DoogyRev Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, davey_83 said: Nothing fly's over Antarctica to pop up the other side as it can't be flown over. it can, its just dodgy to do so "Operation at high Latitudes (above 78 deg North or South of 60 deg South) are considered flight in areas of Magnetic Unreliability (AMU) and there are many issues that need to be addressed before receiving approval to do so. Navigation - The flight must navigate using True Courses and not Magnetic Courses. At and near the pole the lines of longitude converge so rapidly that simply flying in a straight line involves constantly changing the heading. In addition near the magnetic north pole compasses are nearly useless due to “dip” in the needle amongst other things. The aircraft must have either INS or IRS (Inertial) Navigation capability as a basis for FMS Navigation to back up GPS. Communications - VHF radios are largely useless, and HF Radios do not function very well either at high latitudes. Satellite Communications is better suited." Edited March 14, 2018 by DoogyRev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Cheers for the edit copy edit paste..... I find it interesting that GPS doesn't seem to function on aircraft south of the equator over water but perfectly fine over land hhmmmmmm - I'm calling BS again. Two engined plans go for hours through the middle of an ocean just fine according to flight tracker. Where is Antarctica, where is Antarctica.... It's around here somewhere lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 1 hour ago, davey_83 said: Yep this one is staying real close to land........ Look nowt I say is going to make you go oh yeah that makes sense. What is evident for me, isn't evident for others and that's perfectly fine. Odd that GPS doesn't work an hour away from land south of the equator?..... I could summarise why, but you'll already know what I'm going to say. Nothing fly's over Antarctica to pop up the other side as it can't be flown over. Instead of spending time doing stuff like this how about actually reading about the rules of flight - it would have been quicker and more informative https://aerosavvy.com/etops/ The 60 minute rule is the baseline, you can extend the distance based on the type of plane even if its just two engines. Actually, just read up about this stuff I don't need to explain it really its in the link and will help you understand why flight paths are not always shortest distance, or perceived straight lines etc. This also shows why anecdotal evidence is so unreliable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoogyRev Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) You should also check out why planes don't fly over Tibet . . aka Mt Everest Its interesting stuff “If there's a loss of cabin pressure, the airplane is supposed to descend to an altitude where there's enough air to breathe. You can't do that over the Himalayas. " There are other accounts of such rough turbulence that panels have come away from the fuselage Edited March 14, 2018 by DoogyRev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) Thoughts on lack of GPS as mentioned........ The 60 minute rule doesn't apply any more and twin engined planes fly directly over oceans at ease now. Edited March 14, 2018 by davey_83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 3 hours ago, davey_83 said: Okay, so why this map? Why not any of the other maps that are shown flat in 2D? And where do you stand on that link I posted, that shows you accurate size comparisons of countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATTAK Z Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 @davey_83 What's your job ? ... serious question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilogikal1 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Globe maker... Not a serious answer in fairness. I'm not even sorry. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) I work for Lloyds Bank, technical support and vehicle maintenance controller for our lease vehicles. Predominantly use a system called 1 link, allowing for real time communication with 95% of car dealers across the UK. I like the look of this map personally, maybe it's the colours. Sorry if I don't answer you correctly, my take on size representation of the continents isn't an exact science. It's incredibly difficult to accurately display the globe on a wall maps seen in schools for example. Edited March 14, 2018 by davey_83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Agreed, which is why that link I posted is so helpful as it does it all for you. Hence me wondering what YOU thought about it, not what you think about wall maps in schools. And oh-so-droll over the colours. You know what I meant, but I guess it's an easy way to deflect a question. I mean, why that one? Why not the inverse, where Antarctica is in the middle and everything else around it, with the North Pole being The Wall? And you do realise that map disagrees with human's viewing of the day/night cycle, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) Yeah missed you're link so tried to answer best I could. What's the post # and I'll have a look. Antarcticain the middle? I've already stated my thoughts on the surrounding perimeter ice wall, so how would it make sense that I think this continent could ever be at the centre of realistic map? In order to debate someone you have to at least understand where they are coming from, agreed? I disagree with that last statement however have also stated I don't have in my mind a fully working model of the Sun around the earth. Most dump FE models shows the sun in out atmosphere which is rubbish. I think it more a light/energy source outside of the dome. Operation Fishbowl if you will Edited March 15, 2018 by davey_83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 Not to take anything away from the video as evidence, but this mofo is FUNNY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashback Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 16 hours ago, davey_83 said: Yeah missed you're link so tried to answer best I could. What's the post # and I'll have a look. Antarcticain the middle? I've already stated my thoughts on the surrounding perimeter ice wall, so how would it make sense that I think this continent could ever be at the centre of realistic map? In order to debate someone you have to at least understand where they are coming from, agreed? I disagree with that last statement however have also stated I don't have in my mind a fully working model of the Sun around the earth. Most dump FE models shows the sun in out atmosphere which is rubbish. I think it more a light/energy source outside of the dome. Operation Fishbowl if you will 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 Selfishly asking for my own info, how is it science knows so much about the layers of the earth and we've only be able to scratch the surface in terms of being able to dig to a small depth........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 On 3/17/2018 at 19:23, davey_83 said: Selfishly asking for my own info, how is it science knows so much about the layers of the earth and we've only be able to scratch the surface in terms of being able to dig to a small depth........ Some of it i'd imagine is an educated guess. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 This is exactly why I think its right to take sadly a lot of what science says a nothing more than guesswork. You'll find countess images of how the globe inners will look with exact depths and what substances we'd find, however the bare bones 'truth' of the matter is beyond 7 miles (less than 0.25% distance to the core) we don't have a clue. Look up earth from ISS in google images. For scale and understanding consider the globe to a 8ft beach ball, the ISS is 3 inches off the 8ft beach ball in terms of distance away. How much of this massive beach ball would a lens/human eye be able to see from just 3 inches away? Then go back and look at the images we are shown. I think it right to consider what you believe and why you believe it. PS - Any ideas on the lack of flight tracking on planes across seas and oceans south of the equator? strange no...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATTAK Z Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, davey_83 said: This is exactly why I think its right to take sadly a lot of what science says a nothing more than guesswork. You'll find countess images of how the globe inners will look with exact depths and what substances we'd find, however the bare bones 'truth' of the matter is beyond 7 miles (less than 0.25% distance to the core) we don't have a clue. Sir Issac Newton (remember him ?) looked into this and concluded that the Earth's core must be of higher density than the rocks on the crust. More recently seismological measurements have led to more accurate conclusions regarding the Earth's makeup. ETA Oh and your maths is a bit out too ! 7 miles = ~ 2.5% of the distance to the Earth's core (450 km) Edited March 19, 2018 by ATTAK Z 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 You are right we haven't observed the inside of the earth so have to rely on known laws of physics, experimentation and the like to find a most likely answer. But then flat earthers have not observed a flat earth at all to start with, they haven't provided any evidence that an ice shelf exists around the earth, they haven't tried to prove any of the evidence they present that shows how gravity works via a mystery force from an unknown source - If you are put off by guesswork I struggle with how you can believe moreso not even educated guesswork but complete fantasy that people on the internet have made up. The NASA stuff is always taken out of context. Literally all their imagery is composite they have openly said that, that means they don't get a camera in your traditional sense like joe public would snap something and take a photo (when capturing the detail you need for the shots they need that doesn't make any sense anyway). Its a process of taking detailed smaller snapshots and creating the final image. So its very easy for ISS to take the photo, they just take a number of photos as they orbit the earth. Its all very explanable if you read the full context of NASA related stuff they release instead of the out of context snippets flat earthers quote on websites and videos. Context is everything, a video here and a photo there with a conclusion is just not sufficient - without any controls or context around it, it is kind of worthless as evidence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, davey_83 said: This is exactly why I think its right to take sadly a lot of what science says a nothing more than guesswork. You'll find countess images of how the globe inners will look with exact depths and what substances we'd find, however the bare bones 'truth' of the matter is beyond 7 miles (less than 0.25% distance to the core) we don't have a clue. Look up earth from ISS in google images. For scale and understanding consider the globe to a 8ft beach ball, the ISS is 3 inches off the 8ft beach ball in terms of distance away. How much of this massive beach ball would a lens/human eye be able to see from just 3 inches away? Then go back and look at the images we are shown. I think it right to consider what you believe and why you believe it. PS - Any ideas on the lack of flight tracking on planes across seas and oceans south of the equator? strange no...... Yes, some of it is guess work to a degree, but obviously based on something else scientifically accepted that suggests/predicts/confirms what they think. It's not just picked out the air. At the same time i don't think they rally around confessing that it's gospel but share what they think (based on blah blah blah that i said before) Edited March 19, 2018 by Rock_Steady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATTAK Z Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 1 hour ago, davey_83 said: PS - Any ideas on the lack of flight tracking on planes across seas and oceans south of the equator? Demand ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 19 minutes ago, ATTAK Z said: Demand ? Safety? 70% of land on the planet is north of the equator, in the event of an issue its better to have a chance to land somewhere? And demand, if more destinations (and more populated ones) are north of the equator, then would stand to reason you stay north of the equator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATTAK Z Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, coldel said: Safety? 70% of land on the planet is north of the equator, in the event of an issue its better to have a chance to land somewhere And without checking I'm willing to wager that 90% of the runways that can accommodate a large civilian aircraft are north of the equator... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Surely the ISS is fake news? I mean, how can it be orbiting a flat earth... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilogikal1 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 On 17/03/2018 at 19:23, davey_83 said: Selfishly asking for my own info, how is it science knows so much about the layers of the earth and we've only be able to scratch the surface in terms of being able to dig to a small depth........ You’re assuming that the only evidence is obtained by digging a hole. Things, like sonar for example, can determine density without so much as a shovel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, ATTAK Z said: Sir Issac Newton (remember him ?) looked into this and concluded that the Earth's core must be of higher density than the rocks on the crust. More recently seismological measurements have led to more accurate conclusions regarding the Earth's makeup. ETA Oh and your maths is a bit out too ! 7 miles = ~ 2.5% of the distance to the Earth's core (450 km) Anyone with a powerful zoom lens can see ships don't tip forward over a curved horizon........ ---------------------------- 3 inches away from a 8ft globe is where the ISS orbits, and we agree it takes lord knows how many pictures to compile to make images we see on Google images. oh and check this......... How long was it before we saw Starman and amazing pictures of planet earth? So NASA had hundreds of SHD pictures to stitch together in real-time for us back here on earth? The live feed was staright away and look the big blue marble? I can't believe these are thought to be real and folks buy it!! Edited March 19, 2018 by davey_83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts