I am in utter disbelief that this 'Flat-Earth' nonsense has gained some attention

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It's the standard model for FE believers. It's how they explain day/night and time zones.

It has many holes, you found another one I like to use, eclipses.

So many holes in FE.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I believe a big reason commercial airlines don't fly direct over it is due to regulations requiring them to have special safety equipment if they do. It's such a slight difference in distance that it's not worth it to them.

Also it occurs to me that it would be a nightmare for any airline if a passenger aircraft went down in the middle of the vast, frozen Antarctic wasteland. They'd have to mount a rescue attempt. I can't even imagine the financial investment required by such an undertaking, let alone the PR nightmare

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

i has seen a youtube vid that had a variation on that - my first question was :

distance to the sun

distance to the moon

distance to polaris

i didnt get to ask the next question - as he obviously realised that he was walking into a trap - delected my comment and blocked me

go figure

a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me

Much the same thinking/problem.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

i has seen a youtube vid that had a variation on that - my first question was :

distance to the sun

distance to the moon

distance to polaris

i didnt get to ask the next question - as he obviously realised that he was walking into a trap - delected my comment and blocked me

go figure

Yes they claim the Sun is small and close, it's not far at all. That all requires too many steps though, I stick with the fact that the part of Antarctica they claim is 40 hours away can be gotten to and back in a day trip from Australia. It's impossible with their model.

Just flying and flawing in the internet:

Flat Earth Wiki

a reply to: twitchy

I believe that should be directed at those who refuse to look at evidence.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

wow - just wow

the only problem with that link is :

what if you apply a " poes law " filter ?

I'm thinking this who FE theory was spawned by some "edgy" interlect troll sh*tposting on 4chan or Reddit to fake out the teenage braindead generation that inhabits the boards.

I'm pretty sure Ellen Mcarthur and Robin Knox-Johnston might have something to say on the subject or were they just frauds too lol like Niel Armstong etc

a reply to: kountzero

the problem is - FE claimants have been around since the 19th century

Okay, so the earth is flat, why is it I cannot see the tallest mountain? Why is it I cannot see any of the rockets taking of at kasikstan? Or Cape Canaveral? why do ships disappear after a while when they have left harbour?

A question was brought up earlier asking why there are no flights over Antarctica. Apart from it not being necessary, there is another, flight related reason.

Jet fuel freeze temperatures range between -40 and -50 °C. These temperatures are frequently encountered at cruise altitude throughout the world with no effect since the fuel retains heat from lower elevations, but the intense cold and extended duration of polar flights may cause fuel temperature to approach its freezing point. Jet A grade with a maximum freeze point of -40 °C is used in the U.S., while Jet A1 grade with a maximum freeze point of -47 °C is used elsewhere.[21] Modern long-distance airliners are equipped to alert flight crew when fuel temperatures reach 3 °C above these levels. The crew must then change altitude, though in some cases due to the low stratosphere over polar regions and its inversion properties the air may actually be somewhat warmer at higher altitudes.

COPIED FROM THIS WIKI

There is also the whole, if an airplane does go down then it will be VERY inhospitable for any human wearing typical clothing on a flight.

Plus the whole search and rescue problems.

a reply to: pikestaff

i dont claim to be a spookes person for the FE cult - but " itz majic " is a pretty good paraphrasing of the answer to your queries

a reply to: ignorant_ape

As long as they themself say that that wiki is meant in a sincere way, I am willing to accept that there ARE people who think this way.

And I have to wonder about their very, very special ways to take at the workings of the world.. "The earth is a disc, perpetually accelerating at 9.81m/s² into space"... Wow.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Is there a discussion page where you can ask questions?

a reply to: TerryDon79

just to be contrarry - the rescue bollox is - well - just bollox

the authorities are really more concerened about the environmental impact of a plane and its fuel load being smeared across the ice shelf than the passengers

i cannot proove this - as they wont come out and say it - but one published set of rules that alludes to this is the regulations on ships fuels in antarctic waters

and of course the logical implications of the survivability of a ditching in the mid atlantic of a flight from JFK to heathrow - sure they have emergency landing rights in canada , greenland , iceland - but if your two engine plane becomes zero engine 25okm from keflavik - its water landing time - and in mid winter neither your fueselage nor your passengers will survive the time rescue takes to arrive