Originally posted by PatNovakTW and KBH both agree that Anchorage is a shorter distance from Taiwan, but KBH claims to know that the "official time" from Taiwan to Anchorage is about 19 hours, or about 5 hours longer than the "official time" to LAX.
Consider the following thought experiment.
With an open mind, if possible.
You have opted to take an intercontinental flight to LAX from Taipei, Taiwan. You are seated next to two individuals, let’s call them KBH and TW, who are having a conversation about whether or not it matters if a scientist thinks the Earth is flat. During this conversation, you ...[text shortened]... because you might be inclined to leave your life in the hands of someone like KBH instead of TW.
I inadvertently typed "19" when I meant to type "9' in the designation of hours.
My mistake.
If you believe screwy things, like it takes longer to fly shorter distances, that we didn't land on the moon, or that a legitimate scientist can believe the Earth is flat, then it could cost you your life, because you might be inclined to leave your life in the hands of someone like KBH instead of TW.
Your mistake, however, is to equate the typographical error with the lynchpin in the argument.
The argument obviously has very little to do with which city was the closer destination from the originating city: you yourself already acknowledged my acknowledgment of that fact!
The crux of the argument, instead, is this:
The flight to which you refer was six hours into its course toward LAX--- not six hours toward Ted Stevens.
If the flight was six hours toward Ted Stevens, it would have been incredibly off course of its LAX destination, as both LAX and Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport lie within eight degrees of one another: LAX on the 33rd parallel and TPE along the 25th--- while Ted Stevens is on the 61st, putting it 28 degrees north of LAX and 36 degrees north of TPE.
Assuming a 14 hour flight time, six hours into the flight from TPE to LAX would have left them roughly eight hours out from landing at the original destination.
Why go to Alaska, which is now about nine hours north and east of TPE--- mostly north?
Six hours into it, they should have been somewhere in the neighborhood of Guam, but still much, much closer to either Tokyo (35th parallel) or Hawaii (21st parallel) than Alaska (61st parallel).
Of those locations closer in mileage, two of them were also closer to the line already traversed: Guam and Hawaii.
Straight shots, actually, in the line between TPE and LAX.
Six hours away from TPE, they couldn't have been much closer than about 4800 miles south and west of Alaska, or roughly nine and a half hours away... or just a tad further away to there than they were from LAX.
Things that make you go hmmmm...
23 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSomething it has taken you 5 pages to admit. Oddly enough, you started off by pretending that all was well and you hadn't made any mistakes and it was everyone else that just couldn't understand you.
I inadvertently typed "19" when I meant to type "9' in the designation of hours.
My mistake.
The crux of the argument, instead, is this:
The flight to which you refer was six hours into its course toward LAX--- not six hours toward Ted Stevens.
Except that this is the first time we are hearing about this. So was that a typo too, or were we supposed to read your mind?
Things that make you go hmmmm...
Your figures are all wrong unless you are a flat earther.
For those interested in reality, assuming shortest flight paths and an initial planed flight time of 14 hours, Alaska remains the closer destination until nearly 11 hours into the flight.
6 hours into the flight, LAX is 8 hours away and Ted Stevens 6 hours away.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWolfgang brought this up earlier, about how the shortest distance between East-West points is not a Latitude line. The shortest distance between Taiwan and LAX will look like a curve, extending north, on a typical map (a map with parallel Longitude lines). So when this flight was redirected, it was somewhere around half way to LAX, and thus somewhere near its northern most point, and thus well north of Guam and Hawaii.
[b]TW and KBH both agree that Anchorage is a shorter distance from Taiwan, but KBH claims to know that the "official time" from Taiwan to Anchorage is about 19 hours, or about 5 hours longer than the "official time" to LAX.
I inadvertently typed "19" when I meant to type "9' in the designation of hours.
My mistake.
If you believe screwy things, ...[text shortened]... or just a tad further away to there than they were from LAX.
Things that make you go hmmmm...
You can see the flight path on a screenshot in the link I provided earlier:
onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2015/10/14/insane-video-of-woman-giving-birth-on-a-flight
You can see where they changed course. It looks like the crew made a reasonable decision, as Anchorage looks about as close as any other place from that point. Also, we know it only took nine hours total, so it was definitely a shorter flight than continuing to LAX.
23 Oct 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadSomething it has taken you 5 pages to admit.
Something it has taken you 5 pages to admit. Oddly enough, you started off by pretending that all was well and you hadn't made any mistakes and it was everyone else that just couldn't understand you.
[b]The crux of the argument, instead, is this:
The flight to which you refer was six hours into its course toward LAX--- not six hours toward Ted ...[text shortened]... urs into the flight.
6 hours into the flight, LAX is 8 hours away and Ted Stevens 6 hours away.
I admitted the error as soon as it was revealed.
Kinda makes you wonder why you didn't point out that it wasn't 19 hours, but nine.
Except that this is the first time we are hearing about this. So was that a typo too, or were we supposed to read your mind?
Read much?
As you quoted, "the flight to which you refer..." is directed at... who, exactly?
That's right: the person who was referring to a flight wherein a woman gave birth to her baby while en route to LAX.
Your figures are all wrong unless you are a flat earther.
Actually, no.
Travelmath.com (as far as I am aware) is not a flat earth website.
Neither, to my knowledge, are the following websites:
findlatitudeandlongitude.com
distancefromto.net
This last one allows you to plot any point on the planate--- which is exactly what I did.
Take off from TPE with a destination of LAX, assuming 500 MPH.
Move LAX to 3000 miles east of TPE (500 MPH times six hours), and you're very near Guam.
Now take that position and change the destination to Ted Stevens International in Alaska.
That distance divided by 500 MPH equals nine plus hours, or just a little more than the time it would have taken to finish flying to LAX--- but MUCH more than it would have been to land in Guam, Hawaii or Tokyo.
23 Oct 15
Originally posted by PatNovakWolfgang brought this up earlier, about how the shortest distance between East-West points is not a Latitude line.
Wolfgang brought this up earlier, about how the shortest distance between East-West points is not a Latitude line. The shortest distance between Taiwan and LAX will look like a curve, extending north, on a typical map (a map with parallel Longitude lines). So when this flight was redirected, it was somewhere around half way to LAX, and thus somewhere near i ...[text shortened]... now it only took nine hours total, so it was definitely a shorter flight than continuing to LAX.
I'm all ears.
The shortest distance between Taiwan and LAX will look like a curve, extending north...
Oh, so not a straight line.
I think I see where you're going with this one.
So, if I'm walking from Boston to Seattle, the shortest distance will take me into Canada somewhere?
Maybe peak out somewhere around Dauphin, Manitoba, and then back down to Seattle--- you know, like all flights from Boston to Seattle follow?
So when this flight was redirected, it was somewhere around half way to LAX, and thus somewhere near its northern most point, and thus well north of Guam and Hawaii.
A 14 hour flight would reach its half-way point more than an hour further into the flight than when this one was redirected.
At six hours, it hadn't flown much more than 3000 miles at best.
Just out of curiousity, how much of an arc are you giving this thing, anyway, that Ted Stevens would be closer than the three mentioned?
The link you provided isn't anywhere close to the air distance and arc calculated by web sites found online.
That trajectory has the plane leaving the 25th parallel, arcing 24 degrees north to the 49th parallel and then back down south to the 33rd parallel.
I guess that only happens over water, for some reason, right?
This makes sense to you... why?
Because someone told you that's how it's done?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe shortest path on a sphere is a Great Circle (as I believe others have mentioned). A great circle divides a sphere in half, and since Latitude lines do not divide the Earth in half (except for the equator), they are not the shortest path between points on a sphere.
[b]Wolfgang brought this up earlier, about how the shortest distance between East-West points is not a Latitude line.
I'm all ears.
The shortest distance between Taiwan and LAX will look like a curve, extending north...
Oh, so not a straight line.
I think I see where you're going with this one.
So, if I'm walking from Boston to Sea ...[text shortened]... eason, right?
This makes sense to you... why?
Because someone told you that's how it's done?[/b]
See:
education.nationalgeographic.com/encyclopedia/great-circle/
For a practical exercise, get a globe of the earth and stretch a string between Taiwan and Los Angeles so that it is the shortest length possible, and see what the path is.
The shortest path on a 2D plane is a straight line, but the Earth is not a 2D plane (unless one is a flat earther).
23 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI pointed it out in my very first reply to the post in question. I realise you may have not understood me pointing it out, so I am willing to put that down to miscommunication.
I admitted the error as soon as it was revealed.
Kinda makes you wonder why you didn't point out that it wasn't 19 hours, but nine.
Read much? As you quoted, "the flight to which you refer..." is directed at... who, exactly?
That's right: the person who was referring to a flight wherein a woman gave birth to her baby while en route to LAX
I have gone through the whole thread and failed to find where that was mentioned. Could you tell me who said it and on what page it is? It certainly was not clear in the post where you gave your thought experiment that it was referring to some prior conversation. I made it clear in my response that you have not stated at what point in the flight events were supposed to have occurred, yet you failed to clarify that those details were contained in some prior conversation.
Actually, no.
Travelmath.com (as far as I am aware) is not a flat earth website.
Neither, to my knowledge, are the following websites:
You probably don't know how to use them.
distancefromto.net
This last one allows you to plot any point on the planate--- which is exactly what I did.
Yet apparently didn't understand what you saw.
Move LAX to 3000 miles east of TPE (500 MPH times six hours), and you're very near Guam.
Not only should you not be travelling East, but if you did travel 3000 miles due east from Taiwan, you would now be about 1,800 miles from Guam not 'very near'.
Also Guam to LAX is just over 6,000 miles, whereas Guam to Anchorage is more like 4,600 quite a big difference.
Now take that position and change the destination to Ted Stevens International in Alaska.
That distance divided by 500 MPH equals nine plus hours, or just a little more than the time it would have taken to finish flying to LAX--- but MUCH more than it would have been to land in Guam, Hawaii or Tokyo.
The closest the real flight should get to Hawaii, is about 1,800 miles.
23 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot a straight line on Google Maps. Google Maps is not the Earth. It is a map. There is a difference.
Oh, so not a straight line.
Try drawing a straight line on this map:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~231928~5509077:Northern-Hemisphere---Polar-View
And you might get the surprise of your life.
24 Oct 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadLooking at different projections can be unsettling!
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~231928~5509077:Northern-Hemisphere---Polar-View
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections
I like the ones which preserves area.
In particular the Hobo-Dyer projection puts North America and Europe in their place!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobo%E2%80%93Dyer_projection
24 Oct 15
A little titbit for you all.
I moved to Dunedin, NZ from London, UK.
Dunedin is the farthest city in the world from London.
If I move further south to Invercargil.
I would be actually closer to London!!!!
The figures are 19,109 km for Dunedin
and 19,025 km for Invercargil.
Look at that on your world map.
😀
24 Oct 15
Originally posted by PatNovakThe shortest path on a 2D plane is a straight line, but the Earth is not a 2D plane (unless one is a flat earther).
The shortest path on a sphere is a Great Circle (as I believe others have mentioned). A great circle divides a sphere in half, and since Latitude lines do not divide the Earth in half (except for the equator), they are not the shortest path between points on a sphere.
See:
education.nationalgeographic.com/encyclopedia/great-circle/
For a practical ex ...[text shortened]... n a 2D plane is a straight line, but the Earth is not a 2D plane (unless one is a flat earther).
Let's see if I have this straight.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, unless you are not on a... what?
Aren't you, in essence, declaring that the shortest distance is not a straight line since the Earth is not a 2D plane, therefore the Earth is not a 2D plane?
Your link was 335 words amounting to nonsense.
Literally no light was shed.
Got anything better?