The flat earth movement is so retarded that I'm not convinced anyone actually believes it. Is it probably just a few online trolls trying to be funny, or some kind of internet joke? Seriously, it is so stupid that there's no way it can possibly be real.
Hmm well...
One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.
If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.
Got one active on the atheist thread right now.
I always thought it was strange that passenger planes don't fly over antartica. It could be proof that is doesn't actually exist in the manner of thinking of the earth as a ball. Santiago to Sydney over antartica would be the quickest route yet we never take it.
They say antartica is also 12,000 miles in perimeter but old exploration ships would clock 300,000+ miles to traverse it. Something's a little fishy there.
Ummm... ever heard of the GOP?
pretty much anyone who takes keynesian economics seriously qualifies.
This picture and all others like it must be an elaborate hoax
http://muskokagoddess.com/wp-content/uploads/planet-earth-space.jpg
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!
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.
dkkh wrote:
They say antartica is also 12,000 miles in perimeter but old exploration ships would clock 300,000+ miles to traverse it. Something's a little fishy there.
They were sailing which requires tacking. They were also dodging ice and lost.
dkkh wrote:
I always thought it was strange that passenger planes don't fly over antartica. It could be proof that is doesn't actually exist in the manner of thinking of the earth as a ball. Santiago to Sydney over antartica would be the quickest route yet we never take it.
Also in addition to that satellite thing i just measured this route on my globe and going over Antarctica would be a slightly longer route, even longer if you take the Coriolis effect into account.
If you think flat-earthers are stupid, look up otherkin. The internet is an interesting place...
If you try to book flights around the southern hemisphere of the Earth, such as from Australia to Africa or Australia to South America, you will find that there are no direct flights. The flights always go up north first to a connecting flight, before going back down south. Why is that? On a flat earth map, it makes sense.
TAA wrote:
If you think flat-earthers are stupid, look up otherkin. The internet is an interesting place...
I just looked this up. These two groups should get together. I'd watch a show about that.
Legit question wrote:
If you try to book flights around the southern hemisphere of the Earth, such as from Australia to Africa or Australia to South America, you will find that there are no direct flights. The flights always go up north first to a connecting flight, before going back down south. Why is that? On a flat earth map, it makes sense.
Qantas flight 27. Santiago, Chile to Sydney.
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...
dkkh wrote:
I always thought it was strange that passenger planes don't fly over antartica. It could be proof that is doesn't actually exist in the manner of thinking of the earth as a ball. Santiago to Sydney over antartica would be the quickest route yet we never take it.
They say antartica is also 12,000 miles in perimeter but old exploration ships would clock 300,000+ miles to traverse it. Something's a little fishy there.
Yeah and have you ever noticed that Google maps "satellite" turns into a cartoon as soon as you try to look at Antarctica? What are they trying to hide? I told my daughter that you can't see the poles because they don't want anyone to spy on Santa's workshop, but I am beginning to think that Google is in on the whole scam. How hard is it to fly a damn drone over Antarctica to get a few satellite images? It's not like they're making any changes on the poles anytime soon. Ice is ice is ice is ice. I mean, if they are going to try to make it look like a globe, at least CGI it up a little bit like they do for most of the NASA "shots" from the "ISS" that we all know is really an underground bunker in New Jersey..
Why did NASA depict the Earth as flat and motionless?
crete wrote:
This picture and all others like it must be an elaborate hoax
http://muskokagoddess.com/wp-content/uploads/planet-earth-space.jpg
Uhhhhhhhh... Welcome to 1972. Just look at your picture. NO STARS!!!??? Doctored much? Ever wonder why there are no stars in the Apollo mission photos? Because they were taken in a Burbank studio! You're a cog in the great machine, maybe it is time to start questioning things, my friend.
OP is feeling kind of stupid now, isn't he?
