Why would an airplane not follow the shortest, most direct path possible between two points; and,
2. Does longitude travel require north or south progression in order to be the shortest, most direct path between two points
In response to the first one, several posters have declared the example provided is, without question, the shortest, most direct path and that the flight in question was following the same.
This has been demonstrated to be false--- at least, as it applies to a globe model.
In response to the second one, several posters (most notably, you) have declared it is imperative for east-west travel to include either north or south trajectory in order to have the shortest, most direct path between two points.
This also has been demonstrated to be false--- again, as it applies to a globe model.
You are now trying to argue that (in the case of the second example, BOS to SEA) the shortest, most direct path possible includes travel beyond the latitude of the final destination.
There is no math which supports such idiocy, as has been exampled with the minimum number of steps required to walk the distance between the two points.
In your world, a person who is required to take more steps in getting from point A to point B has taken the shortest, most direct route possible.
In the real world, however, "shortest, most direct route possible" actually means the least amount of steps required to complete the travel.
And my answer was, and remains, correct.
As is evident from the examples given and your responses thereof, you are woefully and pathetically wrong.
No, it did not. It asked if he could do so whilst simultaneously taking the most direct path possible.
I used the terms "straight" and "direct" interchangeably.
I shouldn't have to help you with the definition of such terms.
Moving east to west--- from one latitude to a similar latitude--- the straightest most direct path is along the same degree of latitude, with only as much movement away from the line as is necessary to match the final latitude.
Try taking a poll on that and I think you will fail to find anyone who thinks you are not either totally delusional or trolling.
It's probably news to you, but truth is not an opinion-based proposition.
You're either aligned with it or you're in opposition.
Given you have failed to support your claims or to refute any of mine (other than typos), you're in the category of the latter.
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou know the examples provided prove the "elementary geometry" (so-applied) as in error--- otherwise, they'd be easy to refute with facts instead of baeless claims.
That's because your examples are designed to create the maximum confusion. This is a matter of elementary geometry. The shortest route from the north pole to any point on the earths surface is to face the right way and then head south. That is one of the great circles. If one rotates the great circle around the Earth's centre so it passes through bot ...[text shortened]... no point in talking about airline's routes unless you know why they've taken that route.
You also know the "number of reasons" for use of paths other than the most direct is simply moving the goalposts.
The examples of air and sea paths which only make sense on a flat plane are far too prevalent to be dismissed.
29 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo I've proved beyond any argument that you are wrong. As have a number of other posters. Now stop playing at being the resident troll and make your point.
You know the examples provided prove the "elementary geometry" (so-applied) as in error--- otherwise, they'd be easy to refute with facts instead of baeless claims.
You also know the "number of reasons" for use of paths other than the most direct is simply moving the goalposts.
The examples of air and sea paths which only make sense on a flat plane are far too prevalent to be dismissed.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat a blatant lie. I have answered every question you have put to me. You just didn't like the answers. I will no longer bother to answer all your questions given that you don't listen to the answers and then lie about them anyway.
Your refusal/inability to answer the questions put forth betray your lack of grasp on the fundamentals of the topic: what else do you have left, but laughter?
The concepts in question have been, and remain, the same:
1. Why would an airplane not follow the shortest, most direct path possible between two points; and,
2. Does longitude travel require north or south progression in order to be the shortest, most direct path between two points
And yet you have consistently assumed that 2. is already agreed to.
This has been demonstrated to be false--- at least, as it applies to a globe model.
No, it has not been demonstrated to be false.
In response to the second one, several posters (most notably, you) have declared it is imperative for east-west travel to include either north or south trajectory in order to have the shortest, most direct path between two points.
This also has been demonstrated to be false--- again, as it applies to a globe model.
I used the terms "straight" and "direct" interchangeably.
And I am happy with such usage. It remains the case that the question included the statement that man would walk a 'straight' or 'direct' path. You then later left that out of the question and falsely claimed I had answered it without that condition.
Moving east to west--- from one latitude to a similar latitude--- the straightest most direct path is along the same degree of latitude, with only as much movement away from the line as is necessary to match the final latitude.
No, it is not. That is true only for the equator and no other latitude.
It's probably news to you, but truth is not an opinion-based proposition.
No, it isn't. You are not putting forth the truth. Your opinion is not the truth. You are just talking nonsense.
Given you have failed to support your claims or to refute any of mine (other than typos), you're in the category of the latter.
I refuted your claims without doubt. That you are too dense to see that does not somehow make your opinion valid or truth relative.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat a blatant lie.
What a blatant lie. I have answered every question you have put to me. You just didn't like the answers. I will no longer bother to answer all your questions given that you don't listen to the answers and then lie about them anyway.
[b]The concepts in question have been, and remain, the same:
1. Why would an airplane not follow the shortest, most dire ...[text shortened]... . That you are too dense to see that does not somehow make your opinion valid or truth relative.
Again with the charges of lying.
You must convinced that repetition has the ability to make something false into something true.
Doesn't work that way.
I have answered every question you have put to me. You just didn't like the answers.
No, you have not.
My only opinion of them is whether or not the answers line up with reality.
Thus far, your responses have not achieved this.
I will no longer bother to answer all your questions given that you don't listen to the answers and then lie about them anyway.
Well, that sounds like your current tack is just like your previous one.
And yet you have consistently assumed that 2. is already agreed to.
Again, you are in error.
I have not assumed anything.
The point which has been established through demonstration and the method of falsification of the counter argument is this:
Travel along longitude marks does not require north or south progression in order to achieve the shortest, most direct path possible between two points.
This was affirmed in the calculations between two points without the need for any north or south travel beyond the latitude of the second point.
The counter argument which claimed the normal flight patterns of air travel from TPE to LAX were the shortest, most direct path possible was shown to be in error, as such a path is further in distance than the otherwise straightest path possible.
I refuted your claims without doubt. That you are too dense to see that does not somehow make your opinion valid or truth relative.
I have no doubt that you are convinced you have refuted the claims; however, your alleged refutation is nothing more than counter claims or anecdotal memories without a scintilla of anything concrete: no math, no calculation of any kind.
Just claims that I am wrong.
That's not opinion: it is readily verifiable by anyone who can read the English language.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeIsn't it funny how both you and your buddy focus your arguments with attacks on the person as opposed to responding to the problems of the equations?
False dichotomy 😉 😛
Not funny, ha-ha.
Just funny, weird.
For instance, it was you who insisted that a closer to proximity to the equator will result in less of an angle required, while the further away from the equator results in a greater angle required.
However, you have been eerily silent when it was pointed out that the two examples (TPE to LAX and BOS to SEA) showed the exact opposite of such a claim.
Also met with silence was the request for the math or formula which under-girded such a claim.
Neither of you have been willing or able to respond to the questions put forth to Pat Novak relative to the trajectory of either of those paths, TPE to LAX or BOS to SEA.
Instead, you have concentrated your efforts on either ancillary arguments... or attacks on the person.
I'm sure you both have your reasons.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWell of course you have!
No I've proved beyond any argument that you are wrong. As have a number of other posters. Now stop playing at being the resident troll and make your point.
Your idea of "proof," apparently, is to claim...
That's because your examples are designed to create the maximum confusion.
The examples are not mine; both are based on real-life events which happen literally every day, and typically several times a day.
The only divergence from reality added by me was the example of a man walking and then air-walking from BOS to SEA for the purpose of thought experimentation.
Otherwise, both examples could be verified as real via multiple sources and further, calculated also via multiple sources.
None of the sources were either created by me or in any other fashion, manipulated by me.
Two plus two is (in general math terms) ALWAYS going to equal four.
All of these counter claims which have been put forth have not once addressed the 'problems' put forth by the examples I have offered.
Instead, the counter claims have been put forth on the basis of their own authority--- which is to say, none at all.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAt no point has it been 'affirmed'. At no point have you shown any calculations that show such a route is the shortest or most direct. You have merely repeatedly stated that it is so. The reality of course as everyone except you knows, is that it is neither the straightest nor shortest route.
The point which has been established through demonstration and the method of falsification of the counter argument is this:
Travel along longitude marks does not require north or south progression in order to achieve the shortest, most direct path possible between two points.
This was affirmed in the calculations between two points without the need for any north or south travel beyond the latitude of the second point.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHe was presumably referring to two places of equal distance longitudinally but at different latitudes. The further away longitudinally the points are the more deviation from an east-west path is required.
For instance, it was you who insisted that a closer to proximity to the equator will result in less of an angle required, while the further away from the equator results in a greater angle required.
Of course you would know this if you had bothered to actually look at a globe, but instead you insist on looking at a flat map - and a specific flat map at that - and falsely believing it directly reflects reality. It doesn't.
I realise this whole exercise was an attempt to demonstrate that truth is relative. It failed dismally. Truth is not relative. You are wrong and demonstrably so. You are just too dense to realise it.
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'll make this as simple as I can.
Well of course you have!
Your idea of "proof," apparently, is to claim...
[b]That's because your examples are designed to create the maximum confusion.
The examples are not mine; both are based on real-life events which happen literally every day, and typically several times a day.
The only divergence from reality added by me was the example of ...[text shortened]... claims have been put forth on the basis of their own authority--- which is to say, none at all.[/b]
In order to educate yourself do these "thought experiments".
1. Imagine you are 10 yards from the North Pole.
If you walk due East do you imagine that will look like walking in a straight line?
2. Look at two [b]different[b] projections of the world. Can you see that "straight" lines
between certain places do not tally between maps? (Is one correct or both wrong?)
3. Do the string/globe thing that has previously been advocated to you!
4. Imagine the earth starts spinning on an axis with Quito (Ecuador) at one pole
and the other pole in Indonesia. Imagine the new lines of latitude. Are they now
the shortest distance between points on those lines?
Please try.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 Oct 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, this is correct, and I should have made it clearer.
He was presumably referring to two places of equal distance longitudinally but at different latitudes. The further away longitudinally the points are the more deviation from an east-west path is required.
Of course you would know this if you had bothered to actually look at a globe, but instead you insist on looking at a flat map - and a specific flat ma ...[text shortened]... Truth is not relative. You are wrong and demonstrably so. You are just too dense to realise it.
However I was hoping that he would play around with the ruler function on Google Earth
and figure out what was going on himself.
Apparently that hope was in vain.
31 Oct 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeHe was hoping to make a point about truth being a matter of opinion. Because of his own geographical confusion, he incorrectly assumed everyone else would be equally confused and he could demonstrate confusion and thus declare truth to be a matter of opinion. He failed spectacularly, but it is too embarrassing to admit it now so he will probably just keep on digging (his arguments grave) in the hope of coming out below the flat earth to reveal for all to see the elephants that the world stands on.
However I was hoping that he would play around with the ruler function on Google Earth
and figure out what was going on himself.
Apparently that hope was in vain.