The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: freemind on April 16, 2015, 08:33:31 PM
-
Hi everyone, I am fascinated by the flat earth idea and what may be beyond Antarctica in this this world view.
Why not send a drone southwards from near the edges of Antarctica? It could be fitted with a camera etc. Wouldn't that settle things in some way?
-
Would you like to donate to the Send A Drone To Antarctica fund?
-
Would you like to donate to the Send A Drone To Antarctica fund?
Are you trying to disprove his/her point, or agree that it would indeed be incredibly easy to do?
-
Are you trying to disprove his/her point, or agree that it would indeed be incredibly easy to do?
I choose none of those options.
-
Just exploring the idea at this stage. I wasn't thinking of a super expensive military style drone. I think there are commercially available drones, radio controlled planes and helicopters for a few hundred dollars.
The question that comes up for me is what range/altitude would be necessary to prove something either way or at least make some kind of advance in knowledge.
-
It is cheaper and requires less traveling just to use a laser to measure the curvature of a body of water over a long distance.
-
Just exploring the idea at this stage. I wasn't thinking of a super expensive military style drone. I think there are commercially available drones, radio controlled planes and helicopters for a few hundred dollars.
The question that comes up for me is what range/altitude would be necessary to prove something either way or at least make some kind of advance in knowledge.
What is the range of these few hundred dollar drones? You do realize how big Antarctica is supposed to be, don't you?
-
I think this is a great idea. If you have a drone or some extra cash lying around, let me know. I'd be happy to help in anyway I can, and would gladly help pilot the drone to verify there is no tampering with the results.
-
Hi Irush, the laser method is interesting definitely. It might be cheaper as you say and better in other ways as well compared to the drone idea.
There is still the curiosity though of what is beyond the theorised ice circle said to encircle the flat earth. The drone method could provide some data on that.
As jroa indicates the technical range of affordable drones may be a major issue. I've had a look on wiki and for First Person View
radio-controlled flyers: "The current round-trip distance record for an FPV aircraft is 68.9 miles (horizontal distance). Altitudes of up to 33,103 meters above ground (launch site) level have also been achieved, with a mix of weather balloon and RC glider equipment used"
I do not know how thick the ice wall is supposed to be or the dimensions that the conventional Antarctica is supposed to have as of yet, although I know it is large.
The figures above for FPV may be inadequate(?) but is FPV necessary? I've read a few posts on this site where there are people on both sides of the argument who are good with geometry...how about some kind of weather balloon? What height would be needed to provide useful photographs?
Even if the photo-views could not extend far enough to show what is beyond the ice etc they still might be able to verify or refute some of the conventional distances between science stations and geographic features.
Let's say hypothetically that a trusted member of admin set up a research fund, I would be tempted to put in a few hundred dollars-and I am not very financially well off plus have a wide range of other interests competing for my time and resources.. surely there are a few on this forum much more dedicated to these issues than me who would consider donating to an admin fund for this project? (or other projects?)
Ben, are you based south? In any case you can help by researching some potential launch locations. The team ideally would have a few mature members from both the Round and Flat groups.
Anyway just a few initial thoughts to see if the plan has any viability, cheers.
-
hi freemind, why would a drone even be necessary? Why could you not, on a sufficiently tall building, with a sufficiently powerful telescope, see forever?
-
In fact. The info is already there:http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/4310/what-if-any-regularly-scheduled-airline-flights-pass-over-antarctica
-
hi freemind, why would a drone even be necessary? Why could you not, on a sufficiently tall building, with a sufficiently powerful telescope, see forever?
http://wiki.tfes.org/Viewing_Distance
-
Hi everyone, I am fascinated by the flat earth idea and what may be beyond Antarctica in this this world view.
Why not send a drone southwards from near the edges of Antarctica? It could be fitted with a camera etc. Wouldn't that settle things in some way?
Lets pretend that you have access to some drone that can accomplish what you are saying. Then what? How will you get to Antarctica to fly it? "Simply" pay a captain to sail you there? How will you fuel the drone? "Simply" buy some jet fuel? Do you plan on having a live feed on the drone? I guess we'll need to "simply" set up a listening station and transmitter.
Even if you had this mythical non-military grade drone that can fly over Antarctica, you are still many steps away from completion and nowhere near simple.
-
Ben, are you based south? In any case you can help by researching some potential launch locations. The team ideally would have a few mature members from both the Round and Flat groups.
Nah. I'm not naive enough to think I can manage much of the technical or financial side of this project. I'll leave that up to you. I just want to fly a drone.
-
Hi everyone, I am fascinated by the flat earth idea and what may be beyond Antarctica in this this world view.
Why not send a drone southwards from near the edges of Antarctica? It could be fitted with a camera etc. Wouldn't that settle things in some way?
Lets pretend that you have access to some drone that can accomplish what you are saying. Then what? How will you get to Antarctica to fly it? "Simply" pay a captain to sail you there? How will you fuel the drone? "Simply" buy some jet fuel? Do you plan on having a live feed on the drone? I guess we'll need to "simply" set up a listening station and transmitter.
Even if you had this mythical non-military grade drone that can fly over Antarctica, you are still many steps away from completion and nowhere near simple.
Even if it isn't simple, why has no one ever done it before? Why, in fact, do planes fly from south America to Australia over Antarctica?
-
Why, in fact, do planes fly from south America to Australia over Antarctica?
They don't.
http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/4310/what-if-any-regularly-scheduled-airline-flights-pass-over-antarctica
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=635042
-
Why, in fact, do planes fly from south America to Australia over Antarctica?
They don't.
http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/4310/what-if-any-regularly-scheduled-airline-flights-pass-over-antarctica
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=635042
Okay, then why is the flight time vastly shorter then would be anticipated under FET where the south is huge?
-
Okay, then why is the flight time vastly shorter then would be anticipated under FET where the south is huge?
It's not.
-
Okay, then why is the flight time vastly shorter then would be anticipated under FET where the south is huge?
It's not.
Erm yes it is, you'd expect flights in-between southern countries to take longer times than flights between northern countries that are the same distance away in RET, but they don't. How does FET explain that?
-
Perhaps this would be better illustrated if you gave an example.
-
Perhaps this would be better illustrated if you gave an example.
By all means:
http://www.happyzebra.com/distance-calculator/Argentina-and-Australia.php
http://www.travelmath.com/flying-time/from/China/to/United+States
As you can see, the times are near identical.
-
What is the flight route that is taken?
-
What about the route the "long way" around, who is going in that direction?
-
What is the flight route that is taken?
Why does that matter? It can be assumed that the planes take the shortest route possible, showing that the north and south are the same size
-
What about the route the "long way" around, who is going in that direction?
I'm not entirely sure as to what you mean
-
Why does that matter?
The route determines the distance and at what speed they travel.
It can be assumed that the planes take the shortest route possible, showing that the north and south are the same size
That is not a good assumption. For example, a flight from California to Georgia will take the route that takes it through the Jetstream, resulting in a longer distance but faster time flight. However, the flight from Georgia to California will avoid the Jetstream as much as possible and will generally be a shorter distance but longer time flight.
Much more goes into flight travel than just plotting a straight line on a map.
-
Why does that matter?
Thank you for clarifying. Even with these changes, is it possible to deny the similar sizes of hemisphere?
The route determines the distance and at what speed they travel.
It can be assumed that the planes take the shortest route possible, showing that the north and south are the same size
That is not a good assumption. For example, a flight from California to Georgia will take the route that takes it through the Jetstream, resulting in a longer distance but faster time flight. However, the flight from Georgia to California will avoid the Jetstream as much as possible and will generally be a shorter distance but longer time flight.
Much more goes into flight travel than just plotting a straight line on a map.
-
A flight from Australia to Argentina or vice-versa would be most efficient if the aircraft took a route that looped into the northern part of the disc and out back to the southern portion.
-
A flight from Australia to Argentina or vice-versa would be most efficient if the aircraft took a route that looped into the northern part of the disc and out back to the southern portion.
Firstly, the plane would only do that if the pilot a) believed in FET, and b) was a allowed to use it for navigation, both of which are incredible unlikely. Secondly, even if the pilot took the most efficient FET route, there should still be a massive disparity between the northern and southern flight times, which simply isn't there.
-
Firstly, the plane would only do that if the pilot a) believed in FET, and b) was a allowed to use it for navigation, both of which are incredible unlikely. Secondly, even if the pilot took the most efficient FET route, there should still be a massive disparity between the northern and southern flight times, which simply isn't there.
Substantiate your claims.
-
Firstly, the plane would only do that if the pilot a) believed in FET, and b) was a allowed to use it for navigation, both of which are incredible unlikely. Secondly, even if the pilot took the most efficient FET route, there should still be a massive disparity between the northern and southern flight times, which simply isn't there.
Substantiate your claims.
By all means:
The vast majority of the world thinks the earth is round, and so it is unlikely that the pilot would believe in FET, and no airlines use FET for navigation. Therefore, the route the planes take would just be a direct one in the RET map, with no circling north.
Secondly, in the FET map the southernmost countries are very far away from each other, being on the rim, while the northernmost countries are close to each other, being near the hub. In the RET map, the southernmost countries are fairly close to each other, being near the south Pole, while the northernmost countries are fairly near each other, being near the north pole. Therefore, if FET was correct, it should take longer to fly between southern countries than it would to fly between northern countries, while of RET was correct, it should take the same time to fly between northern countries as it does southern countries. As shown in the links posted earlier, the flight times between northern countries and between southern countries is nearly the same, showing that RET is correct.
-
The vast majority of the world thinks the earth is round
Ad populum.
and so it is unlikely that the pilot would believe in FET, and no airlines use FET for navigation.
Irrelevant.
Therefore, the route the planes take would just be a direct one in the RET map, with no circling north.
Does not follow from the premise. The route the planes will take will be exactly what their navigation tells them to take.
Secondly, in the FET map the southernmost countries are very far away from each other, being on the rim, while the northernmost countries are close to each other, being near the hub.
Your failure to interpret the map is not my problem. Tintagel already explained this in one of the threads you necroed.
-
The vast majority of the world thinks the earth is round
Ad populum.
and so it is unlikely that the pilot would believe in FET, and no airlines use FET for navigation.
Irrelevant.
Therefore, the route the planes take would just be a direct one in the RET map, with no circling north.
Does not follow from the premise. The route the planes will take will be exactly what their navigation tells them to take.
Secondly, in the FET map the southernmost countries are very far away from each other, being on the rim, while the northernmost countries are close to each other, being near the hub.
Your failure to interpret the map is not my problem. Tintagel already explained this in one of the threads you necroed.
Whether it is ad populum or not is irrelevant, as the point is that the navigation system used would be RET. This fact is relevant, because "where the navigation system tells it to go" would be a direct (ish) route in RET terms. Also, in the other thread the guy didn't explain how to read the map, he merely referred readers to the wiki (which doesn't explain it). Abbs what is necroing?
-
What is the flight route that is taken?
Why does that matter? It can be assumed that the planes take the shortest route possible, showing that the north and south are the same size
If the flights between two countries are 14 hours long, that only tells us that the countries are that distance apart. No one charted the FE maps 100%. How do we know how far apart the countries are gong to "long way" around the earth?
-
Whether it is ad populum or not is irrelevant, as the point is that the navigation system used would be RET. This fact is relevant, because "where the navigation system tells it to go" would be a direct (ish) route in RET terms.
Substantiate your claims.
Abbs what is necroing?
The term refers to posting in very old threads. This is usually viewed as negative unless you're providing a valuable contribution to said threads.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/necropost
-
What is the flight route that is taken?
Why does that matter? It can be assumed that the planes take the shortest route possible, showing that the north and south are the same size
If the flights between two countries are 14 hours long, that only tells us that the countries are that distance apart. No one charted the FE maps 100%. How do we know how far apart the countries are gong to "long way" around the earth?
What do you mean by "no one charted the maps"? Are you saying that the FET projection is made up?
-
Yes. The sister site wants 5M USD to go and get a real one, though.
-
What is the flight route that is taken?
Why does that matter? It can be assumed that the planes take the shortest route possible, showing that the north and south are the same size
If the flights between two countries are 14 hours long, that only tells us that the countries are that distance apart. No one charted the FE maps 100%. How do we know how far apart the countries are gong to "long way" around the earth?
What do you mean by "no one charted the maps"? Are you saying that the FET projection is made up?
Are you willing to fund an expedition to create a cartographically accurate FE map?
-
Yes. The sister site wants 5M USD to go and get a real one, though.
It's 4M USD and we are doing quite well.
-
So there is a project up and running on a sister site? Can you post a link to the project please?
-
Yes. The sister site wants 5M USD to go and get a real one, though.
It's 4M USD and we are doing quite well.
Is there any particular reason for you to bring up this obvious troll in the upper fora?
-
Whether it is ad populum or not is irrelevant, as the point is that the navigation system used would be RET. This fact is relevant, because "where the navigation system tells it to go" would be a direct (ish) route in RET terms.
Substantiate your claims.
Abbs what is necroing?
The term refers to posting in very old threads. This is usually viewed as negative unless you're providing a valuable contribution to said threads.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/necropost
Okay, so, in an ret world, the pilot's navigation system, assuming that the world is ret, would, in a flight from south America to Australia, fly south and slightly West until it arrived there. On the other hand, if the world were in fact flat, the best route would be to fly directly north until reaching Australia. This doesn't happen, because otherwise people would realise they were flying over the Americas, the North Pole, siberia and China, and finally the rest of Australia, before landing on the south of the country.
This shows that, due to the fact that the flight times are the same in the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere, that the world is, in fact, round.
And I apologise for necroing, u didn't realise a) that it was a bad thing, and b) that the thread was old.
-
No idea where they are in it or where exactly it is. But now would be a good time to head over there to check. JRowe is banned/away.
-
Ok, I will share a few thoughts on this...
As I see it: According to Flat Earth Theory..Antarctica is a mysterious out of bounds region. It represents some kind of edge or barrier to the known world.
This region has been lied about by worldly powers in a massive deception. The worldly powers have banned travel there, banned fly overs etc and it is in any case a difficult environment to reach and survive in.
Those who aim to deceive the public often employ "controlled opposition" groups and shills to derail both productive debates AND useful actions that would destroy the deception.
So (whether difficult or not) the obvious course of action in resolving the question of Antarctica is to explore the region, to observe it and make records thereof to share with key people in the population as a prelude to mass awakening regarding the truth of the matter.
In such a case we have: human exploration, telescopes etc as suggested by Mostlyharmless and remote exploration via technology eg a remote controlled flier or balloon.
None of these options should be discounted. In fact each suggestion should be worked on and planned. Difficult goals should be broken up into smaller more achievable goals and worked on bit by bit.
So, talking of controlled opposition, would they be encouraging explorations like this or discouraging them?
I am not implying that everyone dismissing the project on this Forum are controlled opposition. However in contemplating scenarios discussed above (eg a massive hundreds of years old deception) it seems there is likely to be a lot of 'conditioning' in people discouraging them from actually making attempts to explore the edges. That conditioning may take the form of discouraging beliefs about the impossibility or great difficulty of such exploration projects. Therefore those who find themselves initially discouraging such exploration should look closely at the hidden inner causes of such a position and then adjust their position as appropriate.
Apart from the hypothetical controlled opposition and apart from disempowering conditioning there may also be an ego based fear-a fear of actually being proved wrong after all. We should not be attached to our beliefs no matter how long we have held them, or how much effort we have put into promoting them. We should be loyal to truth.
The surest way to failure is to not even try. So lets look again at Pongo's useful post above:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2676.msg66877#msg66877 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2676.msg66877#msg66877)
which outlines some of the steps needed and build from there.
-
The drone would require a robust logistics channel to support the mission, if you wanted to collect any data from the drone.
There is also the regulatory concern, that Antarctica is a protected region by a number of nations and I would expect a reasonable capacity to respond to any unauthorized flights over the region. Simply put, any notion of flying over the area while retaining the data from the flight is currently out of reach.
It has been proposed before but three boats setting course towards the Antarctic landmass and the first ship holding position while the other two ships sail with their starboard and port sides respectively, towards the Antarctic landmass while maintaining line of sight with said landmass will eventually record the distance that the landmass encompasses, this data will have been recorded twice by the two ships sailing along the landmass to reduce the margin of error.
This is more feasible than a fly over as the logistics involved are simplified and should not provoke a military response.
The first step is to answer the question regarding the purported nature of the Antarctic landmass, as it is too convenient to simply agree.
I am not aware of a private entity having performed this evaluation. Australia can be the starting point. Bring a compass, sextant and high power lens.
-
we have already flown over Antarctica...the public cannot handle the horrible truth of what is beyond the ice wall.