there are a lot of reasons to not fly over Antarctica. Its a very different place than the Arctic region, covered by different international agreements. That said, I do not know that it's actually not done, though if it is not, that is not evidence of its nonexistence.
there are a lot of reasons to not fly over Antarctica. Its a very different place than the Arctic region, covered by different international agreements. That said, I do not know that it's actually not done, though if it is not, that is not evidence of its nonexistence.
Agreed. Therein lies the futility of the exercise. Apparently there are 2 models for the shape of the earth. If there are others, no one talks about them. For me, it is huge astounding that both work! By "work", I guess I mean that flaws are excused away. I mean, how is it that something as complicated as navigation could be explained by both models?
First, I don't know your name. Please, introduce yourself.
The "model" has a use; and that use is the tracking of the seasons reliably; the ability to navigate reliably; the ability to keep time, including managing time zones; and the ability to communicate.
Tell me, without looking it up, do you know what sidereal time is?
Because you seem to be arguing that "the world is flat" or that the "sphere earth" is incorrect, I would assume you're familiar with all the types of measurements used to reliably track its movement. You would know, because you are attempting to refute something that works, for all practical purposes -- at the same time you're saying that the model fails.
Maybe you don't understand what a model is. Think of a model bridge, used to test a design. You can test the model, with weights and other stresses. If the model works, it's likely to work in physical reality when built full-scale.
The orbiting earth model works for every actual purpose we give it, and it "fails" in bogus experiments with "zoom lenses" (meaning telephoto). There's a lot of good photo gear out there, and a lot of talented photographers. I have yet to see an image of a ship hundreds of miles off of the coast, taken from sea level.
All "flat earthers" so far, when asked, do not provide evidence of a problem with timekeeping or navigation. If the model fails, I should not be able to tell you that the Sun will rise in Manila at 5:43 am at 80┬░ East, and it does.
My position is that the model fails because it is wrong. That position, is my personal belief based on the reading that I have done. As I mentioned, I am amazed that the globe model, IF wrong, holds up so well. To be clear, I am not pretending to be knowledgeable on the subject. You would be surprised how few people ask me my opinion on the shape of the earth. I leave the details to those more read on the subject. They do exist. I have tried to introduce them to you.
To conclude, (maybe), I would say the issue is that such a level of deception might be possible. It's not really a fun exercise, or if it is, it probably shouldn't be. I guess it's fun enough to find out what is really going on. If we already know..., well..., even better! What's more fun than that?
The subject must be in the air, wanting to be discussed. Dubay is well schooled on the subject, and the author of at least one book. He just this hour has released a new video:
there are a lot of reasons to not fly over Antarctica. Its a very different place than the Arctic region, covered by different international agreements. That said, I do not know that it's actually not done, though if it is not, that is not evidence of its nonexistence.
Agreed. Therein lies the futility of the exercise. Apparently there are 2 models for the shape of the earth. If there are others, no one talks about them. For me, it is huge astounding that both work! By "work", I guess I mean that flaws are excused away. I mean, how is it that something as complicated as navigation could be explained by both models?
First, I don't know your name. Please, introduce yourself.
The "model" has a use; and that use is the tracking of the seasons reliably; the ability to navigate reliably; the ability to keep time, including managing time zones; and the ability to communicate.
Tell me, without looking it up, do you know what sidereal time is?
no. Which proves what?
Because you seem to be arguing that "the world is flat" or that the "sphere earth" is incorrect, I would assume you're familiar with all the types of measurements used to reliably track its movement. You would know, because you are attempting to refute something that works, for all practical purposes -- at the same time you're saying that the model fails.
Maybe you don't understand what a model is. Think of a model bridge, used to test a design. You can test the model, with weights and other stresses. If the model works, it's likely to work in physical reality when built full-scale.
The orbiting earth model works for every actual purpose we give it, and it "fails" in bogus experiments with "zoom lenses" (meaning telephoto). There's a lot of good photo gear out there, and a lot of talented photographers. I have yet to see an image of a ship hundreds of miles off of the coast, taken from sea level.
All "flat earthers" so far, when asked, do not provide evidence of a problem with timekeeping or navigation. If the model fails, I should not be able to tell you that the Sun will rise in Manila at 5:43 am at 80┬░ East, and it does.
My position is that the model fails because it is wrong. That position, is my personal belief based on the reading that I have done. As I mentioned, I am amazed that the globe model, IF wrong, holds up so well. To be clear, I am not pretending to be knowledgeable on the subject. You would be surprised how few people ask me my opinion on the shape of the earth. I leave the details to those more read on the subject. They do exist. I have tried to introduce them to you.
To conclude, (maybe), I would say the issue is that such a level of deception might be possible. It's not really a fun exercise, or if it is, it probably shouldn't be. I guess it's fun enough to find out what is really going on. If we already know..., well..., even better! What's more fun than that?
https://models.com/models
If you are serious, I will attempt to broker a discussion. Actually, why would I? Dan Chapman
I didn't mean to steal bandwidth.
I know this invites a "gotchya" challenge. But we can see where this goes.
The subject must be in the air, wanting to be discussed. Dubay is well schooled on the subject, and the author of at least one book. He just this hour has released a new video:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mgH9ZcRbaFdq/