Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - chtwrone

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Flight times between Australia and South America
« on: October 30, 2015, 12:21:33 AM »
There seems to be a lot of ignorant debate concerning HUGE flight times between Australia and South America.

But really there is nothing unusual about these flight at all.

I have seen quite a bit of rubbish concerning direct flights routing via North America?

WTF would these direct flights need to route this way?

The 3 pictures below illustrate exactly how these flights route, and it's usually either via overhead New Zealand or south of, depending on the direction of the upper winds, and best routing to avoid any headwinds.

As an air traffic controller in Christchurch, New Zealand, I have a direct knowledge of the routing that these flights take, and to provide actual backup to these routings, I have taken 2 screenshots from the Flightradar24 website that monitors and displays controlled flights around the world. The screenshots are that of a direct Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia flight, QANTAS 28, which took place around a week ago.

As the most direct route is overhead Christchurch, I have personally witnessed this flight on many occasions, travelling in either direction, dependant on departure point and destination.

The route is a curved line, due to the display of the 3D flight path onto a 2D world map.

The 3rd picture is from Google Earth, and illustrates how this 2D curved route, would actually appear as a straight line on the 3D globe.

« on: October 28, 2015, 03:59:53 AM »

But Papa Legba would disagree, due to his complete disregard for the mass of the fuel in his Object A and B rocket model.

When referring to a person on a skateboard throwing a medicine ball, he correctly labels the person as Object A and the medicine ball as Object B.

In the cannon scenario, he also correctly labels the cannon as Object A and the cannonball as Object B.

But in the rocket system, although he has correctly labelled the rocket as Object A, he has failed to recognise that the rocket's fuel is in fact Object B.  Struggling to find this mysterious and illusive Object B, he fumbles around in desperation as to where it is, and ignorantly labels the atmosphere as Object B?

All 3 of the above systems, generate a propelling force on Object A, due to the opposing momentum force of Object B.

With the 'person on skateboard' system, the person is propelled due to the forcible ejection (momentum force) of mass (medicine ball) out of the system.

With the 'cannon' system, the cannon is propelled due to the forcible ejection (momentum force) of mass (cannonball) out of the system.

With the 'rocket' system, the rocket is propelled due to the forcible ejection (momentum force) of mass (fuel) out of the system.

No doubt Papa Legba will respond with his usual repetitious rhetoric, but it will be interesting to see how he explains, in his opinion, that the fuel has had no momentum force imparted onto it during the process of combustion and forcible ejection out of the engine nozzles.

If we look at the rocket's fuel before ignition, we can obviously see that the fuel has X amount of mass, but nil velocity.

But after ignition, we can obviously see that the fuel which has now exited the rocket system as the exhaust with X amount of mass, is now travelling at extreme velocity.

The previously stationary fuel, which is Object B, has just had a HUGE amount of momentum imparted onto it, and obviously this exact same amount of momentum must be transferred back onto Object A.

And guess what, this Object A is the rocket and it is now been propelled in the opposite direction to that of Object B.

So in conclusion, it's now been established that the 3 systems referred to above, all generate a momentum force on the system's Object A, due to the forcible ejection (opposite momentum force) of Object B out of each of the systems.

Therefore Papa Legba, for you to disagree with the above, you will have to demonstrate that the mass of fuel has NOT had any momentum imparted onto it during its combustion and forcible ejection out of the rocket's engine nozzles.

Your explanation is greatly anticipated.


Apparently, according to Papa Legba, when a molecule from a rocket's exhaust hits an atmospheric molecule, the exhaust molecule bounces back and creates a propelling force on the base of the rocket.

I find it a little puzzling however, that an atmospheric molecule has the ability to 'bounce' an exhaust molecule travelling at hypersonic velocity, in the opposite direction at a sufficient velocity to impart enough force on the base of the rocket, thereby propelling it?

And regardless of the interaction between the exhaust and atmospheric molecules, there must only be a very small percentage of impacts between these molecules that are perpendicular enough to factor into the equation of those molecules that might be bounced backwards, and not glanced off to the side, and therefore useless as far as imparting any force is concerned.

But the biggest problem of all, concerns the 'supply' of atmospheric molecules. Just after engine ignition, the initial blast of hypersonic exhaust molecules 'interacts' with the atmospheric molecules and momentarily exerts a backward force.  However, immediately after this (micro-seconds), the initial volume of atmospheric molecules has been replaced with the ejected exhaust molecules, and this constant stream of ejected exhaust molecules prevents further atmospheric molecules from replacing those that had been previously 'interacted' with.

In other words, just after ignition there are no more atmospheric molecules adjacent to the engine nozzle for the exhaust molecules to 'interact' with. Therefore, there are no longer any propelling forces being applied to the base of the rocket by exhaust molecules, which had previously and only momentarily been 'bounced' back by the atmospheric molecules immediately after engine ignition.

Flat earthers shun modern science, because they perceive that it is biased in favour of the round earth model. This is where flat earth theory falls down though, as the round earth model is based on observable and verified scientific FACT, yet the flat earth model is based ENTIRELY on laughable opinion and blatant 'let's make some shit up' BS.

The next equinox will occur in about 3 weeks on the 23rd of September.

There are 2 equinoxes per year, with the earth's inclination to the sun being exactly perpendicular, or 0 degrees to the sun. What this means is that if you're situated on the equator, the sun will rise from exactly east (090 degrees), rise vertically in the sky in a completely straight line, until exactly midday, when it is directly overhead. From this point, the sun descends in a completely straight line vertically down to and then below the horizon in the exact west (270 degrees). This phenomenon is well known and documented and is visually verified twice a year by the tens of thousands of people who live on the equator.

So on this day, the sun rises in the morning and descends again in the afternoon in a completely straight line (without curve).

If we look at the flat earth model, the sun itself is not moving in the sky due to the earth's rotation, but because it's actually the sun that is moving and transcribing a circular path over the earth's surface, and completes 1 complete circle every 24 hours.

In the flat earth model, the sun can NEVER be observed to move in a completely straight line, due to the fact that it is ALWAYS travelling in a circular path over the earth's surface. The only time that an observer would be able to say that they can observe seeing the sun moving in a straight line, would be if they were at the same height as the sun itself, and on the plane of the sun's movement.

So here we have a test for the plausibility or not of the round earth model, based on the observation that on the equator on the 23rd of September, the sun's movement in the sky will be a completely straight line, from the time the sun is first observed in the morning until it passes out of sight in the evening. If the sun is indeed observed to make a completely straight line in the sky, then this will completely debunk the flat earth model that requires that the sun is ALWAYS travelling in a curved circular path.

A simple experiment can verify if the sun's movement during the day is in a straight line or a curve. Place a measuring (1 metre high would be ample) stick into the ground on a suitably flat surface. Mark the position of the shadow made by the top of the stick every half hour of so, and then at the end of the day, draw a line between each of these marks. If the resultant line is perfectly straight, then it proves the round earth model. If the resultant line is curved, then the flat earth model is proved. Very simple.

This 'test' of the flat earth model must surely be known to those high up members of the flat earth fraternity, who will be eagerly organising a trip to visit the equator on the 23rd of September to establish that the sun's path is NOT a perfectly straight line, but will actually transcribe a curved path as dictated and required by the flat earth model.  If this trip is not actually on the agenda of the flat earth hierarchy, then one might be lead to the conclusion that they are not really that interested in finding out conclusively that the flat earth model is indeed correct or not?  But one would have to seriously question why this trip would not be made, as it would absolutely prove beyond all possible doubt that the earth is flat, and surely this type of proof is what the flat earth hierarchy have been looking for to verify the flat earth model.

Flat Earth Debate / The sun's path throughout the day during an equinox
« on: August 29, 2015, 07:50:09 PM »
I'm not sure if this particular subject has been discussed previously, but here goes anyway.

An equinox occurs twice a year, once on, or around the 21st of March, and again on, or around the 23rd of September. An equinox is when the sun at midday is exactly overhead the equator.  The round earth model accounts for these events because of the 23.5 degree wobble in the earth's axis of rotation throughout the year, and the flat earth theory accounts for this because of the migration throughout the year, of the sun's circular path over the earth, with the sun's path transiting between the Tropic of Cancer in the northern summer, and the Tropic of Capricorn in the southern summer.

So if an observer is located on the equator during an equinox, they will observe in the morning, that the sun appears at first light, moving from an exact easterly position, then moving in an exact straight line throughout the morning until it is directly overhead at midday. At this point the sun  will caste no shadows whatsoever. From midday onwards, the sun is now observed to move in an exact straight line towards the west, until it has eventually disappeared at the end of the day.

You will have noticed the blue highlighting of the words 'exact straight line', which has been deliberate. This is to draw your attention to the fact that the observed path of the sun through the sky during an equinox, is always an 'exact straight line', from the time the sun first appears, through to midday and then till the sun has eventually gone at day's end.

The spherical earth model accounts for the sun's 'exact straight line movement, due to the earth's axis of rotation being 'exactly' perpendicular to the sun on the 21st of March and 23rd of September.

Now we come to the flat earth model, and a big problem arises.

According to the flat earth model, the sun makes a circular path once a day over the earth's surface.
I will say that again - 'The sun makes a CIRCULAR PATH over the earth's surface.'

I will now ask a flat earth proponent to explain how the sun, which is making a CIRCULAR PATH over the earth's surface, can be observed during the equinox, to move in an exact straight line in the sky between morning, midday and evening?

And yes, this observation of a perfectly exact straight-line tracking of the sun is fact, and is observed/celebrated twice a year from the La Mitad del Mundo monument located in Peru, which is situated exactly on the equator. Of course, this observation can be made at any point on the equator during either of the two yearly equinoxes.

Flat Earth Q&A / The moon - why is only 1 side of the moon ever visible?
« on: August 28, 2015, 05:25:08 PM »
Only one side of the moon is ever visible, but according to the flat earth model, depending on where the moon is in relation to a particular location, the side that is never visible should be able to be viewed.

Would a flat earth please explain why the other (far) side of the moon is never visible?

Pages: [1]