Jump to content

Mars next stop :)


gangzoom

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, davey_83 said:

Or it's called not accepting everything you are told just because it's from "clever people"

 

I'm pretty sure no one is falling off anywhere.

 

 

12027724_10104343799123539_5167407988476630807_n.jpg

 

So cant believe in the ice caps (ring in your case) melting then as by your logic this ring of ice is infinite? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, not being able to sail below iirc 74' latitude and not a place one circumnavigate.

 

Because Jay's flight to HK went over Russia which on the globe model is a massive detour......

Edited by davey_83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, davey_83 said:

Because Jay's flight to HK went over Russia which on the globe model is a massive detour......

No its not a detour as per Pic its the most direct route,

 

The black is the Flight plath posted 

 

The Red is the route your saying over turkey

 

pic.png.3c270c58c12d8c4050c4962a08cfadf8.png

 

pic.png

 

 

 

This is not a globe 

 

 

Image result for map of earth

Edited by StevoD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, however its a map derived from a globe.

 

Steve I can see you aren't getting this.

 

Google when asked the distance to HK, shows the quickest route on a globe model which goes over Turkey - so it's not me saying anything.

 

The actual route taken to HK can be as I have shown on Jay's post to be over North Russia which IS a detour from the information shown by Google about the globe flight path. 

 

The black line that you've added to the map, are you aware that's a flat earth map and not a globe one looking down at the north pole.

Edited by davey_83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Distance and flight paths are very different things. Steve is spot on the money here, every counter-post is just hammering home his point. 

 

Also, coming back to my point, regardless of which shape of map you’re using, if it’s flat then what happens when you reach the edge? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, coldel said:

Naturally occurring pyramids and cubes etc. are not just 'very possible' its fact, they are all over the planet feel free to go have a look so you don't have to rely on YT or Google images doctored by the government covering up everything.

 

Why would they build something like us? That is the question still standing and the answer is not, why not. Lets put the boot on the other foot. If in the future mankind makes its way across the expanse of space in super hi-tech creations that allow us to survive radiation poisoning, the slow killer that is weightlessness, suppressing the aging process and all the other barriers to space travel - with all that technology we land on another world and build a settlement that resembles a semi-detached bungalow in Croydon carved from the rock of the surrounding area - it just isn't reasonable, sensible or realistic. 

 

The problem is that conspiracy theories rely on people disproving their theory whilst grasping at very unlikely other scenarios, rather than making an objective conclusion from their own evidence. Look at this forum, someone comes on here and says that they have built a new product which does X Y Z we don't just take their grainy photos as gospel people question this new idea and look for solid evidence. 

i agree, it's not realistic to build a semi-detached bungalow, but you're decorating it in way that supports your attitude. They would build something that would be very similar if not the same as on earth. Take the Arctic, scientists who study there in some of the most ferocious conditions live in a building that - granted  - is not exactly the same as a house but it is something that resembles what you can find on any street in Britain. So my question that you haven't answered is, why would it be different?. What does it have to be made of? Should it be a Glass dome so it looks like it should be there because that's what buildings on other planets should look like? Because we were sold this idea from movies in the 50s?  No, not necessarily. All i'm saying is, i think it's worth considering. life is full of surprises. 

 

Consider the moon landing, NASA sent a buggy to the moon, it looks like a buggy you can buy on earth give or take some bit's and bobs. It worked too. Why did we make it that way for the moon? Because it's what we know. the purpose of it worked on the moon as it does on earth. I apply this rule to your scenario above. Therefore if we went interstellar to colonise a planet, i'd imagine our buildings would be more or less the same in appearance as is the moon buggy to a buggy meant for earth use. 

Edited by Rock_Steady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we are going around in circles a bit here Steady - I asked a question why would a space travelling interstellar species build something exactly the same as humans would build? Your answer was 'why not' based on the fact humans build something the same as humans on different parts of the planet/over last 80 years which is not really related to what I first asked. You are right its not something you should write off, but the jump from a grainy you tube video of a shape on the moon (shapes which regularly occur naturally on earth which is proven fact) to the likelihood that it was built by intelligent non-earth life is not a big one, its immense. Consider it, yes. Take it seriously, not really.

 

Love the flat earth post Chris by the way :thumbs:

 

Not sure if its on that website mate as I am sure it talks about various YT videos and the like but moving away from the basics of spherical distances and getting to the crux of the issue of flat earth is how gravity works. The reasoning is quite fantastic - apparently there is dark matter, from an unknown source, accelerating the earth at a constant 1g acceleration through space. Genius. Just for fun I looked at what that would mean in terms of how fast we are going now given that say the earth is 4.5billion years old, that you need to travel at 9.8 metres per second to achieve 1g, and that there are around 31.5m seconds in a year...short of the long is that we are now doing 1.4 quintillion metres per second, which is around 4.7 billion times the speed of light. (note this is something I worked out myself using the internet, much like a lot of this thread ;))

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, coldel said:

I guess we are going around in circles a bit here Steady - I asked a question why would a space travelling interstellar species build something exactly the same as humans would build? Your answer was 'why not' based on the fact humans build something the same as humans on different parts of the planet/over last 80 years which is not really related to what I first asked. You are right its not something you should write off, but the jump from a grainy you tube video of a shape on the moon (shapes which regularly occur naturally on earth which is proven fact) to the likelihood that it was built by intelligent non-earth life is not a big one, its immense. Consider it, yes. Take it seriously, not really.

 

Love the flat earth post Chris by the way :thumbs:

 

Not sure if its on that website mate as I am sure it talks about various YT videos and the like but moving away from the basics of spherical distances and getting to the crux of the issue of flat earth is how gravity works. The reasoning is quite fantastic - apparently there is dark matter, from an unknown source, accelerating the earth at a constant 1g acceleration through space. Genius. Just for fun I looked at what that would mean in terms of how fast we are going now given that say the earth is 4.5billion years old, that you need to travel at 9.8 metres per second to achieve 1g, and that there are around 31.5m seconds in a year...short of the long is that we are now doing 1.4 quintillion metres per second, which is around 4.7 billion times the speed of light. (note this is something I worked out myself using the internet, much like a lot of this thread ;))

 

 

i'm not basing my argument on grainy images on YouTube. And i'll leave it at that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ekona said:
3 minutes ago, Rock_Steady said:

i'm not basing my argument on grainy images on YouTube. And i'll leave it at that.  

Happy to look at these images if you post them up, I googled it when you mentioned it and watched a few videos of the Chinese probe, are we looking at something different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, davey_83 said:

No, however its a map derived from a globe.

 

Steve I can see you aren't getting this.

 

Google when asked the distance to HK, shows the quickest route on a globe model which goes over Turkey - so it's not me saying anything.

 

The actual route taken to HK can be as I have shown on Jay's post to be over North Russia which IS a detour from the information shown by Google about the globe flight path. 

 

The black line that you've added to the map, are you aware that's a flat earth map and not a globe one looking down at the north pole.

The map that you are using is based on a Mercator projection and the one Steve is using is based on a Transverse Mercator Projection.    The orginal Mercator Projection was made to simplify the navigation of the seas for sailors and is best suited there. 

 

The Transverse Mercator gives a much more accurate definition of east / west which is the piece that's badly disorted on a standard Mercator as you go futher north or south from the equator (in fact becomes infinitely distorted at the poles).

 

Steve's map would be far more true to life for this application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ekona said:

Distance and flight paths are very different things. Steve is spot on the money here, every counter-post is just hammering home his point. 

 

Also, coming back to my point, regardless of which shape of map you’re using, if it’s flat then what happens when you reach the edge? 

Prove it?

 

Ive replied in post #323

Edited by davey_83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Flashback said:

The map that you are using is based on a Mercator projection and the one Steve is using is based on a Transverse Mercator Projection.    The orginal Mercator Projection was made to simplify the navigation of the seas for sailors and is best suited there. 

 

The Transverse Mercator gives a much more accurate definition of east / west which is the piece that's badly disorted on a standard Mercator as you go futher north or south from the equator (in fact becomes infinitely distorted at the poles).

 

Steve's map would be far more true to life for this application.

However not if the earth is flat, which is the topic of discussion. The earth was thought to be first flat, so it would make sense that maps were flat before they were balls shaped and not the other way round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davey_83 said:

Prove it?

 

Ive replied in post #323

A picture is not an answer. Try explaining with words: What happens when you reach the edge?

 

And what I meant is that flight paths are often chosen to comply with the law, meaning they must be within X distance of land/airport or cannot fly over X country. So that needs to be taken into account from both your point of view and everyone else’s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, coldel said:

Aircraft with two engines are complicit with law to fly within 1 hour of an airport which is why some take coastal routes rather than direct ones if bodies of water are involved. 

 

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. 

 

Screenshot_20180314-171637.png.18bc2ac50e7873204a436941882eda3b.png

 

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. 

 

Screenshot_20180314-171957.png.4b59303f2299fc0cd8b4f07bacf5b0b0.png

 

 

Screenshot_20180314-172320.png.360df556a1f89110e226c3ff4edf7d15.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ekona said:

Okay, so that works for travelling south, what about if travelling east or west?

Traveling east or west.......... You either chase the sun or you don't. You follow your compass which takes you along lines of latitude not longitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • coldel locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...