1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?

« on: August 26, 2017, 10:52:22 AM »

Pointed this way from the 'Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar Maps Are Wrong' threat....

Ships heading south to the Antarctic will always end up in an area that is carefully controlled. Hence why detailed exploration is not possible

However on the standard FE map 'South' points in different directions. Therefore, ships heading south would meet the ice in different places along the range. And it is simply inconceivable that the 'UN Alliance' are able to strictly monitor and control the whole range nor set up identical sites around the ice to fool us!!

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gleason Map

« on: July 25, 2017, 09:24:25 PM »

Hmmmm........good points. Although, if then earth is globular or 'flat' are not the distances the same? Rather like folding over a length of card?

No - they really aren't.  Nor can they ever be.  That's really the problem with FET.  It simply doesn't match common observations.

Long before my FE friend gave me this challenge and having allocated FE to the realms of the understandings of the ancients, I had queried a good many things.  If the earth is spinning at 1,000mph and rotating around the sun at over 60,000mph:

- Why WWII barrage balloons or other fixed balloons do not eventually lean to westward given that the earth is rotation West to East.

Because the atmosphere is being dragged around with the rotation of the Earth.  There is friction within the atmosphere - so if it was ever rotating slower than the ground, the earth and atmosphere speeds would gradually change until they were the same.   Since aircraft (including helicopters and balloons) are blown around by the atmosphere at the exact same speed as the ground is moving (unless some weather is adding to the effect) - they stay in the exact same places.

- Why planes flying West do not arrive at their destination twice as quick as those flying Eastward.

Same answer.  Aircraft pull themselves along relative to the speed that the air is moving.

- The gravity of the earth has to be just right to counter centrifugal force zipping things off the centre as well as ensuring the northern and southern ends not to drop. This also enable water to flow uphill.

No!  The centrifugal force due to Earth's rotation is about 0.4% the force of gravity.  So there is more than enough gravity to keep things pinned down and to stop water flowing uphill.   In fact, things do weigh a little less at the equator than at the poles because of centrifugal force.   But it's small enough that most people don't notice the change.

- How does orbit work if applying the principles of centrifugal force. If its gravitational pull then this too must be finely balanced to ensure we are not face planted onto the ground.

Well, the Earth rotates one revolution over 24 hours...this accounts (as I've said) to a force equal to about 0.4% of gravity.

A satellite in Low Earth Orbit rotates around the earth in about 90 minutes - that's a LOT faster than the Earth is spinning - and the centrifugal force EXACTLY balances gravity - leaving people floating inside their spacecraft.

In higher orbits (Geostationary orbits, such as satellite TV uses) they are much further from the center of the earth - and gravity gets a lot less at those distances - at some height (thousands of miles up) there is enough centrifugal force to balance gravity with a 24 hour orbit.

Gravity does "face plant us onto the ground" if we fall over!   We remain standing because the force of gravity isn't really all THAT strong.

- If the earth rotating around the sun at over 60,000mph and the sun is 93m miles aways how does that work?

Same exact deal.  Only now, we're talking about the sun's gravity.  The sun is much bigger than the earth, the gravity at it's surface is crushing.   However, (as you point out) we're 93 million miles away - and at this distance, the Earth feels relatively little gravity from the sun - and there is enough centrifugal force from going around the sun once a year to oppose the sun's gravity at this distance.   That's why we don't feel heavier at night and lighter during the day!   Yeah - that is happening, but the amount is so tiny, we don't feel it.

- How did the lunar module have instant voice response with mission control on landing approach?

It didn't.   I was a kid when the lunar landings happened and there was a very noticeable 2.6 second pause between the NASA ground crew asking a question and the answer starting to come back from the astronauts.   In some (but not all) recordings, that delay has been edited out to make things a bit easier to understand.

If you listen to Neil Armstrong in this recording, you can hear a distinct 1.3 second delay between him finishing his "One small step for man" speech and the mission control guys commenting on it.   In this case, we're hearing only a one-way delay...but if you listen to the back-and-forth chatter later in the mission, the delays are very noticeable.

Thanks. Very helpful.  As per Curious Squirrel's post, which I forgot to add before posting, if the air is moving along with the rotation which accounts for the aircraft travelling West/East 'anomaly', why isn't there windrush on the ground.  Is the air literally stuck to the globe during rotation as well?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gleason Map

« on: July 25, 2017, 09:21:10 PM »

Quick Q re Gleason's Map: If, for example, a ship sailed out from the east coast of Africa and headed on 'straight right' correcting to cut across line of latitude and longitude in a 'south easterly' the ship should in theory reach the ice wall that encloses the oceans. This could be repeated from any other position. This would prove flat earth, that all line of longitude south lead to the Antarctic  and that early Antarctic explorers were not merely navigating around a large iced landmass bigger than the whole European/Asia continent.  If this is so, why hasn't anyone tried it?

For reference, to use forum terminology, I am a REer challenged by a FE friend to make reasonable and objective enquiries. As the Gleason map was offered as an example, I have thus raised it here.

The stock RE response to this map is to look at the Qantas airlines flight schedule from Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile.   On a "gleason" map (the FE map shown in the Wiki) - their 747-400's would have to fly about three times the distance that Qantas say they do - they'd need to fly more than twice the maximum range for a 747-400, and their speed would have to exceed Mach 2...not something a 747 can do!

The ONLY response I've yet had to this from the FE community is that the Jet Stream speeds them along - but (a) the jet stream isn't that fast and (b) how could Qantas ALSO fly back from Santiago to Sydney against this mach 1.5 jet stream headwind?

Sadly, their experts are oddly quiet about this.   There are MANY other airline timetables you can look at online, and without fail, 100% of them agree perfectly on flight times and distances with the round earth - and unsurprisingly, almost none of them agree perfectly with the FE map...except over ridiculously short trips or predominantly North/South flights.

Once you get into the Southern hemisphere - their model of the world simply doesn't work.

Since then though we have an exciting "NEW" map!   It actually shows Antarctica as a separate continent - and has lines of latitude and longitude that make very exciting curves.    Sadly, these are even more insanely wrong...but in different ways and in different places.

Hmmmm........good points. Although, if a map is globular or 'flat' are not the distances the same? Rather like folding over a length of card?

Long before my FE friend gave me this challenge and having allocated RE to the realms of the understandings of the ancients, I had queried a good many things.  If the earth is spinning at 1,000mph and rotating around the sun at over 60,000mph:


- 1) Why WWII barrage balloons or other fixed balloons do not eventually lean to westward given that the earth is rotation West to East.
- 2) Why planes flying West do not arrive at their destination twice as quick as those flying Eastward.
- 3) The gravity of the earth has to be just right to counter centrifugal force zipping things off the centre as well as ensuring the northern and southern ends not to drop. This also enable water to flow uphill.
- 4) How does orbit work if applying the principles of centrifugal force. If its gravitational pull then this too must be finely balanced to ensure we are not face planted onto the ground.
- 5) If the earth rotating around the sun at over 60,000mph and the sun is 93m miles aways how does that work?
- 6) How did the lunar module have instant voice response with mission control on landing approach?

Numbered them for easier reference. Best guesses here, with a touch of research.
1 and 2) Short/rough answer is that the air above the Earth is moving too, and the plane has to move relative to Earth. This video provides some useful answer/info.
3) The the centrifugal force is rather minor, being only 0.02 m/s/s at the equator. Enough to be largely ignored compared to the gravity of 9.8 m/s/s. (Not a great expression of force for centrifugal, but gets the point across.)
4) Yes, the gravitational pull of the sun ends up being about equal to the push from the Earth spinning around it. Amazing isn't it?
5) Gravitational force of the sun is quite enormous due to it's size. I would suggest some deeper research of your own into this and #4 if you're interested, as both are very interesting in how they've happened all over.
6) Which lunar module? Which landing? I wasn't aware this had happened, and a brief bit of research isn't turning anything up about this question unfortunately.

Sorry some were a bit less specific than others, but hopefully this helps some.

Very useful thanks 

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gleason Map

« on: July 25, 2017, 08:39:27 PM »

Quick Q re Gleason's Map: If, for example, a ship sailed out from the east coast of Africa and headed on 'straight right' correcting to cut across line of latitude and longitude in a 'south easterly' the ship should in theory reach the ice wall that encloses the oceans. This could be repeated from any other position. This would prove flat earth, that all line of longitude south lead to the Antarctic  and that early Antarctic explorers were not merely navigating around a large iced landmass bigger than the whole European/Asia continent.  If this is so, why hasn't anyone tried it?

For reference, to use forum terminology, I am a REer challenged by a FE friend to make reasonable and objective enquiries. As the Gleason map was offered as an example, I have thus raised it here.

The stock RE response to this map is to look at the Qantas airlines flight schedule from Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile.   On a "gleason" map (the FE map shown in the Wiki) - their 747-400's would have to fly about three times the distance that Qantas say they do - they'd need to fly more than twice the maximum range for a 747-400, and their speed would have to exceed Mach 2...not something a 747 can do!

The ONLY response I've yet had to this from the FE community is that the Jet Stream speeds them along - but (a) the jet stream isn't that fast and (b) how could Qantas ALSO fly back from Santiago to Sydney against this mach 1.5 jet stream headwind?

Sadly, their experts are oddly quiet about this.   There are MANY other airline timetables you can look at online, and without fail, 100% of them agree perfectly on flight times and distances with the round earth - and unsurprisingly, almost none of them agree perfectly with the FE map...except over ridiculously short trips or predominantly North/South flights.

Once you get into the Southern hemisphere - their model of the world simply doesn't work.

Since then though we have an exciting "NEW" map!   It actually shows Antarctica as a separate continent - and has lines of latitude and longitude that make very exciting curves.    Sadly, these are even more insanely wrong...but in different ways and in different places.

Hmmmm........good points. Although, if then earth is globular or 'flat' are not the distances the same? Rather like folding over a length of card?

Long before my FE friend gave me this challenge and having allocated FE to the realms of the understandings of the ancients, I had queried a good many things.  If the earth is spinning at 1,000mph and rotating around the sun at over 60,000mph:


- Why WWII barrage balloons or other fixed balloons do not eventually lean to westward given that the earth is rotation West to East.
- Why planes flying West do not arrive at their destination twice as quick as those flying Eastward.
- The gravity of the earth has to be just right to counter centrifugal force zipping things off the centre as well as ensuring the northern and southern ends not to drop. This also enable water to flow uphill.
- How does orbit work if applying the principles of centrifugal force. If its gravitational pull then this too must be finely balanced to ensure we are not face planted onto the ground.
- If the earth's rotations and speed of trajectory around the sun, which is 93m miles, how does gravity work in this context?
- How did the lunar module have instant voice response with mission control on landing approach?
etc etc

I love a good mystery.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Gleason Map

« on: July 25, 2017, 07:19:12 PM »

Quick Q re Gleason's Map: If, for example, a ship sailed out from the east coast of Africa and headed on 'straight right' correcting to cut across line of latitude and longitude in a 'south easterly' the ship should in theory reach the ice wall that encloses the oceans. This could be repeated from any other position. This would prove flat earth, that all lines of longitude south do not lead to the Antarctic  and that early Antarctic explorers were not merely navigating around a large iced landmass bigger than the whole European/Asia continent.  If this is so, why hasn't anyone tried it?

For reference, to use forum terminology, I am a REer challenged by a FE friend to make reasonable and objective enquiries. As the Gleason map was offered as an example, I have thus raised it here.