24 Oct 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd what surprise waits for me there, that I haven't already pointed out to you, exactly?
Not a straight line on Google Maps. Google Maps is not the Earth. It is a map. There is a difference.
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 twhiteheadI 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 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.
[b]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 ga ...[text shortened]... m, Hawaii or Tokyo.
The closest the real flight should get to Hawaii, is about 1,800 miles.[/b]
Um, okay.
Let's parse it out.
On 22 Oct '15 23:28, page eight, Pat Novak posted:
"However, this "thought experiment" was basically performed only last week."
On 23 Oct '15 09:46, page nine, yours truly posted:
"The flight to which you refer was six hours into its course toward LAX--- not six hours toward Ted Stevens."
That should clear things up.
Maybe.
You probably don't know how to use them.
Of course I don't; I'm a blithering idiot, remember?
Unfortunately, this blithering idiot has figured out what you have failed to uncover in all of your alleged brilliance, but don't let that keep you from congratulating yourself.
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'.
Holy shi-typo, Batman.
I inadvertently made another mistake.
I meant to type West, but typed East.
Guess that totally destroys the argument, doesn't it!
The closest the real flight should get to Hawaii, is about 1,800 miles.
So what did you come up with here?
It is very clear that an airplane six hours into a flight to LAX from TPE--- on a globe--- would not go anywhere near Ted Stevens, but instead, would have been on track for at least two of the destinations noted, and certainly NOT where they landed... unless, of course, the globe is not reality and we are living on a flat plane.
24 Oct 15
Originally posted by PatNovakAlso, you failed to address the arc a plane takes.
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).
Nautically--- which is the closest to a straight line as is possible--- the distances are expressed differently than the air time.
If the great circle is the shortest distance, how do you reconcile the difference between its expressed distance and the nautical distance?
How can I walk from Boston to Seattle in a relatively straight line, but you suggest that a distance based upon the great circle would be different, i.e., greater?
Why does the path of an airplane over land diverge so greatly in comparison to the path of an airplane over water?
24 Oct 15
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well yes, but all this doesn't address the question of whether there is "value in thought" beyond practical repercussions. Sonhouse came closest to this, but his example is somewhat practical. We can get value from the process of thinking, in the way people do crosswords for the sake of trying to complete them. Where thinking is being done in something that doesn't reflect on anything practical does it matter if it's based on a counterfactual set of premises? After all we don't complain about novels on the grounds that the author made it all up. So, given that we can't tell if God exists or not by any empirical standard, if someone wants to believe in a God but there are no practical averse consequences (it's not a crazy cult) and it's costing them about as much as a serious hobby then is all the value of their pertinent thinking contingent on their God existing?
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 [b]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.
😀[/b]
25 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere is no such thing as a straight line on the surface of a sphere. A straight line between Taiwan and Los Angeles (or Boston and Seattle) would go through the interior of the Earth. So we are both advocating curved paths. The difference is that I am advocating paths that have both mathematical backing (great circles), and evidentiary backing (airlines and shipping both tend take paths that roughly follow great circles. (See: www.wired.com/2010/01/global-shipping-map for evidence that ships also follow paths that loop toward the poles). Your position seems to advocate that the map is the territory (e.g. if a straight line can be drawn on a map, it must be a straight line in reality).
Also, you failed to address the arc a plane takes.
Nautically--- which is the closest to a straight line as is possible--- the distances are expressed differently than the air time.
If the great circle is the shortest distance, how do you reconcile the difference between its expressed distance and the nautical distance?
How can I walk from Boston to Sea ...[text shortened]... of an airplane over land diverge so greatly in comparison to the path of an airplane over water?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo on page 4, where you posted the thought experiment, I was expected to know the future and know what was going to be posted on page 8 by some other poster?
On 22 Oct '15 23:28, page eight, Pat Novak posted:
....
That should clear things up.
Maybe.
When Pat Novak posted his version, did you announce that in fact your thought experiment had the same timings in its scenario?
Unfortunately, this blithering idiot has figured out what you have failed to uncover in all of your alleged brilliance, but don't let that keep you from congratulating yourself.
A long as you keep your marvellous findings to yourself, I will continue to consider you a blithering idiot.
Holy shi-typo, Batman.
I inadvertently made another mistake.
I meant to type West, but typed East.
3000 miles due west of TPE will place you in northern India.
So what did you come up with here?
It is very clear that an airplane six hours into a flight to LAX from TPE--- on a globe--- would not go anywhere near Ted Stevens, but instead, would have been on track for at least two of the destinations noted, and certainly NOT where they landed... unless, of course, the globe is not reality and we are living on a flat plane.
You are not making any sense. I am starting to put 'trolling' and 'insane' at the top of my list of possibilities.
26 Oct 15
Originally posted by PatNovakWhat you are putting forth here is the same on a round plane as it is applies to a sphere.
There is no such thing as a straight line on the surface of a sphere. A straight line between Taiwan and Los Angeles (or Boston and Seattle) would go through the interior of the Earth. So we are both advocating curved paths. The difference is that I am advocating paths that have both mathematical backing (great circles), and evidentiary backing (airlines an ...[text shortened]... erritory (e.g. if a straight line can be drawn on a map, it must be a straight line in reality).
What you haven't addressed is why an airplane would follow such a wildly divergent path to its destination other than the shortest distance, i.e., a straight line.
You claim a straight line doesn't exist on a sphere, and yet the nautical miles are substantially less than the air miles.
You fail to answer why a flight plan--- or a walking path, for that matter--- from Boston to Seattle does not follow a similarly arced trajectory.
Nor have you answered why an airplane would take off from the 25th parallel, peak out at or near the 49th parallel to simply end up on the 33rd parallel.
Literally the ONLY math wherein such a trajectory makes sense is found on a flat surface--- where the path from TPE to LAX swings right by Ted Stevens International... instead of thousands of miles south of the same.
26 Oct 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo on page 4, where you posted the thought experiment, I was expected to know the future and know what was going to be posted on page 8 by some other poster?
So on page 4, where you posted the thought experiment, I was expected to know the future and know what was going to be posted on page 8 by some other poster?
When Pat Novak posted his version, did you announce that in fact your thought experiment had the same timings in its scenario?
[b]Unfortunately, this blithering idiot has figured out what you h ...[text shortened]... any sense. I am starting to put 'trolling' and 'insane' at the top of my list of possibilities.
Not sure, really.
Seems like specious conjecture.
What was asked of you, however, was this: if you knew the 19 hours was wrong, why didn't you challenge it?
When Pat Novak posted his version, did you announce that in fact your thought experiment had the same timings in its scenario?
Asked and answered, as you are (or should be) aware.
When I referenced it by quoting him and pointing to the same thing to which he referred, that's considered an announcement of sorts.
Or at minimum, very clear to the thoughtful reader.
3000 miles due west of TPE will place you in northern India.
Yeah, I'll admit it: carrying on a conversation with the two of you on different tacks led me to think I made a mistake, when, in fact, I hadn't.
We were discussing the travel path of leaving TPE toward LAX.
But you knew that, and--- inexplicably--- called me out as though my directions were off.
I can only wonder why you would call me out on something which was demonstrably true.
Of course, your intentions can't be questioned, now can they?
Flying EAST from TPE toward LAX for six hours would put you somewhere within 200-500 miles of Guam--- just as said in the first place.
Let's try to refrain from the disingenuous pettiness, shall we?
You are not making any sense. I am starting to put 'trolling' and 'insane' at the top of my list of possibilities.
But of course: only one as studious and serious as yourself could ever question the status quo and be ever be taken at face value.
Any one else is certifiably insane.
Of course, you have failed to answer the lapses in common sense from the propositions put forth up to this point, but that's a small matter for one so informed as you are...
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHuh? I don't understand.
Not sure, really.
Seems like specious conjecture.
What was asked of you, however, was this: if you knew the 19 hours was wrong, why didn't you challenge it?
I did challenge it in my very first response to the post, and I have since pointed out that I challenged it.
We were discussing the travel path of leaving TPE toward LAX.
But you knew that, and--- inexplicably--- called me out as though my directions were off.
No, I didn't I said nothing about your directions being off. I said your claim that Guam would be close was incorrect.
I can only wonder why you would call me out on something which was demonstrably true.
Because it is demonstrably false.
Flying EAST from TPE toward LAX for six hours would put you somewhere within 200-500 miles of Guam--- just as said in the first place.
Wrong. Guam is over 800 miles south of the path due east of TPE.
Let's try to refrain from the disingenuous pettiness, shall we?
Yes lets. Why do you do it?
Of course, you have failed to answer the lapses in common sense from the propositions put forth up to this point, but that's a small matter for one so informed as you are...
I am yet to see any common sense coming from you. You appear to know nothing about mapping yet think you can demonstrate something about maps (yet it is still unclear what you think you are demonstrating other than your own ignorance of maps).
26 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAre you seriously claiming that the world is flat?
Also, you failed to address the arc a plane takes.
Nautically--- which is the closest to a straight line as is possible--- the distances are expressed differently than the air time.
If the great circle is the shortest distance, how do you reconcile the difference between its expressed distance and the nautical distance?
How can I walk from Boston to Sea ...[text shortened]... of an airplane over land diverge so greatly in comparison to the path of an airplane over water?
26 Oct 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't know what you trying to say, because there is no such thing as a round plane. A plane is a flat 2D surface extending indefinitely. There is nothing round about a plane.
What you are putting forth here is the same on a round plane as it is applies to a sphere.
What you haven't addressed is why an airplane would follow such a wildly divergent path to its destination other than the shortest distance, i.e., a straight line.
Because airplanes are not built to tunnel through the Earth. The closest you can come to the straight-line-shortest-distance between points on a sphere, without burrowing through the planet, is a Great Circle.
You claim a straight line doesn't exist on a sphere, and yet the nautical miles are substantially less than the air miles.
Example?
You fail to answer why a flight plan--- or a walking path, for that matter--- from Boston to Seattle does not follow a similarly arced trajectory.
Sometimes national boundaries may interfere, but they do follow the same type of trajectory, and being over land vs water has nothing to do with it.
See:
flights.expedia.com/flights-from-berlin-to-beijing-txl-to-pek
Nor have you answered why an airplane would take off from the 25th parallel, peak out at or near the 49th parallel to simply end up on the 33rd parallel.
I have indeed answered this. It is because the flight path is roughly a Great Circle. Latitude lines are not the shortest path between East-West points, so it makes no sense to stay on the same latitude when traveling east-west.
Literally the ONLY math wherein such a trajectory makes sense is found on a flat surface--- where the path from TPE to LAX swings right by Ted Stevens International... instead of thousands of miles south of the same.
I second DeepThought's question. Are you arguing that the Earth is flat?
26 Oct 15
Originally posted by PatNovakI assume he meant a disc. In most flat Earth descriptions there is a boundary.
I don't know what you trying to say, because there is no such thing as a round plane. A plane is a flat 2D surface extending indefinitely. There is nothing round about a plane.
[b]What you haven't addressed is why an airplane would follow such a wildly divergent path to its destination other than the shortest distance, i.e., a straight line.
...[text shortened]... uth of the same.[/b]
I second DeepThought's question. Are you arguing that the Earth is flat?[/b]