Legit question wrote:Nope, there is no GPS coverage in the Southern Hemisphere.
Hmmmm.... I have used GPS quite frequently in Chile and Peru.
Mind you I suppose if the earth is flat, there is no "southern hemisphere" anyway...?
LOL just when I thought LRC couldn't get any looper... :-)
Legit question wrote:
According to the Earth's spherical geometry with a 25,0000 circumference, here is the elevation loss per mile:
1 mile - 8 inches
2 miles - 32 inches
3 miles - 6 feet
4 miles - 10 feet
5 miles - 16 feet
6 miles - 24 feet
7 miles - 32 feet
8 miles - 42 feet
9 miles - 54 feet
10 miles - 66 feet
20 miles - 266 feet
30 miles - 600 feet
40 miles - 1066 feet
50 miles - 1666 feet
60 miles - 2400 feet
70 miles - 3266 feet
80 miles - 4266 feet
90 miles - 5400 feet (over a mile now)
100 miles - 6666 feet
If this is correct, then why do the lifeguards in Ventura Beach on a clear day see the Anacapa Arch island bridge from the beach? This 40ft high arch is more than 18 miles away from the Ventura County Fairgrounds, which means it should be considerably below the horizon and NOT visible IF we are on a curved earth. Yet, somehow, everyone there has seen it on clear weather days. Hmmmm...
Lifeguards sit on a tower. Haven't you ever watched Baywatch?
Legit question wrote:
How come when planes are on auto-pilot, do they not constantly nose down throughout the flight to account for this so called curvature of the Earth? If the Earth was curved, why doesn't the plane leave the atmosphere?
Gravity
Troll feeder wrote:
Legit question wrote:And one last item, before hitting the hay. What if the earth is flat and under a firmament/dome. Kind of destroys the evolution argument, ha?
Legit question for you. (obviously you could/would have to stop to refuel)
Fly a plane heading East or West or North or South. One direction only. Then tell me if you don't come back to where you started.
Another legit question.
Where are the ends/limits of this flat earth?
I love a good troll. please don't disappoint me.
If I flew a plane only one direction, I'd reach a new destination, different from the one I started at. There'd be little point in flying a plane and landing it in the same spot, if you aren't going anywhere, why use a plane to do so? Most pilots have years of training and experience and understand how silly this sort of thing would be. Here, picture it this way: You don't get out of your bed, go out to your car, and drive to your house do you?
The Ends of the earth are at its edges.
omgsoconfused wrote:
anapaix wrote:pretty much anyone who takes keynesian economics seriously qualifies.
THIS. 2008 was the economic gold age and that Jesus hating OBUMMER ruined it with his Keynesian policies. Look how much better those European countries are doing!
The entire basis for those European countries is high-involvement Keynesian economics. So when things do trend downward after years and years of it barely hanging on to begin with while using Keynesian economics, you want them to increase it even more? At some point you just say F it and let everything re-balance naturally. Some pain now is better than a lot of pain- that lasts longer- later.
rectangle world on a turtle wrote:
Troll feeder wrote:Legit question for you. (obviously you could/would have to stop to refuel)
Fly a plane heading East or West or North or South. One direction only. Then tell me if you don't come back to where you started.
Another legit question.
Where are the ends/limits of this flat earth?
I love a good troll. please don't disappoint me.
If I flew a plane only one direction, I'd reach a new destination, different from the one I started at. There'd be little point in flying a plane and landing it in the same spot, if you aren't going anywhere, why use a plane to do so? Most pilots have years of training and experience and understand how silly this sort of thing would be. Here, picture it this way: You don't get out of your bed, go out to your car, and drive to your house do you?
The Ends of the earth are at its edges.
Except of course if you want to do a 'round the world plane race. Almost as dumb as an ultramarathon but you gotta do what you gotta do.
rectangle world on a turtle wrote:
There'd be little point in flying a plane and landing it in the same spot, if you aren't going anywhere..
Um, ever hear of the 400m?
big SNL skit wrote:
If you lose your engines and ditch in the ocean, there's a good chance you will be found using GPS and ELT technology, not to mention any radar or other aircraft that might be active in the area. As far as I understand, very few satellites used for GPS or comms, including ELT, orbit anywhere close to Antarctica. (Not many satellites of any kind are on polar orbits, and an orbit with a high enough inclination to take it that far south would be impractical because it would spend less time over most populated areas.)
If you had to land an aircraft in Antarctica, even if you could find a suitable landing site, you would be every kind of screwed known to man. I think the weather near the poles also gets really bad around wintertime. There are also very few, if any, navigational aids down there, including GPS as mentioned above. Flying over the South Pole just isn't practical from a safety or navigational standpoint.
Military flights do go over the North Pole regularly though, since there's more inhabited land much closer than in Antarctica.
Stop with the common sense, you're going to debunk a perfectly good conspiracy theory here!
The sad part of this thread is that people are trying to show how smart they are by how well they play dumb and failing at that.
Mr Garmin wrote:
big SNL skit wrote:If you lose your engines and ditch in the ocean, there's a good chance you will be found using GPS and ELT technology, not to mention any radar or other aircraft that might be active in the area. As far as I understand, very few satellites used for GPS or comms, including ELT, orbit anywhere close to Antarctica. (Not many satellites of any kind are on polar orbits, and an orbit with a high enough inclination to take it that far south would be impractical because it would spend less time over most populated areas.)
If you had to land an aircraft in Antarctica, even if you could find a suitable landing site, you would be every kind of screwed known to man. I think the weather near the poles also gets really bad around wintertime. There are also very few, if any, navigational aids down there, including GPS as mentioned above. Flying over the South Pole just isn't practical from a safety or navigational standpoint.
Military flights do go over the North Pole regularly though, since there's more inhabited land much closer than in Antarctica.
You sir are an idiot. GPS satillites cover the entire globe equally. The system is set up so that every point on Earth will always be in contact with 4 satellites 24/7.
Half the time I can't get my GPS to work in my driveway...
What's more interesting is the mathematical possibility that the universe is actually geocentric.
....pics or this thread isnt worth anything.
The ends of the earth are at its edges.
a wise man once said... wrote:
....pics or this thread isnt worth anything.
The ends of the earth are at its edges.
use a some logic wrote:
At some point you just say F it and let everything re-balance naturally. Some pain now is better than a lot of pain- that lasts longer- later.
I know, I know!
The best argument against a round Earth is, why hasn't everything south of the equator fallen off?
But if you look at a map you'll notice there's a lot less land than in the northern hemisphere, so maybe a lot of it did fall off. Only sticky land remains, like Antarctica which hangs from the bottom like an icicle.
That doesn't explain how southern-hemisphere people stay on the ground. But that's because gravity is only half the equation. Earth has a powerful magnetic field which keeps you stuck to the ground even if gravity fails, as long as you eat enough metal. Southern hemisphere lands are full of metals, for example Argentina, South Africa and the Gold Coast of Australia.
Because this magnetic force is much weaker, it only works if you are very near the ground. And that is why nobody flies over Antarctica. You may have heard rumors about an "ozone hole" there, well in fact there's hardly any air at all, because it has all fallen off. Only specially-designed planes can operate there.
So you see the Earth is indeed round.
Bad Wigins wrote:
The best argument against a round Earth is, why hasn't everything south of the equator fallen off?
But if you look at a map you'll notice there's a lot less land than in the northern hemisphere, so maybe a lot of it did fall off. Only sticky land remains, like Antarctica which hangs from the bottom like an icicle.
That doesn't explain how southern-hemisphere people stay on the ground. But that's because gravity is only half the equation. Earth has a powerful magnetic field which keeps you stuck to the ground even if gravity fails, as long as you eat enough metal. Southern hemisphere lands are full of metals, for example Argentina, South Africa and the Gold Coast of Australia.
Because this magnetic force is much weaker, it only works if you are very near the ground. And that is why nobody flies over Antarctica. You may have heard rumors about an "ozone hole" there, well in fact there's hardly any air at all, because it has all fallen off. Only specially-designed planes can operate there.
So you see the Earth is indeed round.
Yawn.
Wow. Just wow. This thread went downhill fast, and the sheer ignorance on here is just amazing. I'm not even gonna refute all of this crap because it's just too much. It's amazing what people will conjure up when they don't really know what they're talking about. You all need to learn some physics.
Observed from sea level. Try again.
It is clear the landmasses remaining in the south are still there only because they are rich in metal. Everything else has fallen off.
I forgot to mention the magnetic field is why tracks go counter-clockwise, due to the right hand rule.
I will mention more when I think of it, to get more smug reactions from notorious shithead ___er of ___.