The earth is a flat, non spinning realm, not a planet in an infinite universe
- Thread starter Bushy Bill
- Start date
- Status
@herodotus6
What is the distance between Buffalo Mich. and what kind of camera was used?
As far as the Quantas flight goes, there is compelling evidence that they fake southern hemisphere flights. A few years ago when the FE movement was gaining traction all of the sudden Quantas started offering these flights, but when people tried to book them they were always full, or the few times they did get a reservation the airline called them to cancel a few days before. Next some FEers got the idea to go to the airport and see whether these flights ever took off or landed, nope. If "they'll" fake space and a round earth you don't think they'll fake a few flights a week.
What is the distance between Buffalo Mich. and what kind of camera was used?
As far as the Quantas flight goes, there is compelling evidence that they fake southern hemisphere flights. A few years ago when the FE movement was gaining traction all of the sudden Quantas started offering these flights, but when people tried to book them they were always full, or the few times they did get a reservation the airline called them to cancel a few days before. Next some FEers got the idea to go to the airport and see whether these flights ever took off or landed, nope. If "they'll" fake space and a round earth you don't think they'll fake a few flights a week.
http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
Do any airline flights fly over Antarctica?
I know many flight, like Chicago/NYC-East Asia flights will fly over the North Pole, but I've never seen any flights over Antarctica on flight radar. It would seem like flights between South Africa/Australia/South America might take a quicker route over Antarctica, but is this ever done? If not, why not?
This is an interesting question, and there are three reasons why no commercial flight overflies Antarctica:
Geography
Due to the arrangement of the three populated southern continents, flying over Antarctica wouldn't actually be shorter for most routes. South America, Africa, and Australia form a rough triangle at the "bottom of the world" and the shortest leg between their largest airports misses most of Antarctica.
Still, there are a few routes where it would make sense. And the shortest route isn't always best, since one must also consider prevailing winds. I read that it would be favorable to fly Sydney to Buenos Aires (currently the most-southern flight) at 80 degrees south (over Antarctica) rather than 72 degrees (the great circle) due to winds.
ETOPS
ETOPS rules cover where twin-engine jets can fly. Antarctica is considered off-limits for twin-engine jets even though it's technically "land". This isn't a real roadblock since there are a good number of 4-engine jets that don't need to abide by ETOPS, but it limits the type of plane that theoretically could fly there and thus rules out all but the largest jets. So any flight over Antarctica would have to connect large-enough cities to fill a large four-engine jet. Bringing us back to the answer about geography...
Special Rules
The real reason no commercial flight over-flies Antarctica is that there are special aviation rules for flights that do. These rules were designed for sightseeing flights but apply to commercial flights as well. Planes flying below 72 degrees latitude need special survival equipment on board, and no commercial carrier would want to stock planes with all this stuff just to save a bit of fuel. It would limit the number of seats available (see ETOPS above) and would require special equipment and training. This could seriously screw up the airline's schedules.
So that's why no commercial flight over-flies Antarctica!
Do any airline flights fly over Antarctica?
I know many flight, like Chicago/NYC-East Asia flights will fly over the North Pole, but I've never seen any flights over Antarctica on flight radar. It would seem like flights between South Africa/Australia/South America might take a quicker route over Antarctica, but is this ever done? If not, why not?
This is an interesting question, and there are three reasons why no commercial flight overflies Antarctica:
Geography
Due to the arrangement of the three populated southern continents, flying over Antarctica wouldn't actually be shorter for most routes. South America, Africa, and Australia form a rough triangle at the "bottom of the world" and the shortest leg between their largest airports misses most of Antarctica.
Still, there are a few routes where it would make sense. And the shortest route isn't always best, since one must also consider prevailing winds. I read that it would be favorable to fly Sydney to Buenos Aires (currently the most-southern flight) at 80 degrees south (over Antarctica) rather than 72 degrees (the great circle) due to winds.
ETOPS
ETOPS rules cover where twin-engine jets can fly. Antarctica is considered off-limits for twin-engine jets even though it's technically "land". This isn't a real roadblock since there are a good number of 4-engine jets that don't need to abide by ETOPS, but it limits the type of plane that theoretically could fly there and thus rules out all but the largest jets. So any flight over Antarctica would have to connect large-enough cities to fill a large four-engine jet. Bringing us back to the answer about geography...
Special Rules
The real reason no commercial flight over-flies Antarctica is that there are special aviation rules for flights that do. These rules were designed for sightseeing flights but apply to commercial flights as well. Planes flying below 72 degrees latitude need special survival equipment on board, and no commercial carrier would want to stock planes with all this stuff just to save a bit of fuel. It would limit the number of seats available (see ETOPS above) and would require special equipment and training. This could seriously screw up the airline's schedules.
So that's why no commercial flight over-flies Antarctica!
POP QUIZ for you 'space' believers, what atmospheric layer does the ISS and did the space shuttle orbit in?
I'd love to see the evidence for this, and the mathematics behind it, how it fits into all the other things we know of physics.
Oh, I know the 'official' reasons. They don't disprove my claims and they don't prove ballers claims. Kind of convenient for you guys though. How's about we charter a plane to fly down there see if that's allowed (hint, it's not).
Yeah, yeah. More conspiracy, more cover up, and more tin foil hats. It's all fisheye lenses and mirrors. I mean, for all the people that NASA and all the space agencies around the world employ, all the people who work with them in outsourcing, all the gov't officials that approve their funding, all the families of those people, and all the others in businesses like aviation and navigation to all be in on it and all keep quiet is just astounding. Or, the Earth just really could be round.
The electromagnetic force is WAAAYYYY stronger than gravity. Why does this explanation trouble you so much? It explains tides, the spin of tropical storms way better than 'spin' does.
Last edited:
You've yet to offer any scientific evidence at all for a ball earth. You do know what scientific evidence is right? Anyways when you rule out a ball earth then it kind of requires a gigantic conspiracy to keep this FACT under wraps.
Don't lump me in with these rubes... you've shown me the error of my ways.
What's this all about:
Bill, if you were to grow 10x the size of the earth and be able to survive in space and look at the earth and be able to move around it and see that it was semi-spherical, would that be enough proof?
Last edited:
Rebuttal? Where did I say anything about a rebuttal? I was just sharing a good laugh.
I know exactly what it is, and have provided plenty. Do YOU know what it is? So far all you have been able to provide is videos from quacks who barely have an understanding of science, or are easy to disprove using science(Rockets in a vacuum). Mathematically proving why the skyline in New Buffalo, MI matches the Pythagorean curvature equation, FISHEYES.
I mean, it doesn't get more scientific than doing the math and showing in the pic how the skyline matches and should be underwater. Short of strapping your *** in a rocket and shooting you up there, you reject anything shown to you. When you are cornered, CONSPIRACY. FISHEYES. FISHEYED CONSPIRACIES!!! You have yet to actually disprove anything anyone has said in here, just fisheye and mirror your way around it.
Anybody know or want to guess which regular poster Bushy Bill is?
Or is he an angel sent from the heavens to teach the poor souls on the Paddock?
Or is he an angel sent from the heavens to teach the poor souls on the Paddock?
Please put a dedicated physics guy like @UKGrad93 into the equation, and let's end this crazy charade once and for all. I'm sensing a huge Paddock troll job. This entire thread defies history.
True story.
yea like GPS as well? how does that damn thing know exactly where to tell me to turn?
Since you wont address my other questions. I will just leave another good read for you here:
http://www.novatel.com/assets/Documents/Bulletins/APN064.pdf
http://www.novatel.com/assets/Documents/Bulletins/APN064.pdf
Meh. This thread is already 10 pages. I ain't got time or enough interest to read all of that. If anyone needs to do an experiment to prove the earth is round (somewhat spherical), just go measure gravity at a bunch of different places. It will be the same. Only explained by a sphere.
Fwiw, most of my physics classes dealt with atomic and nuclear physics, but several of the same models work there too and are proven through experiments.
Whatever though. Believe what you want.
I thought at one time it was Z, he was the first person to mention the name, but then I saw him use "your" instead of "you're", now I am fairly convinced that is that dumbass LEK. This is the kind of thing he would think. "I'll prove I'm smarter than them by being dumber than them, I'm awesome".
You all get a failing grade. Extra credit to anyone who answers this question correctly.
The 3rd layer almost 4th but not quite and it is 145 degrees but it a dry heat.
Dude, I know ganner; he really IS a ME. You, you're a, well........you're a guy on a general discussion forum who spouts off stupid **** he knows nothing about, and relies on other guys' Youtube videos to try to explain said stupid ****.
I don't care what he is, either he examines the evidence I present or doesn't and provided counter arguments or doesn't. The facts will stand on their own.
Oh, I can promise you he will examine your "evidence" and find it lacking, as does everyone else on here.
You might be able to sway others with this "evidence", but of all people you won't sway a damn Mechanical Engineer, LMAO.
I know the guy, and I've lost debates with him in the past, but the difference is I can say "yep, you're right", where you can't. Why is that? Why is it that you refuse to accept decades/centuries of accepted science, yet cling to unproven quack theories?
You aren't presenting evidence, you're presenting assertions. I know how the math works behind a round, spinning globe creating the Coriolis effect. It's simple to calculate the tangential velocity at various latitudes and show the change in velocity relative to the ground below a projectile as it changes latitude. When I ask for the math behind how "electromagnetic properties" create it - or any sort of evidence or explanation for how this works - you hand wave and deflect.
I got to say, I hope we're not being trolled by one of our own; I'm hoping BB is a genuine, certified whack job.
It's possible, but that's some dedicated trolling, and he's using the "arguments" and the terminology I'd expect. I've run into flat Earthers before.
This guy isn't even a FEer, but he has issues with the current explanation of the Coriolis effect. Enjoy
http://milesmathis.com/corio.html
We'll just add thermosphere to the very long list of things you have less than a passing knowledge of.
You show me your sources I'll show you mine. (hint mine come from a website that has NASA.gov in the url)
Once you experimentally prove the constant for big G, I'll show you the maths for the electromagnetic Coriolis effect. On a side note, are all engineers arrogant arsehole, because that has been my experience.
Now you're certainly trolling. Well done, sir. Well done.
Nope, I guess you haven't looked into this for a while. Maybe you should do some research.
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html
Also, that link you posted is just full of blabbering nonsense. It's to the point that it's not even wrong, it's just nonsensical. Drains don't move in different directions in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the Coriolis effect doesn't act on that scale. Its an urban myth. And that's where the author starts from. He also incorrectly states that the hurricanes gain energy from Coriolis force. That's not the case. He goes on to use tornadoes as an example of vortices not caused by Coriolis effect, which just blows his entire nonsensical argument out of the water - vortices naturally form when fluids move in certain ways. The low pressure of a hurricane draws winds toward itself, and the Coriolis effect causes deflection of those winds coming from the North and South. Fast moving air streams going past each other from opposite directions lead to the creation of vortices.
- Status