Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 667
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #60 on: December 15, 2021, 08:55:50 AM »
Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.

If you believe in a flat earth, then implicit in that belief is that somehow almost every distance between two places on the planet is not what it is understood to be

I wouldn't go that far.  We're talking ocean distance and polar region's, not well established travel routes 

No, it’s everywhere. I even worked it out in another post - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13948.msg237441#msg237441

The north centred monopole map is ‘correct’ at the North Pole, and increasingly wrong the further south you go - yours would be the same, albeit reversed. If you hold the north-south distances to be the same as the RE distances, then your equatorial circumference will be 57% larger than the RE distances that everybody uses. That means if you get in a car and drive east-west on a journey that your map says would be 10 miles, your car odo would say 16 miles. And that doesn’t happen, does it?

It gets a lot worse the further towards the edge, of course, as you have seen with the very large distances in your ‘northern’ latitudes.

Quote

That's not totally true   If you Wikipedia "Stratosphere" you'll see that temperature is cold in the Stratosphere and only goes up as you approach it's 40km ceiling..  Planes enjoy flying around the lower Stratosphere to avoid Troposphere weather.


Yes, the stratosphere is cold, but it gets warmer with increasing altitude, not colder. Yes, aircraft fly in it - you have to remember that it’s not a ‘hard’ boundary - just a convenient way of modelling the atmosphere. But generally speaking, airliners will tend to fly at or around the tropopause, at that is where it is coldest, unless other factors, such as jet stream or turbulence, skew the equation.

Quote
I'm always open to comments or questions

Well then why not answer the question that I’ve posed twice already? What would it take?

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #61 on: December 15, 2021, 09:23:49 AM »
Your formula in the prior post is very intelligent and when/if I work on another draft than I will remember your methods...

It doesn't completely correspond to my map but generally your points are true.  And why do they call it a Monopole map anyway?  All objects have two poles..  My second pole is just in another location, lol..
« Last Edit: December 15, 2021, 09:32:06 AM by MetaTron »
I believe Earth is one of at least 14 Dwarf Galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.  It acts as an Axial Disc Magnet attracting objects to it's surface.   Visually, Antarctica is at the center surrounded by the Arctic Circle.  It spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by an icy dome, and lies beneath a small heliocentric solar system.

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #62 on: December 15, 2021, 04:49:19 PM »
Yo MetaTron. 

I think part of the problem is hinted at by your "disclaimer": I advocate a South Pole centered FE Map that spins once a day, wobbles once per year, is covered by a dome shaped atmosphere .........  (my bold). 

I'm sure that isn't what you mean.  I don't think you're actually suggesting that the map wobbles, but rather that the disc-Earth does.  But that's what you've written. 

I don't know how your French is, or whether you take an interest in art, but try googling "The Treachery of Images".  Link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

Its a painting by the French artist Rene Magritte, and shows an image of a smoker's pipe, with the caption "Ceci n'est  pas une pipe" (This is not a pipe".  The point of the painting is that the painting is not actually a pipe.  You can't stuff the painting with tobacco and smoke it; it is just an illustration of a pipe. 

Similarly with much of your argument (and you are by no means alone on this forum) you keep talking about (paraphrasing) "a hypothesised south-pole centered map".  This is putting the cart before the horse.  I think what you mean is "this is a map of a hypothesised south-pole centered Earth". 

The map is not the thing.

The Earth is the thing.

If the Earth is a globe, it has 3 dimensions and can be viewed from an infinite number of perspectives, and projected onto a 2-dimensional flat map (be it paper or a screen) in a number of ways, to produce many different maps.  But there is only one Earth. 

A flat-Earth on the other hand has only 2-dimensions can only be mapped one way. 

Although we can produce many maps, there can only be one Earth, and it is the Earth, not a map, who's shape that you need to specify and measure. 



« Last Edit: December 15, 2021, 04:51:17 PM by DuncanDoenitz »

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #63 on: December 15, 2021, 06:39:11 PM »
I'll try to make the distinction between a map and the Earth more clearly in the future.  How do you say "No swimming allowed" in French in case people get the wrong idea about my illustration?  Lol.
I believe Earth is one of at least 14 Dwarf Galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.  It acts as an Axial Disc Magnet attracting objects to it's surface.   Visually, Antarctica is at the center surrounded by the Arctic Circle.  It spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by an icy dome, and lies beneath a small heliocentric solar system.

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #64 on: December 18, 2021, 01:11:29 PM »
I see you've tidied up the maps, but they still leave questions. 

I'm watching Cathay Pacific flight CX845 from JFK to Hong Kong.  Its an Airbus A350, reg B-LXL.  It headed almost due north, then slightly east over Baffin Bay, disappearing over western Greenland at around 75deg West, still heading NNE.  Its data readout showed it reached an latitude of over 89 deg north, at around 12.50 utc. 

I'm going to make a prediction that it reappears over norther Russia, at around 80 deg East, ie the directly opposite side of you're map, and heading predominantly south. 

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #65 on: December 18, 2021, 01:28:48 PM »
13.25 utc, and there it is. 

103 deg East, heading 167 deg, just north of the Komsomolets Islands. 

So that's North of Greenland to North of Russia in under an hour.  Jetstreams?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3016
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #66 on: December 18, 2021, 06:49:57 PM »
Here's the flight you're tracking:



On a Globe it looks something like this:


Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #67 on: December 18, 2021, 08:16:08 PM »
Yup, pretty close to a great circle. 

Of course, we await the south-centred disc-world explanation. 

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #68 on: December 18, 2021, 09:10:11 PM »
So, if I have this straight, the Airbus passed western Greenland and made it to the Komsomolets Islands in northern Russia in under an hour?

The best answer I have is that during winter the westerly polar jets are at their strongest.  I'm shy to give my ruler inch distance measurement, but if 2 inches equal approximately 2,500 miles, then this flight path is (edit) 30,000 miles long. 

I don't have many excuses, beyond we now need to start talking about near space conditions where objects like the ISS can travel around 17,000mph over the equator. 

Did anyone see a meteor in the sky around this time?
« Last Edit: December 18, 2021, 10:57:25 PM by MetaTron »
I believe Earth is one of at least 14 Dwarf Galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.  It acts as an Axial Disc Magnet attracting objects to it's surface.   Visually, Antarctica is at the center surrounded by the Arctic Circle.  It spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by an icy dome, and lies beneath a small heliocentric solar system.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3016
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #69 on: December 18, 2021, 09:59:28 PM »
So, if I have this straight, the Airbus passed western Greenland and made it to the Komsomolets Islands in northern Russia in under an hour?

The best answer I have is that during winter the westerly polar jets are at their strongest.  I'm shy to give my ruler inch distance measurement, but if 2 inches equal approximately 2,500 miles, then this flight path is a whopping 24 inches or 60,000 miles long. 

Doesn't the difference between your map, 60,000 miles versus reality, 8000 miles give you some sort of pause? Your "Polar jets are at their strongest" notion would mean the Airbus was traveling at 4000 miles per hour.

You might want to rethink your map.

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #70 on: December 18, 2021, 10:10:33 PM »
So your best shot is that it tracked almost due-north to western Greenland (about 1 o'clock on your map) at around 500 knots, whizzed around the Earth to the Komsomolets Islands (around 6 o'clock on your map) at 17000 mph, and then continued south to Hong Kong, again, at around 500 knots.  Have you any evidence whatever that an Airbus A350, or any commercial airliner, has this capability?  Apart from your surmised sojourn into hyperspace it was travelling almost entirely north-south, which you have previously argued is perpendicular to the jetstreams, and therefore best avoided. 


Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #71 on: December 18, 2021, 11:49:20 PM »
Doesn't the difference between your map, 60,000 miles versus reality, 8000 miles give you some sort of pause? Your "Polar jets are at their strongest" notion would mean the Airbus was traveling at 4000 miles per hour.

You might want to rethink your map.

I calculated wrong.  I measured 24 inches total route and mistakenly multiplied that by 2,500mi to get 60k.  I then correctly measured it with 24 inches x 1.125inches per/mile which equals 30,000miles for total trip distance.  However, Duncan calculated a possible shorter distance of about 24,000 miles closer to the shoreline. 
I believe Earth is one of at least 14 Dwarf Galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.  It acts as an Axial Disc Magnet attracting objects to it's surface.   Visually, Antarctica is at the center surrounded by the Arctic Circle.  It spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by an icy dome, and lies beneath a small heliocentric solar system.

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #72 on: December 18, 2021, 11:53:23 PM »
So your best shot is that it tracked almost due-north to western Greenland (about 1 o'clock on your map) at around 500 knots, whizzed around the Earth to the Komsomolets Islands (around 6 o'clock on your map) at 17000 mph, and then continued south to Hong Kong, again, at around 500 knots.  Have you any evidence whatever that an Airbus A350, or any commercial airliner, has this capability?  Apart from your surmised sojourn into hyperspace it was travelling almost entirely north-south, which you have previously argued is perpendicular to the jetstreams, and therefore best avoided.

Lol, it's a good point.  I haven't looked into the Airliners capabilities yet but by way of gravity if you're wondering why the passengers weren't floating perhaps it's because they were closer to earth then the space station is.   And an airliner travelling close to 600 miles per hour going north over Canada is also new to me, lol. 
I believe Earth is one of at least 14 Dwarf Galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.  It acts as an Axial Disc Magnet attracting objects to it's surface.   Visually, Antarctica is at the center surrounded by the Arctic Circle.  It spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by an icy dome, and lies beneath a small heliocentric solar system.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3016
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #73 on: December 19, 2021, 12:26:21 AM »
Doesn't the difference between your map, 60,000 miles versus reality, 8000 miles give you some sort of pause? Your "Polar jets are at their strongest" notion would mean the Airbus was traveling at 4000 miles per hour.

You might want to rethink your map.

I calculated wrong.  I measured 24 inches total route and mistakenly multiplied that by 2,500mi to get 60k.  I then correctly measured it with 24 inches x 1.125inches per/mile which equals 30,000miles for total trip distance.  However, Duncan calculated a possible shorter distance of about 24,000 miles closer to the shoreline.

We're still talking a 15 hour flight and 8000 miles in reality. Whether your map shows 30k or 24k miles, you're still way, way off. Doesn't that make you think?

As for an Airbus A350 going hypersonic, Airbus themselves would disagree:

- Range     15 000 km (9320 mils)
- Max fuel capacity   141 000 litres
- The A350's wing has a 31.9° sweep angle for a Mach 0.85 cruise speed and has a maximum operating speed of Mach 0.89 (682.87 mph)
- Service ceiling       41,450 ft (12,630 m)
- Maximum operating altitude    13 100m (43,000 Feet)

All this evidence - Have you thought about rethinking your map rather than coming up with ideas to make it work that don't meet with reality? Or do you think Pilots, ATC, Airbus, are lying to us?

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #74 on: December 19, 2021, 12:39:46 AM »
So your best shot is that it tracked almost due-north to western Greenland (about 1 o'clock on your map) at around 500 knots, whizzed around the Earth to the Komsomolets Islands (around 6 o'clock on your map) at 17000 mph, and then continued south to Hong Kong, again, at around 500 knots.  Have you any evidence whatever that an Airbus A350, or any commercial airliner, has this capability?  Apart from your surmised sojourn into hyperspace it was travelling almost entirely north-south, which you have previously argued is perpendicular to the jetstreams, and therefore best avoided.

Lol, it's a good point.  I haven't looked into the Airliners capabilities yet but by way of gravity if you're wondering why the passengers weren't floating perhaps it's because they were closer to earth then the space station is.   And an airliner travelling close to 600 miles per hour going north over Canada is also new to me, lol.

If this is seriously news to you, you could do worse than to take a day out of your schedule to sit and watch a tracking site like FlightRadar24; watch the routes they actually take, the speeds that they travel, maybe pick a long-haul trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flight and follow it from start to finish.  Did you really not know that planes flew north of Canada? 

And no; I wasn't actually puzzled by the ability of passengers to remain in their seats. 

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #75 on: December 19, 2021, 01:28:39 AM »
I think the atmosphere freezes as it approaches cold temperature and creates kind of an icy containment wall.

In principle this is correct—in a colder atmosphere, water vapour does condense and freeze,
forming ice particles.  But your notion that these ice crystals then coalesce to form some
sort of semi-solid "dome" isn't supported by any current evidence.

Quote from: MetaTron
The icy shell might be cloudy, transparent, etc...   It's probably thicker at lower altitudes to contain the majority of air density in the troposphere.  Here's an article on Sun Dogs caused by the Sun's light refracting off Atmospheric Ice Crystals...

Yes, that too is correct.  So-called sun dogs—like rainbows—are caused by refraction of the sun's
light, but in no way illustrate any other atmospheric phenomenon such as a solid ice plane or dome.

Quote from: MetaTron
Within the shell / Within the ice cube, the atmosphere is layered by different densities from heavy to light as you move up in altitude.

Again, that's correct.  As one's altitude increases, the density of the atmosphere decreases.  But there's
no current evidence that supports this phenomenon being due solely to some sort of physical containment
such as an ice "dome".  As the Earth's gravitational force is weaker farther from Earth's centre, at higher
altitudes, air molecules can spread out more, and the atmosphere becomes "thinner".

Quote from: MetaTron
But near the Poles of earth, the air becomes thinner more quickly.  The very thin stratosphere for example starts at 4 miles in altitude versus 12 miles at the equator.

The tropopause can—as you suggest—indeed vary from around 23,000 ft to 65,000 feet,
but in actuality that's a relatively tiny difference in terms of altitude;  we have planes currently
flying at each of those altitudes without any intrinsic problems.  Commercial aircraft typically fly
between 33,000 ft and 42,000 ft whilst the highest military air-breathing engine airplane was
the SR-71 "Blackbird" with a 90,000 ft ceiling (until their retirement in 1999).

Quote from: MetaTron
I'm not sure why - I used to think it's because you're closer to space near the northern edge but seeing as it happens in polar south that sort of negates the argument.

Air temperature, location, and the rate of temperature change (per 1,000 ft) affect the lower altitude of the tropopause (on the global model).


Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #76 on: December 19, 2021, 01:51:33 AM »
This was helpful....  Thanks Kangaroo...  Its quit the show in the upper atmosphere.

Duncan, I know of course planes go across Canada, I just didn't know it could go close to "max" speed going perpendicular to jet streams as you pointed out. 

And Stack, I'm still looking into all of this.  Right now, I'm kind of amused that at 17,000 miles an hour it takes an Airliner about 2.5 hours to circle this map and it takes the ISS about 1.5 hours to circle the equator.   The similarity must raise an eyebrow?  These kinds of speeds aren't unprecedented.



I believe Earth is one of at least 14 Dwarf Galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.  It acts as an Axial Disc Magnet attracting objects to it's surface.   Visually, Antarctica is at the center surrounded by the Arctic Circle.  It spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by an icy dome, and lies beneath a small heliocentric solar system.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3016
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #77 on: December 19, 2021, 03:39:06 AM »
And Stack, I'm still looking into all of this.  Right now, I'm kind of amused that at 17,000 miles an hour it takes an Airliner about 2.5 hours to circle this map and it takes the ISS about 1.5 hours to circle the equator.   The similarity must raise an eyebrow?  These kinds of speeds aren't unprecedented.

I don’t understand what you mean regarding the 17000 mph for an airliner? Airliners generally top out at the 600 mph cruising speed. But your map requires hypersonic speeds which don’t exist for airliners. Surely you must realize this. No?

I don’t know what the ISS has to do with anything regarding your map.

Do you believe that pilots, ATC, Boeing and airbus engineers and such are all lying about routes and capabilities?

Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #78 on: December 19, 2021, 03:59:41 AM »
Stack, I don't want to speculate.  All I know is there are mechanisms in the atmosphere which accelerate vehicles like the International Space Station to incredible speeds and keep things calm enough to live and conduct science experiments on. 
I believe Earth is one of at least 14 Dwarf Galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.  It acts as an Axial Disc Magnet attracting objects to it's surface.   Visually, Antarctica is at the center surrounded by the Arctic Circle.  It spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by an icy dome, and lies beneath a small heliocentric solar system.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3016
    • View Profile
Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?
« Reply #79 on: December 19, 2021, 07:00:57 AM »
Stack, I don't want to speculate.  All I know is there are mechanisms in the atmosphere which accelerate vehicles like the International Space Station to incredible speeds and keep things calm enough to live and conduct science experiments on.

But you are and have been speculating all along. I mean your map is one massive speculation - you don’t rely on any distance facts and keep speculating about polar regions, domes, jet streams, 4000 mph airliners, and on and on. All of it based upon you speculating.
And now you’re speculating that something up in the thermosphere, 250 miles up, is propelling the ISS?
What are these “mechanisms” you are speculating about?

And you never answered my question, do you believe that pilots, ATC, Boeing and airbus engineers and such are all lying about routes and capabilities?