181

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« on: January 01, 2022, 12:17:40 AM »

Duncin one of the first things you say in your earlier post was that my hypothetical plane travels a few hundreds miles an hour before hitting a 17,000mph jet stream at which point it goes 17,600mph.

That is opposite of what Ive been trying to say in my last three posts and the reason I made the Cookie chart to begin with!  Again, there's no wind near the poles (that I'm referring to anyway)!  I'm only speaking of aero and engine capacity. 

And thank you for correcting me on the second chart.  I'd just say that once you get a 747 going having a million pounds of thrust will still get you places fast.   

And stack, calling everybody a liar when you confront something you don't understand is not useful.  I plan on looking more into the instruments aviators use to calculate speed etc, but for now I'm going to bed and I wish you guys a happy New year.

182

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« on: December 31, 2021, 09:57:31 PM »

Guys, there's a big misunderstanding.  I'm trying to make the point that I no longer believe that Jet Streams are responsible for the very fast plane speeds we see near the Polar Regions on a Flat Earth.  Rather, it's the thin air that allows these planes to travel so fast.

Below is a simple example to help answer some of your questions:  At the top, plane one is flying through 10 cookies in about 10 seconds.   And plane two is also flying through 10 cookies in 10 seconds!  The only difference is that plane 2 needs to fly faster!  That means that lift and air pressure and drag are presumably the same for both planes.



To propel Plane 2 to such great speeds, you need to assume their jet engines are producing enough thrust in these conditions until the aircraft reaches its structural limit.  I don't know the ins and outs of Jet Engines, but so far, they seem similar to Rocket's and in some cases produce more thrust (Scram jets anyway).  The Boeing 747 has a power to rate ratio greater than an SR-71 - One of the fastest Jet Planes to ever fly. 



https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust

183

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« on: December 31, 2021, 12:43:51 AM »

It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.

And it's Newton's 3rd law of action and reaction I was referring to.  NASA explain that it's like a person standing on a skateboard and by pushing a bowling ball outwards with his hands can generate movement. 

184

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« on: December 30, 2021, 11:53:00 PM »

My only theory right now is that the planes can reach these high speeds because the air is thin enough to negate drag.  But it's enough air to feed the engines, maintain lift and because jets or similarly rockets use newtows third law of conservation of momentum they sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium.

Planes from New York to Hong Kong that travel near the north pole fly eastern routes over Alaska and western routes over Greenland which rules out the strong wind theory. 
.

185

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 22, 2021, 06:48:20 AM »

I don't know.  It's a little complicated and I haven't worked out the details yet. 

186

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 22, 2021, 01:21:31 AM »

I explained the mechanics of star trails in the thread "stars above the night sky".  I haven't worked out the details yet, but you can't say that's because everything is wrong..

187

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 21, 2021, 09:52:21 PM »

I don't mind looking into new ideas.  I have faith that ultimately I might be able to find a level of knowledge that does explain alot.  Perhaps I need to brush up more on RE ideas (and Wiki ideas) to learn more.

188

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 21, 2021, 01:49:42 AM »

I don't know, I'm still considering it..

189

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 21, 2021, 01:04:09 AM »

Look at the first image.  You'll maybe notice or 'interpret' this photo as a glimpse into a flat Earth.  When you look at the daylight section notice how spherical it appears compared to the nighttime side which looks  almost like a bowl.  Look specifically at the termination line b/w night and day.. It looks like a shell is ending before you fall into a deeper and recessed Earth.   

I think the atmosphere is reflecting the light which makes it look spherical.  During night the Infrared image almost pierce's through the atmosphere (especially in the absence of light) and reveals a different perspective on Earth.

190

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 21, 2021, 12:07:25 AM »

Stake it's a real image, but even NOAA admits they composite some of its features.... But no, I wasn't saying its fake.  I was talking about their short clips of moving clouds and such. 

191

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 20, 2021, 11:44:24 PM »

22k miles sounds like it would be high enough so I'll keep considering it.  Otherwise the animations look very cool, very fluid.

192

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 20, 2021, 11:14:42 PM »

Oh, sorry 😋.  I think we can use physics, it's just the layout of things FErs question (as I can tell).

193

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 20, 2021, 10:52:35 PM »

When MetaTron says the satellite is not high enough to see the entire earth, is that due to not being able to see over the horizon?

No it's like having your face to close to the clock numbers so you can only see part of the clock at once unless you spin around

Would love to hear how satellites work on FE. Geostationary satellites have to be stationary, directly over the equator. What holds them up?

I can understand they float in a vacuum but I'm more curious what holds them in orbit around the sun 🌞

Two questions for MetaTron: Does RET explain this? Does FET have an explanation?

Yes and it's a work in progress.

194

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 20, 2021, 10:45:43 PM »

Drand did you read my disclaimer?  I personally advocate that Gravity is more a function of Magnetism.  And taking spacecraft around the edge may not be that easy.  If the atmosphere is too thin beyond Central Earth we may not move well.

195

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« on: December 19, 2021, 07:15:47 AM »

I'm thinking the mechanism that propels these air and space craft are high powered winds near the atmospheres edge or shell. 

The one thing Airbus CX845 and the ISS have in common is that within a dome they both travel near the edge.  The ISS taking a higher and more narrow circular path and the airliner a lower and wider one.

Winds are produced by changes in air pressure and temperature and you may get alot of that near the edge of space per se.  But these are just "guesses" into something that I need to look into and don't fully understand yet.

196

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« 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. 

197

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« 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.

198

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« 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. 

199

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« 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. 

200

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« 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?