My biggest issue with all the flat vs round argument is that both sides have inconsistencies.
If the earth is a ball and spinning at 1000mph at the equator then we have to assume fluid dynamics are a sham, because in order for the air to be moving at relative speed with the earth it must also be travelling at 1000mph.
However, if this were true, then the air at the poles would also only be moving at the same speed as the earth below it, i.e. close to 0mph.
If that were the case, then the differential airspeeds should cause a planetary cyclone effect at each pole. If there is a logical answer to this I'd love to hear it because it baffles the shit out of me.
On the other hand, if the earth is a flat plane, then how do people circumnavigate it?*
Seriously, none of it makes fucking sense, it's like the rules of a kid's game that change depending on what you are looking at.
*edit: unless it's like the train station neo gets stuck in
I just did some checks with online tools and I need someone to double check my findings and validate my method.
I looked at the straight line distance between Paris and New York, along with the difference in lat.
I then did the same thing between Cape Town and Buenos Aires.
There is approx 1-2 degrees difference in distance, I'm working it out by hand at the moment so not totally accurate. At the equator, 1 degree of separation should be around 70 miles, this would be less the farther north or south you go.
Yet an online resource listing showing straight line differences between two points shows a difference between the two measurements of over 640 miles. (the cities below the equator being the farther apart).
This would only be true (assuming my sources are accurate) if the lat. lines below the equator continue to diverge, rather than converge back towards the south pole.
Coild someone please check my sanity, I'm sure I must have missed something as I'm rushing.
I agree, a lot of issues with globe earth theory. Maybe the Mason's pushing gravity, globe earth, etc. will get new theories to fill those gaps in their dam.
You can CIRCUMnavigate the globe on any CIRCUMference you choose. The equatorial line is a circle on a round plane or a globe. A circle can contain many circles to circumnavigate around magnetic North either way.
My biggest issue with all the flat vs round argument is that both sides have inconsistencies.
If the earth is a ball and spinning at 1000mph at the equator then we have to assume fluid dynamics are a sham, because in order for the air to be moving at relative speed with the earth it must also be travelling at 1000mph.
However, if this were true, then the air at the poles would also only be moving at the same speed as the earth below it, i.e. close to 0mph.
If that were the case, then the differential airspeeds should cause a planetary cyclone effect at each pole. If there is a logical answer to this I'd love to hear it because it baffles the shit out of me.
On the other hand, if the earth is a flat plane, then how do people circumnavigate it?*
Seriously, none of it makes fucking sense, it's like the rules of a kid's game that change depending on what you are looking at.
*edit: unless it's like the train station neo gets stuck in
It's called the jet stream, formed and maintained by Coriolis force. The same force that gives hurricanes, tornadoes and whirlpools spin.
I just did some checks with online tools and I need someone to double check my findings and validate my method.
I looked at the straight line distance between Paris and New York, along with the difference in lat.
I then did the same thing between Cape Town and Buenos Aires.
There is approx 1-2 degrees difference in distance, I'm working it out by hand at the moment so not totally accurate. At the equator, 1 degree of separation should be around 70 miles, this would be less the farther north or south you go.
Yet an online resource listing showing straight line differences between two points shows a difference between the two measurements of over 640 miles. (the cities below the equator being the farther apart).
This would only be true (assuming my sources are accurate) if the lat. lines below the equator continue to diverge, rather than converge back towards the south pole.
Coild someone please check my sanity, I'm sure I must have missed something as I'm rushing.
"great circle route"
That doesn't explain the discrepancy at all.
I agree, a lot of issues with globe earth theory. Maybe the Mason's pushing gravity, globe earth, etc. will get new theories to fill those gaps in their dam.
You can CIRCUMnavigate the globe on any CIRCUMference you choose. The equatorial line is a circle on a round plane or a globe. A circle can contain many circles to circumnavigate around magnetic North either way.