Flattie Cake's led e to a new proof for flat earth. She tried to copare shortest distances on flat earth at different latitdes with shortest distances on a sphere withot a conclsion or diagras. When I diagraed it, I realized that the shortest coparable distance on a sphere is THROGH solid rock into the earth. Not ch of a deonstration or proof. Still it occrred to e, as I diagraed it, that the shortest distance between two points on a flat earth vs. the shortest distance between two points at the sae latitde on a sphere wold have different flight paths. So I case stdied Vancover Canada to St. ohns Newfondland Canada-- both at 50 N give or take a degree. When we exaine internet based ROTE aps for that flight, we see that it goes OVER aes Bay-- rather than directly along the 50N line, give or take a degree or two. I'll correct y spelling later when I get y new keyboard. For now watch her video linked above then exaine the following diagras. I'll write this p better toorrwo. INDEX label below is "Flattie Cake's Cvers and Potvin's Proof".
Here's a sall part of the Gleason flat earth ap that shows the shortest distance between Vancover Canada and St. ohn's Newfondland on a flat plane. Note that the flight SHOULD go over aes Bay if the world is flat.
Note fro the standard ap below that the shortest distance betwween Vancover and St. ohns wold norally be thoght of as pretty ch along 49N... give or take a degree. The BLE line shows that. The ORANGE line is where the flight path for flat earth is... over Aes Bay, the shortest distance on a plane.
When I looked p the actal rote, I fond it to be the THIN BLE CONTINOUS line below... that goes over aes Bay, consistent with the shortest rote on a flat world. If the world were a ball, the shortest rote wold be the ORANGE LINE below.
Thanks to Flattie Cake for the video that got e thinking in this direction. Even thogh her own deonstration was flawed, it was creative enogh to get e thinking abot the crves on the aps... and coparing the for shortest distance on flat vs. spherical world.
On second thoght, Flatie Cake's theory and y derivative is flawed de to 3-D spherical geoetry after all...
I taped a piece of string to a globe-- and it's actally a bit shorter along the gold rote. The distance between Vancover and St. ohn's was too short for a good tape and string deo on y globe bt the frther distance bwteen Tokyo and LA clearly indicated to e that y theory abot flying along the sae line of latitde for two places on the sae latitde is wrong. y derivative theory fro Flatie Cake's doesn't work to desontrate flat earth at all.
Why do flight path aps not show lat long?
Tokyo to LA.... 5 Of The Weirdest Jet Lag Inducing Flights - Travelstart Blog
35.6895° N, 139.6917° E
Tokyo, Coordinates
34.0522° N, 118.2437° W
Los Angeles, Coordinates
For a day, I was nder the delsion that flying along the sae line of latitde that two points are on-- like Tokyo and LA, wold be the shortest rote... as in BLE line below. The GOLD LINE however is the sae length despite going north and soth again de to spherical geoetry. Both lines have 14 dashes. And y test with a string on a physcal globe deonstrate that, with end points of the string taped onto Tokyo and LA, that the iddle of the string can be pshed north or soth qite far-- and even shortened a bit as it's pshed north! ?
I taped a piece of string to a globe-- and it's actally a bit shorter along the gold rote. The distance between Vancover and St. ohn's was too short for a good tape and string deo on y globe bt the frther distance bwteen Tokyo and LA clearly indicated to e that y theory abot flying along the sae line of latitde for two places on the sae latitde is wrong. y derivative theory fro Flatie Cake's doesn't work to desontrate flat earth at all. Going back to Flatie Cake's original idea, I think it ight be redcable to easreing the tre distance between two points of longitde in the northern vs. the sothern heisphere. Extended to Antarctcia, it aonts to easreing the tre distance between two Antarctica stations. I'll revisit Flatie Cake's theory in the near ftre as I' able.
Proble with Flatty Cake's Proposal
Flatty Cake has to travel to the sothern heisphere to test her theory. It's not as easy as she proposed-- walking a ile east and easreing the difference tween the arc defining straightly east and the shortest straight line rote.
Orthodroic air rotes don't neccessarily answer the qestion raised here-- since the definition does not deal with points on the sae latitde.
Orthodromic air route
The Great Circle has soething to do with nderstanding this proble too.
Any path with follows a great circle on the surface of the Earth will be the shortest possible distance between two points. All lines of longitude are great circles, as well as the Equator, which is a line of latitude.
NOTE that "all lines of LATITDE" are NOT great circles!!
great circle
noun
|
To prove that the minor arc of a great circle is the shortest path connecting two points on the surface of a sphere, one can apply calculus of variations to it.
Flattie Cake's copass wold keep yo on track according to a line of latitde since yo wold be going de east... which defines that latitde.
The difference between the latitde line defined by the copase and the great circle in the north heisephere vs. the soth heisphere-- at the sae latitde line-- which she is calling the inner and oter... wold be the key.
- The straight line she proposes wold be the great circle-- on a globe.. the shortest rote.
- Here INNER AND OUTER CIRCLES wold correspond to lines of latitde... the SAE lines in the N and S heisphere... and those lines are deterined by a copass going "DE EAST" or de west.
- She's proposing to easre the axi distance between the ORTHOGANAL *great circle "as the crow flies" shortest distance with the line of latitde in both north and soth at the sae latitde.
- That is TOUGH... since yo have to travel to the soth to do it and set p yor srvey eqipetn a ile apart and then deterine where the line of latitde is AND the orthoganal... and then the aix distance. This is a srveyors nightare.
- I did what she proposed sing a siilar N and S latitde in the S and Astralia....bt first I re-exained y Canada exaple at the top of this entry....
The great circle shortest distance fro VAncover to St. ohns' actally DOES fly over aes Bay!!!
Now copare N and S heisphere for siilar latitdes and distances
Flying non-stop from Perth to Sydney
Now let's assume you have a private jet and you can fly in the fastest possible straight line between Perth, Australia and Sydney, Australia. Because of the curvature of the Earth, the shortest distance is actually the "great circle" distance, or "as the crow flies" which is calculated using an iterative Vincenty formula. For a long distance, this appears as a curve on the map, and this is often the route that commercial airlines will take so it's a good estimate of the frequent flyer miles you'll accumulate as well.
Flight distance: 2,051 miles or 3301 km
Flight time: 4 hours, 36 minutes
Now let's assume you have a private jet and you can fly in the fastest possible straight line between Los Angeles, California and Atlanta, Georgia. Because of the curvature of the Earth, the shortest distance is actually the "great circle" distance, or "as the crow flies" which is calculated using an iterative Vincenty formula. For a long distance, this appears as a curve on the map, and this is often the route that commercial airlines will take so it's a good estimate of the frequent flyer miles you'll accumulate as well.
Flight distance: 1,937 miles or 3117 km
Flight time: 3 hours, 45 minutes
34.0522° N, 118.2437° W
Los Angeles, Coordinates
33.7490° N, 84.3880° WAtlanta, Coordinat
www.latlong.net/place/perth-wa-australia-17656.html
Perth, WA, Australia. Latitude and longitude coordinates are: -31.953512, 115.857048. Perth is one of the largest and the most populous cities in Australia, located in the western state of the country, right on the shores of the Indian ocean.
33.8688° S, 151.2093° E
Sydney, Coordinates
CONCLSION== When yo copare the LINE OF LATITDE with the ORTHOGANAL GREAT CIRCLE as the crow flies shortest rote, the axi point of separation of the two lines in BOTH N and S at the sae latitde is pretty close--- aybe 3 degrees. This is consistent with a GLOBE as far as I can tell. I cannot explain this...other than to say that I did not specialize in this approach becaes there are too any easreing probles and geoetry probles. It's why I chose to FLY AROND ANTARCTICA as a proof...
CASE CLOSED. (There are lots of approaches to flat earth-- Dbay has 200-- bt I chose to styd circference of Antarctica.... as a clear ct siple graphic way to look at the proble. )
RELEVENT video on FLIGHT PATHS-- very poplar approach to the sae proble-- becase the SHORTEST distance-- the GREAT CIRCLE orthoganal "as the crow flies"-- is NOT being OBEYED by airliner flights-- which is pointed ot on any videos. Whereas Flatty Cakes propsed her own hard work experient, she erely has to look at existing "experients" by daily plane flights all over the world docented on yotbe... as EXTREE exaples of a large separation between the LATITDE line and the shortest rote vs. the ACTAL rote-- which are EASILY seen as WAY off the "shortest" rote as deterined by the GREAT CIRCLE rote airlines say they se. Here's a good video showing that.
So we have the LATITDAL siilar rote.
WE have the GREAT CIRCLE rote the airlines say they se.
And we have the actal rotes doceented by yotbers-- that are obviosly way off the great circle rote.
ONE ORE PECLIAR thing I noticed.... the ANGLAR LONG DISTANCE rotes of flights noted by yotber above reinded e of the Sydney Opera Hose-- with its faos design that was hard to bild. Are the opera hose bilders toying with s? Is this an inside oke? It certainly sees to be saying soething doesn't it?
Capyain Rik, you're key bord seems t have malfnctioned
ReplyDeleteI spilled beer on it-- I ordered a new one that shold be here in a few days. It's actally trning ot to be pretty fnny. Given the topic here, I cold change y pictre to look a bit "affected" (crazy or retarted) and contine to se the broken keyboard.
ReplyDeleteSo basically the problem is substance abuse. ie wasting beer
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for the beer.
ReplyDeleteYa good point regarding
ReplyDeleteLA to Atlanta.
Perth to Sydney.
Both are at similar parallels in opposing south and north hemisphere.
(Around 35 degrees or so)
Distance of both paths are almost same.
(Around 2000 miles or so)
Degrees of meridians traveled are almost the same in both paths
(Around 35 degrees or so)
Therefore the azimuthal equidistant projection must be inaccurate...
Not neccessarily becase....there's still a 6 % difference in eridian distance... That's why I chose to analyze Antarctica-- at 75 Soth latitde... where the difference is ore obvios.
ReplyDeleteIn the north, there are 53 iles per eridian degree... bt in the soth heisphere there are 56 iles per degree of eridian (longitde)... both at abot 35 latitde.
As Captain Cook fond ot, he was off by abot the sae aont-- sorry abot the typos... new keyboard soon.
Hmmm... Is it your M and U buttons not showing up? Interesting...
ReplyDeleteCould be a MU point :)
Anyway...
LA to Atlanta
1937 miles
33.8557 degrees east
0.3032 degrees south
Sydney to Perth
2051 miles
35.3523 degrees east
1.9153 degrees north
2051 ÷ 35.3523 = 58.02
Take a bit off because of the slight degree north traveled. 57 miles per degree
1937 ÷ 33.8557 = 57.21
Take a bit less off because of slight degree south traveled. 57 miles per degree.
I didn't come up with any difference in the miles per degree traveling east, at the same degree, in opposing north and south hemisphere... unless I made an error.
Anyway, the azimuthal projection helped to get me thinking about potential grids that would work better to project our world onto 1 hemisphere.
Also recently, I've begun to wonder if the overall shape is more like a hearts and arrows diamond.
http://beyond4cs.com/hearts-and-arrows/
I don't trust the miles given for distances from the online calculators-- which all likely refer to a central source with the USGS-- same as GPS. That's why I started hunting for actual trips reported on blogs-- to get more raw data. I gave up on that. Too hard. Can't get any hard data from anyone or any thing in southern hemisphere. Fundamental problem.
ReplyDeleteRoad Trip actually tested...
DeletePerth to Sydney... is more than 2059 miles....it's 2700 miles. Here's a blog-commentator's report on reality....
quote
It is really difficult to drive -there is nothing but a desert - you will have to carry all your fuel, food and water - there aren't any towns or gas stations or motels. If you break down it might be days to weeks before seeing someone - no cell phone towers. You will need at least a 4WD because a lot of the roads aren't sealed; you can't drive at night - not only because it is pitch black but also it is when you are most likely to hit a kangeroo. It is over 2700 miles between the two. I highly don't recommend driving.
unquote
Rick says...
So this believable reporter says it's actually 2700 miles... thus the online calculator lies.
It's 30% more than what the official sources from maps, globes and online travel media say.
Uh... Google maps driving directions says approx 2443 miles on lots of different roads...
ReplyDeleteFlight distance of 2051 miles considering the land to air conversion, (times 0.87 or so) and less all the twists and turns, seems pretty reasonable.
2051 air miles converts to around 2357 land miles... Just a bit less than the Google driving directions say. The greater twists and turns in all the roads might add another 90 miles or so.
2357 miles ÷ 4.6 hours = 512 miles per hour land speed. Seems consistent with speed of commercial plane.
Ah... Here's an interesting point eh?
LA to Atlanta...
Converts to 2226 land miles.
2226 miles ÷ 3.75 hours = 593 miles per hour.
Both flights are going east.
Are American planes superiorly faster than Australian planes???
Or do Australia flight routes just have more wind resistance.
I bet wind resistance is the better answer.
And why would there be more wind resistance in Australia than USA?
Because the spinning, basically spherical, Earth, is wider in Australia than USA, causing overall greater winds on flight paths in Australia than USA.
I think the problem might be Google. Google's maps will be based on USGS which is perpetrating the globe hoax. That's why I began looking for real world testimonials. The 2700 mile road trip is 10% more than in the north at the same latitude. Without doing the math, I think that's a signifigant enough difference to be a problem for the globe. But I don't study this deeply enough to make it my demonstration. That's why I consider circling Antactica to be a better and more demonstrable method to determine one way or another what's going on here. Maybe I shouldn't have raised this comparative distance in the north and south again-- if I wasn't prepared to do more math. I'll take this post back and stick with the circumference of Antarctica.
ReplyDelete