The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Mr. Potatohead on February 21, 2018, 08:39:50 PM
-
Hey Flat Earthers, just wondering, I live in Australia. When travelling from Sydney to Adelaide, it only took slightly under 1500 km to get there. However, if your projection of the world is true, it should have been thousands of kilometres longer. Also, when flying from Australia to Argentina, you fly over Antarctica. However, there are no ice walls to be seen, except for glaciers. Also, if you are flying over Antarctica to get to Argentina, it should take many tens of thousands of kilometres and many days to get there according to your model, when you only quickly pass over the frozen continent and arrive at Argentina the next day. Why would flights travel in a massive circle around the edge of the flat world when they could simply pass over the north pole in a much more direct route, if your projection is true? Wouldn't it cost far more in fueling costs for the plane to travel in a massive circle around the world than simply over the curved surface of the world? Why would airliner companies be willing to spend so much more money on flights such as this than to show that the world is flat? Please answer, and please don't use any pointless videos or false definitions to explain it.
-
Potatohead,
I am glad you posted this. I have often stated here that if we ignore that people might actually live south of the equator everything could work out fine. When you watch the sun in the summer does it rise in the North east and set in the north west?
Someone here claimed airplanes do not fly over Antarctica which proves the ice wall exists. So just to confirm, you have seen the continent and it is not 70,000 miles long in the form of a ring?
-
Potatohead,
I am glad you posted this. I have often stated here that if we ignore that people might actually live south of the equator everything could work out fine. When you watch the sun in the summer does it rise in the North east and set in the north west?
Someone here claimed airplanes do not fly over Antarctica which proves the ice wall exists. So just to confirm, you have seen the continent and it is not 70,000 miles long in the form of a ring?
Yes, the Sun does rise in the north east and set in the north west, and many things here in Australia face north to catch sunlight. Personally I have not travelled to Argentina, but multiple close family members have and talked about seeing the shores of Antarctica. They didn't see any ice walls, and it wasn't 113000 km long in the shape of a ring either. Below is a map of flights from Adelaide and Sydney to Buenos Aires. I'm interested to see if any flat earthers will reply to this.
-
Ratboy,
Just because airplanes do not fly over Antartica does not prove that the Ice wall exists. For there to be proof, there needs tangible, documented evidence for the existence of the ice wall OR there needs to be testable theories and falsifiable hypotheses that prove the validity of the Ice wall. You cannot say something exists because there is no evidence to contradict this. For example, no one can prove Santa Claus is real because no one has seen him, therefore he exists. This is obviously nonsense.
-
Ratboy,
Just because airplanes do not fly over Antartica does not prove that the Ice wall exists. For there to be proof, there needs tangible, documented evidence for the existence of the ice wall OR there needs to be testable theories and falsifiable hypotheses that prove the validity of the Ice wall. You cannot say something exists because there is no evidence to contradict this. For example, no one can prove Santa Claus is real because no one has seen him, therefore he exists. This is obviously nonsense.
I am not sure why I am being lectured on this point. I talked to a guy I know that has been to Antarctica and he did find a shack with some crackers someone left. The cold kept the crackers in good enough condition that he ate some (but he was not sure how long the crackers had been there) and did not die. So he saw crackers so I will say that there were crackers there at least at one time. I saw pictures of him taken there, and I do not think he was a member of some conspiracy and based on his middle class living, I doubt he was making much off of bribe money to keep quiet. He did not mention seeing any ice walls, nor any mention of the continent being a giant ring around the known part of the Earth. I am not claiming to say this proves the walls exist, just to be clear.
-
So, if Antarctica is not a ring, where does that leave us? Well, if Antarctica is not a ring, then there are two possible explanations: 1. that Antarctica is actually in the centre of the map, and the north pole is a ring on the edge of the world, but there are many, many things wrong with this, or 2. that the world is round, which sorts out the whole issue and disappoints the conspiracy theorists. If Antarctica is a ring, then why is every person to ever have seen it suddenly part of a conspiracy, and why is distance (like I asked in the original post) so different to what you say it should be in the southern hemisphere? Flat earthers, please explain how this is possible, and how distance, travel and flight paths can work on a flat earth.
-
I have often stated here that if Rowbotham had lived in Sydney, the south pole would have been the center of the universe. It is simply a matter of wanting things to work out for yourself and to ignore that other peoples exist or at least that they do not matter. Why not let the southern folk be the center?
-
So, if Antarctica is not a ring, where does that leave us?
You provided no reasoning to conclude this. Your friend claims to have seen a very small subsection of the ice wall, and "other than glaciers" (i.e. literally what makes up the ice wall) they couldn't see it.
Why, yes, of course. The other day I fell off the ladder, and other than perceiving a downward acceleration of ~9.8ms-2 relative to the Earth, I could not perceive any gravity. Given that gravity no longer exists, where does that leave us?
-
So, if Antarctica is not a ring, where does that leave us?
You provided no reasoning to conclude this. Your friend claims to have seen a very small subsection of the ice wall, and "other than glaciers" (i.e. literally what makes up the ice wall) they couldn't see it.
Why, yes, of course. The other day I fell off the ladder, and other than perceiving a downward acceleration of ~9.8ms-2 relative to the Earth, I could not perceive any gravity. Given that gravity no longer exists, where does that leave us?
Well Pete, Antartica has been crossed on ski, snowmobiles, by planes and circumnavigated by ships. By now there is actually quite a few people who has done it. Still no reports of an ice wall surrounding the earth. Please read answer the other post in Q & A.
-
So, if Antarctica is not a ring, where does that leave us?
You provided no reasoning to conclude this. Your friend claims to have seen a very small subsection of the ice wall, and "other than glaciers" (i.e. literally what makes up the ice wall) they couldn't see it.
Why, yes, of course. The other day I fell off the ladder, and other than perceiving a downward acceleration of ~9.8ms-2 relative to the Earth, I could not perceive any gravity. Given that gravity no longer exists, where does that leave us?
Pete Svarrior, several things. Firstly, it was close family that saw Antarctica from the plane. Secondly, they mostly saw flat icy wasteland, nothing like what an ice wall would be. Thirdly, I didn't conclude that Antarctica isn't a ring, but instead simply put the question from the perspective that it isn't a ring. If you would care to read the entire post, you would see that I later addressed Antarctica as a ring, asking why every person who has ever seen it, including my close family is part of a massive conspiracy. And finally, what you are stating has little to no relevance to the original question, about flight paths over Antarctica and why distance in the Southern Hemisphere is so different to what it should be according to your model.
-
So, if Antarctica is not a ring, where does that leave us?
You provided no reasoning to conclude this. Your friend claims to have seen a very small subsection of the ice wall, and "other than glaciers" (i.e. literally what makes up the ice wall) they couldn't see it.
Why, yes, of course. The other day I fell off the ladder, and other than perceiving a downward acceleration of ~9.8ms-2 relative to the Earth, I could not perceive any gravity. Given that gravity no longer exists, where does that leave us?
Pete Svarrior, several things. Firstly, it was close family that saw Antarctica from the plane. Secondly, they mostly saw flat icy wasteland, nothing like what an ice wall would be. Thirdly, I didn't conclude that Antarctica isn't a ring, but instead simply put the question from the perspective that it isn't a ring. If you would care to read the entire post, you would see that I later addressed Antarctica as a ring, asking why every person who has ever seen it, including my close family is part of a massive conspiracy. And finally, what you are stating has little to no relevance to the original question, about flight paths over Antarctica and why distance in the Southern Hemisphere is so different to what it should be according to your model.
Your close family lied to you and you are perpetuating that lie here on a forum.
There are no commercial flights that take place within the Antarctic Circle.
There are no commercial flights that fly within a few thousand miles of the Ice Wall.
-
Your close family lied to you and you are peretuating that lie here on a orum.
There are no commercial flights that take place within the Antarctic Circle.
There are no commercial flights that fly within a few thousand miles of the Ice Wall.
Dude.
You can literally go there. To the actual South Pole. It's very expensive, because it's niche, to say the least, but there are companies who will take you there.
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole
Shouting "fake" and "lies" at everything which doesn't match your world view is not being a skeptic, it's just denial.
-
Planes like to fly where they know they can land in an emergency. It is true that more land mass on earth is north of the equator than south. Commercial aircraft are there to make a profit, and very few people want to fly between places that puts the flight path over Antarctica. Book a flight anywhere and see how hard it is to get direct flights anywhere. Likewise, airlines fly the busiest routes. This is the conspiracy of economics. There are no direct flights between Shreveport Alabama and Liverpool, but it is not because there is something along the way the illuminati do not want people to see.
-
Planes like to fly where they know they can land in an emergency.
There are also different flight rules for twin-engine planes as opposed to quadruple-engined.
Twin-engined are obliged to stay closer to land than quad, as quad are better equipped to handle one or two engine failures over large bodies of water.
-
Pete Svarrior, several things. Firstly, it was close family that saw Antarctica from the plane.
I don't care what you call this unidentified third party.
Secondly, they mostly saw flat icy wasteland, nothing like what an ice wall would be.
Okay, so they also saw parts of Antarctica that clearly weren't parts of the ice wall.
Thirdly, I didn't conclude that Antarctica isn't a ring, but instead simply put the question from the perspective that it isn't a ring.
Yes, if you look at an unrepresentatively small sample of something, you're likely to arrive at funny conclusions.
If you would care to read the entire post, you would see that I later addressed Antarctica as a ring, asking why every person who has ever seen it, including my close family is part of a massive conspiracy.
No they're just suspiciously quick to jump to conclusions based on blatantly insufficient observations.
-
Pete, you understand that Antarctica has been traversed many times now.
A circumnavigation of the globe has been done via both poles.
And there is literally a research station at the south pole which you can go to if you have the money.
-
Pete, you understand that Antarctica has been traversed many times now.
A circumnavigation of the globe has been done via both poles.
Those are some nice opinions you have there.
-
Pete, you understand that Antarctica has been traversed many times now.
A circumnavigation of the globe has been done via both poles.
Those are some nice opinions you have there.
This is why approaching this from the perspective of trying to persuade is a lost cause. There's no possible way to produce any evidence that would convince a true believer. Circumnavigate Antarctica and that will be just proof of the ice wall. Evidence is evaluated solely on the basis that if it seems* to support FE it's sound, otherwise it's flawed.
In order to get to the point of believing FE, you have to ignore so much that it becomes very easy to ignore everything else.
-
Pete, you understand that Antarctica has been traversed many times now.
A circumnavigation of the globe has been done via both poles.
Those are some nice opinions you have there.
What observations and measurements have you made?
-
Yes, if you look at an unrepresentatively small sample of something, you're likely to arrive at funny conclusions.
This quote is so true, ironically, like when someone brings up the flatness of Kansas as evidence of a FE, or when they can't see the curvature of the planet from 30,000 feet up.
-
In case anyone reading this thread doesn't know, people really do cross Antarctica on the regular. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions) Last year saw a polar circumnavigation by airplane (https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/news-events/story/polar-circumnavigation-with-the-PC-12). It's been done before, on foot (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface).
-
Pete, you understand that Antarctica has been traversed many times now.
A circumnavigation of the globe has been done via both poles.
Those are some nice opinions you have there.
This got ignored in another thread, so I am giving it another go;
There has been several expeditions to Antartica as I am sure you know Pete, since you mention the research stations. Since Roald Amundsen was the first to reach the South Pole in 1914, Antartica has been crossed on foot, by planes and circumnavigated. No ice wall has hindered these expeditions, and Antartica is surrounded by sea on all sides. No ice wall extends from Antartica making it impossible to circumnavigate, and no "edge" has been found on either side of it.
In 2012 a Norwegian expedition followed Roald Amundsens route to the South Pole starting from Ross Barrier up the Axel Heiberg glacier. From the South Pole they went to Hercules Intlet. The went on foot the entire distance. They started by sea and reached the sea. No extended ice wall was observed, and no "edge" found.
In 2005/2006 Norwegian Rune Gjeldnes went by foot from the Novo Station in Queen Maud land via the South Pole to Terra Nova Bay. Sea at starting point, sea at end point. Again, no extended ice wall observed, and no "edge" found.
Links and references can be provided. Actually; I also have Rune Gjeldnes phone number if you would like debate his observational skills with him.
-
Hey, this thread is finally getting lots of posts! Anyway, in the original post, I wasn't asking about a wall but instead a ring of ice, and about the flights from Adelaide and Sydney to Beunos Aires over Antarctica not taking hundreds of thousands of kilometres longer with a flat Earth. So far, nothing has been proved by a FEer about the OP. I am asking to try and find out if you can explain distorted distances in the Southern Hemisphere, not whether the mythical ice wall has got flat parts to it. I do realise that my last post was completely irrelevant, so I do apologise for that. As for the no planes flying over the Antarctic Circle part, flights from Adelaide to Buenos Aires do fly over the fringes of Antarctica, which doesn't disprove an ice wall, but that is off topic anyway. Could you please try to keep the topic to the questions asked in the original post?
-
Pete, you understand that Antarctica has been traversed many times now.
A circumnavigation of the globe has been done via both poles.
Those are some nice opinions you have there.
They aren't opinions. There's a whole list of expeditions here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions
A circumnavigation via both poles was first done in 1982
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface
There IS a base at the South Pole, there's a bunch of videos from it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5lQ9DCXIbs
And you can go there, if you have the money:
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole
And 24 hour sun at the south pole has been documented
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZa9oZDN5g
Claiming all this is lies or part of a hoax or conspiracy is not healthy scepticism, it's just denial.
-
So, how have you established that these expeditions crossed the entirety of Antarctica, rather than, for example, simply following a compass?
You seem very intent on pretending that I'm proposing some sort of conspiracy or whatever. If that floats your boat, so be it, but then you're arguing against a straw man. Not very useful.
-
To be honest, I assumed that people who undertake these sorts of expeditions know what they're doing.
If they didn't they'd come back dead.
But there's some information here about how people navigate near the poles, there seem to be a few methods:
http://gurumagazine.org/askaguru/navigate-near-poles/
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/mawson/this-week-at-mawson/2013/1-november-2013/2
I'm not intent on anything, to be honest you always post in such a vague way I struggle to make out what you actually do believe.
So these people who think they have traversed Antarctica, what do you think is really happening if it is not going across a continent?
And how does the 24 hours Antarctic sun work in your model? The Arctic would work if that is in the middle of the plane, but if Antarctica is a ring around the edge then it would still experience night and day, no?
-
And how does the 24 hours Antarctic sun work in your model? The Arctic would work if that is in the middle of the plane, but if Antarctica is a ring around the edge then it would still experience night and day, no?
I think that the 24 hour sun at various points on the ice wall can be very easily explained by the multi-sun model, which is based on truly excellent science and reasoning.
-
So, how have you established that these expeditions crossed the entirety of Antarctica, rather than, for example, simply following a compass?
How would I establish that I travelled between (say) Glasgow and Edinburgh, or did I simply follow a compass?
I can't fathom the logic of your question. Does following a compass imply that a traveller does not go where he says or thinks he has gone?
-
Your close family lied to you and you are perpetuating that lie here on a forum.
There are no commercial flights that take place within the Antarctic Circle.
There are no commercial flights that fly within a few thousand miles of the Ice Wall.
Dude.
You can literally go there. To the actual South Pole. It's very expensive, because it's niche, to say the least, but there are companies who will take you there.
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole
Shouting "fake" and "lies" at everything which doesn't match your world view is not being a skeptic, it's just denial.
Listen, this is certainly not a case of shouting "fake and lies."
The OP made a statement (people on flights from Australia to South America can see Antarctica) that was patently untrue.
How about addressing that bald faced lie and then get back to me about what in particular was incorrect about my post.
Which, by the way, was NOTHING!
-
In case anyone reading this thread doesn't know, people really do cross Antarctica on the regular. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions) Last year saw a polar circumnavigation by airplane (https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/news-events/story/polar-circumnavigation-with-the-PC-12). It's been done before, on foot (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface).
Wrong on both counts.
For one, the requirements for "polar circumnavigation," do not even require flying over a pole.
It simply requires a waypoint certified to be N and S of 75 degrees respectively.
-
Hey, this thread is finally getting lots of posts! Anyway, in the original post, I wasn't asking about a wall but instead a ring of ice, and about the flights from Adelaide and Sydney to Beunos Aires over Antarctica not taking hundreds of thousands of kilometres longer with a flat Earth. So far, nothing has been proved by a FEer about the OP. I am asking to try and find out if you can explain distorted distances in the Southern Hemisphere, not whether the mythical ice wall has got flat parts to it. I do realise that my last post was completely irrelevant, so I do apologise for that. As for the no planes flying over the Antarctic Circle part, flights from Adelaide to Buenos Aires do fly over the fringes of Antarctica, which doesn't disprove an ice wall, but that is off topic anyway. Could you please try to keep the topic to the questions asked in the original post?
If you can stick to the same.
All of your writing in the OP is up for grabs and on topic.
Again, your contention any southern commercial flights, like Adelaide to Buenos Aires, fly over Antarctica, is false. Commercial flights DO NOT infringe on Antarctic airspace.
That is a bunch of bull cookies and whoever told you that deserves to be severely beaten.
-
So, how have you established that these expeditions crossed the entirety of Antarctica, rather than, for example, simply following a compass?
You seem very intent on pretending that I'm proposing some sort of conspiracy or whatever. If that floats your boat, so be it, but then you're arguing against a straw man. Not very useful.
Visit this webpage https://gjeldnes.com/the-longest-march/ and you can read all about it. With a bare minimum of effort you will find plenty of documentation of other expeditions crossing over other parts. There is really nothing more to explore in Antartica.
-
Pete, you understand that Antarctica has been traversed many times now.
A circumnavigation of the globe has been done via both poles.
Those are some nice opinions you have there.
Pete, you're better than that. I have rarely seen you fall into the "did not did not" method of argument.
-
What people see out the plane window is subjective. Flight times are not - they are openly published and bookable by anyone.
As per the OP, can any flat earth proponents suggest how the published flight times between Australia and South America are achievable given the relative distances required on a flat earth?
-
This thread shows how these discussions routinely get derailed by descent into irrelevant details.
Whether or not commercial flights do or do not pass over the Antarctic land mass is of very minor importance compared to the big anomalies with the FE theory applied to the Southern Hemisphere.
If the FE theory is true, then the Southern Hemisphere occupies a far greater area than the Northern. The Sun has a far greater distance to travel. While it's almost plausible that the Sun could hover over the North pole (a place that supposedly exists) for six months of the year, it's entirely absurd to claim that it can cover the entirety of the inside of the Antarctic circle and be visible from every point on the Antarctic ring.
I'm not sure how many people live in the Southern Hemisphere, but there must be many millions. I think they can all testify that as you move South from the Equator, the days get progressively longer when it's Southern Summer (Northern Winter), and eventually you get to the stage where the Sun is visible 24 hours a day.
There's no possible way to explain this with a FE model. According to that model, the further South you go, the more ground the Sun has to cover. The days should get shorter in summer, not longer.
However, the certainty that no FE supporter will substantially engage with this is almost as sure as the Sun coming up in the morning. I daresay that this post will garner a warning or just be quietly deleted though.
-
It's also a fact that the supposed vastly greater distances between the Southern land masses according to the FE model should lead to vastly greater flight times across the board. As it is, flight times conform very closely to the global model. Again, this is normally addressed by looking for the one flight time (usually miscalculated or spurious) that might seem out of step with predictions).
It's highly probable that some flight times will have anomalies due to various issues. However, it's also clear that the vast majority of flights will be proportionate to the distances involved. As they are.
-
Your close family lied to you and you are perpetuating that lie here on a forum.
There are no commercial flights that take place within the Antarctic Circle.
There are no commercial flights that fly within a few thousand miles of the Ice Wall.
Dude.
You can literally go there. To the actual South Pole. It's very expensive, because it's niche, to say the least, but there are companies who will take you there.
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole
Shouting "fake" and "lies" at everything which doesn't match your world view is not being a skeptic, it's just denial.
Listen, this is certainly not a case of shouting "fake and lies."
The OP made a statement (people on flights from Australia to South America can see Antarctica) that was patently untrue.
How is that untrue? Here's a video of flying from Australia to South America on a commercial jet and seeing Antarctica:
https://youtu.be/RXqj0VZbV2I
-
What people see out the plane window is subjective. Flight times are not - they are openly published and bookable by anyone.
As per the OP, can any flat earth proponents suggest how the published flight times between Australia and South America are achievable given the relative distances required on a flat earth?
If you are flying between southern points on continents in the southern hemisphere and see a large ice-covered body of land its a safe bet what you are seeing.
-
Your close family lied to you and you are perpetuating that lie here on a forum.
There are no commercial flights that take place within the Antarctic Circle.
There are no commercial flights that fly within a few thousand miles of the Ice Wall.
Dude.
You can literally go there. To the actual South Pole. It's very expensive, because it's niche, to say the least, but there are companies who will take you there.
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole
Shouting "fake" and "lies" at everything which doesn't match your world view is not being a skeptic, it's just denial.
Listen, this is certainly not a case of shouting "fake and lies."
The OP made a statement (people on flights from Australia to South America can see Antarctica) that was patently untrue.
How is that untrue? Here's a video of flying from Australia to South America on a commercial jet and seeing Antarctica:
https://youtu.be/RXqj0VZbV2I
Lots of snow and ice does not equal Antarctica.
It is a fact no commercial flights take place within any portion of Antarctic airspace.
-
Your close family lied to you and you are perpetuating that lie here on a forum.
There are no commercial flights that take place within the Antarctic Circle.
There are no commercial flights that fly within a few thousand miles of the Ice Wall.
Dude.
You can literally go there. To the actual South Pole. It's very expensive, because it's niche, to say the least, but there are companies who will take you there.
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole
Shouting "fake" and "lies" at everything which doesn't match your world view is not being a skeptic, it's just denial.
Listen, this is certainly not a case of shouting "fake and lies."
The OP made a statement (people on flights from Australia to South America can see Antarctica) that was patently untrue.
How is that untrue? Here's a video of flying from Australia to South America on a commercial jet and seeing Antarctica:
https://youtu.be/RXqj0VZbV2I
Lots of snow and ice does not equal Antarctica.
It is a fact no commercial flights take place within any portion of Antarctic airspace.
Could you point to another place that looks like that between Australia and South America? (It'll make my day if you say Greenland)
Also any source on that hot claim about commercial flights? It's not common for pure transport since great circle routes rarely cross it and there are additional safety requirements for flights that do, but it's certainly happened before. If I booked one of these flights would they surreptitiously stick us in a wind tunnel with HD TVs over the windows? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
-
Your close family lied to you and you are perpetuating that lie here on a forum.
There are no commercial flights that take place within the Antarctic Circle.
There are no commercial flights that fly within a few thousand miles of the Ice Wall.
Dude.
You can literally go there. To the actual South Pole. It's very expensive, because it's niche, to say the least, but there are companies who will take you there.
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole
Shouting "fake" and "lies" at everything which doesn't match your world view is not being a skeptic, it's just denial.
Listen, this is certainly not a case of shouting "fake and lies."
The OP made a statement (people on flights from Australia to South America can see Antarctica) that was patently untrue.
How is that untrue? Here's a video of flying from Australia to South America on a commercial jet and seeing Antarctica:
https://youtu.be/RXqj0VZbV2I
Lots of snow and ice does not equal Antarctica.
It is a fact no commercial flights take place within any portion of Antarctic airspace.
You are flat (pun intended) out wrong as always. Quantas from Sydney to Santiago flies over the antartic coastline. Quantas also offer 13 hour sightseeing flights to Antartica.
-
Lots of snow and ice does not equal Antarctica.
What does it equal? A snowstorm near Cape Town? Winter in Sydney?
-
I guess it would be nice to give this a go.
http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
One day, ill win the lotto. Then offer to pay for some FE chaps to come with me on a flight, and put an end to this nonsense :)
-
One day, ill win the lotto. Then offer to pay for some FE chaps to come with me on a flight, and put an end to this nonsense :)
Why win Lotto? Prices start at $1200 dollars.
And this won't prove anything to a committed FEer because flying over a section of Antartica is simply that.
Remember, its a big big place, even on a flat earth map, obviously the route is fixed by the airline.
I personally would love to take this flight just to see it, (Antartica) it wouldn't change my view on FET.
And on a side note, I hope you do win lotto one day ;)
-
What people see out the plane window is subjective. Flight times are not - they are openly published and bookable by anyone.
As per the OP, can any flat earth proponents suggest how the published flight times between Australia and South America are achievable given the relative distances required on a flat earth?
If you are flying between southern points on continents in the southern hemisphere and see a large ice-covered body of land its a safe bet what you are seeing.
I'm not disputing it, just that FE proponents focus on refuting this part of the original argument on the basis that it is subjective ("passengers aren't seeing what they think they are seeing", "I didn't personally see it so how do I know it's true" etc. etc.). This shifts all the focus away from the part of the original argument that is undeniable i.e. published flight times between Australia and South America. (Sydney to Santiago is just over 12hrs) I'm interested to know how a flat earth proponent explains this flight time, relative to similar flight times between Sydney and other parts of the world (to Dubai ~14.5hrs, to Los Angeles 14hrs). All these relative flight times correspond to the relative distances between Sydney and these places in the globe view.
So instead of going round in circles with claim and counter claim, the question remains, how is it possible in FE to get from Australia to South America in a similar time to that taken to get to Western USA or the Middle East?
-
So instead of going round in circles with claim and counter claim, the question remains, how is it possible in FE to get from Australia to South America in a similar time to that taken to get to Western USA or the Middle East?
And watch that tumbleweed tumble.
-
And watch that tumbleweed tumble.
For someone who is clearly so smart and witty, you sure do seem to have a hard time with incredibly simple rules. Last warning.
-
Pete, you're better than that. I have rarely seen you fall into the "did not did not" method of argument.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that these expeditions didn't take place. I do, however, question the view that following standard navigational equipment around the Ice Wall is in any way conclusive.
-
So instead of going round in circles with claim and counter claim, the question remains, how is it possible in FE to get from Australia to South America in a similar time to that taken to get to Western USA or the Middle East?
Is anyone going to answer the question at the heart of this thread?
-
Pete, you're better than that. I have rarely seen you fall into the "did not did not" method of argument.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that these expeditions didn't take place. I do, however, question the view that following standard navigational equipment around the Ice Wall is in any way conclusive.
Why should that be? Current equipment is accurate and repeatable as is the WGS-84 model.
-
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that these expeditions didn't take place. I do, however, question the view that following standard navigational equipment around the Ice Wall is in any way conclusive.
Can you just answer the questions? You know, those sentences ending with an interrogation point : "?" :
Why would flights travel in a massive circle around the edge of the flat world when they could simply pass over the north pole in a much more direct route, if your projection is true? Wouldn't it cost far more in fueling costs for the plane to travel in a massive circle around the world than simply over the curved surface of the world? Why would airliner companies be willing to spend so much more money on flights such as this than to show that the world is flat?
-
I do, however, question the view that following standard navigational equipment around the Ice Wall is in any way conclusive.
What probable cause is there for it to be inconclusive?
You're referring to "standard" navigation equipment. Are you aware of any other "non-standard" kind? If so, what is it?
-
So instead of going round in circles with claim and counter claim, the question remains, how is it possible in FE to get from Australia to South America in a similar time to that taken to get to Western USA or the Middle East?
And this question has still been unanswered. But it has been noticed, because for saying it wouldn't be answered, I got
For someone who is clearly so smart and witty, you sure do seem to have a hard time with incredibly simple rules. Last warning.
So there are people reading this thread, but they're more concerned that their failure to address these points not be noticed than they are interested in actually addressing them.
I imagine that we'll be told that the total incompatibility between Southern Hemisphere flight times and any possible flat Earth map is fully covered in the FAQ, and there's no need to actually, y'know, debate it on the Flat Earth Debate forum.
Here's an idea - why not assemble a list of Frequently Unanswered Questions? So when someone asks about the seasons south of the Equator, or ships disappearing hull first, or how the Sun stays the same apparent size when supposedly moving away, then we can just say "That's a total FUQ".
-
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that these expeditions didn't take place. I do, however, question the view that following standard navigational equipment around the Ice Wall is in any way conclusive.
Can you just answer the questions? You know, those sentences ending with an interrogation point : "?" :
Why would flights travel in a massive circle around the edge of the flat world when they could simply pass over the north pole in a much more direct route, if your projection is true? Wouldn't it cost far more in fueling costs for the plane to travel in a massive circle around the world than simply over the curved surface of the world? Why would airliner companies be willing to spend so much more money on flights such as this than to show that the world is flat?
Those are good questions, but they are off-topic. Can we keep this thread focused on the OP's question? That way we might be able to get a real answer.
Here is the question: "How is it possible in FE to get from Australia to South America in a similar time to that taken to get to Western USA or the Middle East?"
Edit: I made a mistake. I did not realize the off-topic questions I saw were your signature.
-
I literally quoted the OP's questions...
-
So instead of going round in circles with claim and counter claim, the question remains, how is it possible in FE to get from Australia to South America in a similar time to that taken to get to Western USA or the Middle East?
Given this has been up for a few days and the topic is still active, is the lack of response from any of the flat earth faithful a concession that you don't know?
-
So instead of going round in circles with claim and counter claim, the question remains, how is it possible in FE to get from Australia to South America in a similar time to that taken to get to Western USA or the Middle East?
Given this has been up for a few days and the topic is still active, is the lack of response from any of the flat earth faithful a concession that you don't know?
Has an answer been found yet?
-
Your close family lied to you and you are perpetuating that lie here on a forum.
There are no commercial flights that take place within the Antarctic Circle.
There are no commercial flights that fly within a few thousand miles of the Ice Wall.
Dude.
You can literally go there. To the actual South Pole. It's very expensive, because it's niche, to say the least, but there are companies who will take you there.
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole
Shouting "fake" and "lies" at everything which doesn't match your world view is not being a skeptic, it's just denial.
Listen, this is certainly not a case of shouting "fake and lies."
The OP made a statement (people on flights from Australia to South America can see Antarctica) that was patently untrue.
How is that untrue? Here's a video of flying from Australia to South America on a commercial jet and seeing Antarctica:
https://youtu.be/RXqj0VZbV2I
Lots of snow and ice does not equal Antarctica.
It is a fact no commercial flights take place within any portion of Antarctic airspace.
You are flat (pun intended) out wrong as always. Quantas from Sydney to Santiago flies over the antartic coastline. Quantas also offer 13 hour sightseeing flights to Antartica.
No it does not.
"Few airlines fly between cities having a great circle route over Antarctica. Nonstop flights between South Africa and New Zealand, or between Perth, Australia and certain destinations in South America (including Buenos Aires and São Paulo), would overfly Antarctica, but no airline has scheduled such flights." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route)
-
Could you point to another place that looks like that between Australia and South America? (It'll make my day if you say Greenland)
Also any source on that hot claim about commercial flights? It's not common for pure transport since great circle routes rarely cross it and there are additional safety requirements for flights that do, but it's certainly happened before. If I booked one of these flights would they surreptitiously stick us in a wind tunnel with HD TVs over the windows? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
[/quote]
Look at the post just above this one...
As far as "looking like Antarctica," take a look at this...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Research_on_Iceberg_B-15A_by_Josh_Landis%2C_National_Science_Foundation_%28Image_4%29_%28NSF%29.jpg/300px-Research_on_Iceberg_B-15A_by_Josh_Landis%2C_National_Science_Foundation_%28Image_4%29_%28NSF%29.jpg)
that would have filled a window of a plane flying over it...
"Iceberg B-15 was the world's largest recorded iceberg. It measured around 295 kilometres (183 mi) long and 37 kilometres (23 mi) wide, with a surface area of 11,000 square kilometres (4,200 sq mi)—larger than the whole island of Jamaica."
-
Your close family lied to you and you are perpetuating that lie here on a forum.
There are no commercial flights that take place within the Antarctic Circle.
There are no commercial flights that fly within a few thousand miles of the Ice Wall.
Dude.
You can literally go there. To the actual South Pole. It's very expensive, because it's niche, to say the least, but there are companies who will take you there.
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole
Shouting "fake" and "lies" at everything which doesn't match your world view is not being a skeptic, it's just denial.
Listen, this is certainly not a case of shouting "fake and lies."
The OP made a statement (people on flights from Australia to South America can see Antarctica) that was patently untrue.
How is that untrue? Here's a video of flying from Australia to South America on a commercial jet and seeing Antarctica:
https://youtu.be/RXqj0VZbV2I
Lots of snow and ice does not equal Antarctica.
It is a fact no commercial flights take place within any portion of Antarctic airspace.
You are flat (pun intended) out wrong as always. Quantas from Sydney to Santiago flies over the antartic coastline. Quantas also offer 13 hour sightseeing flights to Antartica.
No it does not.
"Few airlines fly between cities having a great circle route over Antarctica. Nonstop flights between South Africa and New Zealand, or between Perth, Australia and certain destinations in South America (including Buenos Aires and São Paulo), would overfly Antarctica, but no airline has scheduled such flights." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route)
Few does not mean the same thing as none.
-
Few does not mean the same thing as none.
Yeah sparky...
Few does not mean the same thing as none...
But this means the same thing as none = "but no airline has scheduled such flights..."
Yeah, I double checked...NO AIRLINE HAS SCHEDULED SUCH FLIGHTS!!!
THAT MEANS NONE!!!
-
Few does not mean the same thing as none.
Yeah sparky...
Few does not mean the same thing as none...
But this means the same thing as none = "but no airline has scheduled such flights..."
Yeah, I double checked...NO AIRLINE HAS SCHEDULED SUCH FLIGHTS!!!
THAT MEANS NONE!!!
Okay. What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean that it is impossible? Or does it mean that it wouldn't make economic sense to fly such a route? Does it mean the flight has never been made, or that there has never been a commercial route there?
Why does the FAA have regulations in place for polar flights if they are impossible?
-
Could you point to another place that looks like that between Australia and South America? (It'll make my day if you say Greenland)
...
Also any source on that hot claim about commercial flights? It's not common for pure transport since great circle routes rarely cross it and there are additional safety requirements for flights that do, but it's certainly happened before. If I booked one of these flights would they surreptitiously stick us in a wind tunnel with HD TVs over the windows? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
Look at the post just above this one...
As far as "looking like Antarctica," take a look at this...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Research_on_Iceberg_B-15A_by_Josh_Landis%2C_National_Science_Foundation_%28Image_4%29_%28NSF%29.jpg/300px-Research_on_Iceberg_B-15A_by_Josh_Landis%2C_National_Science_Foundation_%28Image_4%29_%28NSF%29.jpg)
that would have filled a window of a plane flying over it...
"Iceberg B-15 was the world's largest recorded iceberg. It measured around 295 kilometres (183 mi) long and 37 kilometres (23 mi) wide, with a surface area of 11,000 square kilometres (4,200 sq mi)—larger than the whole island of Jamaica."
That iceberg was only 23 miles wide. Here's another picture of it, with the mountains of Antarctica behind it.
(http://beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu/files/2011/07/web_edgecorner.jpg)
From here: http://beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu/issue/icebergs-and-glaciers/all-about-icebergs
-
Few does not mean the same thing as none.
Yeah sparky...
Few does not mean the same thing as none...
But this means the same thing as none = "but no airline has scheduled such flights..."
Yeah, I double checked...NO AIRLINE HAS SCHEDULED SUCH FLIGHTS!!!
THAT MEANS NONE!!!
Hi. Not sure you fully read the wiki article you gleefully quoted. It states there are NO flights between Perth and South America. It says there ARE flights between Sydney and Santiago, and these do on occasion cross the Antarctic ice cap. Anyway, how do they manage to complete that journey in the similar time it takes to get from Sydney to LA or Dubai? Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
-
Few does not mean the same thing as none.
Yeah sparky...
Few does not mean the same thing as none...
But this means the same thing as none = "but no airline has scheduled such flights..."
Yeah, I double checked...NO AIRLINE HAS SCHEDULED SUCH FLIGHTS!!!
THAT MEANS NONE!!!
Okay, I found this quote, but I already started that new topic that has the link for the commercial flight that not only flies in "Antarctic Air Space" (whatever that is) but lands on it as well. McMurdo Station has one airstrip that is open all year round, and two that are seasonal. Marambio is a permanent, all year round airport in Antarctica. If a person is willing to sit in their basement and ignore that there may be other people in the world from places outside their home town, they can be a FE'er. One has to ignore that the 50,000 people a year that visit Antarctica and see the 24 hour daylight to hold on to a bigoted view of the world.