Yes, but should it take longer to go around Antarctica then it does to go around the equator?
That is what I was talking about there.
Also, another piece in this vein, there is too much land mass south of the equator.
You measure across the land mass, and then take the difference in longitude, and if the ball earth was correct, it should be X. But the distance measured across is larger than X.
Currently, science is working on the pear earth shape. (that was their answer when the flat earthers asked them to explain why X was larger than it should be)
That depends... You can't really go around the equator unless you are talking circumnavigating the globe at the equator.
Are you talking about CROSSING Antarctica, or going around it. If you are talking about it then yes it's circumference could potentially be a longer distance than simply circling the globe.
Which is why things like Fractal Antennas work and make things like Cell Phones possible.
The bends and turns increase the length of the edge. So if they are going AROUND the circumferance (edges) of Antarctica then I could certainly see it being longer than going around the world in a straight line at the equator.
Also traveling on the equator is traveling on a latitude line. So to truly be an equal comparison you'd need to pick a specific latitude that crosses Antarctica and stick to it. Otherwise you are comparing a straight path to a curved one perhaps with several curves. The straight one will usually be shorter if the objects are similar in size.
I am sorry, you've lost me.
No one has ever gone across Antarctica.
Operation High Jump tried and failed.
So, I was referring to the time taken to sail around the globe at 0 degrees latitude compared to 60 degrees southern latitude.
If the globe model was correct, then the 60 degrees southern latitude is smaller and should take less time. But, as far as I know it hasn't been done.
I talked about one group that tried to do it. Taking almost a year before giving up.
I'd like to see some information on this if you have it. (not being a smart ass, just curious)
I am not finding the videos which talked about the southern coast of Africa.
Here is a paper on it
http://www.academia.edu/537251/Shipping_Accidents_Along_the_South_African_Coastline
And here is a recent video by many of the best people in the conspiracy factest circles on the flat earth
I think @kidsysco shared some videos in the comment section of a fairly in expensive way anyone can decisively prove whether the earth is round or not. Now people will attack those videos, yet the point is they are inexpensive... so rather than talking Fish Eye lense and crap like that maybe they should just TRY the experiment.
I must also note, that light may not travel in a straight line.
It may travel parallel to the ground. And thus, all of these methods would be completely useless.
A good reason that it may travel parallel to the ground is that the earth is actually curved space.
Well relativity does support the curvature of light. So that would make some sense. In fact, observing the curvature of light during an eclipse is what eventually proved General Relativity. Proved does not mean stop questioning, it was just the best explanation at that point.
And what happens when they do is people give them crap over it.
There is a program for converting fish eye images to flat, and every time its done, the earth looks flat in the resulting pictures.
Jeranism was doing work with laser over water, and found no curvature, and everyone complains that he didn't do it good enough.
Have you looked into how far light houses can be seen from?
And then put that distance into an earth curve calculator?
Sounds like an excuse to me. I haven't actually seen them try it.
If you haven't watched this one, it is a good intro to most of the theories.
The problem with this list of 200 is that about a third of them aren't that good, and another third of them work in both paradigms.
Remember, I believe we live inside of a spinning, twisted, multi-layer toroid
People have certainly crossed Antarctica...
https://www.wired.com/2016/02/people-cross-antarctica-all-the-time-its-still-crazy-hard/
I am also unsure that you are characterizing Operation High Jump properly. I read about it on Wikipedia and it does not say anything about how no one has ever crossed Antarctica. Operation High Jump was simply a failed mission to start a base in the Antarctic. Wikipedia claims that even though the plane went down, there were numerous boats and other planes in the area to conduct rescue operations.
The primary point for Operation High Jump appeared to be that the US was concerned about how the globe was shrinking in the 1940s with the recent invention of the airplane. For the first time ever, the US needed to be worried about attacks coming from planes flying over not one, but both poles.
This concern actually appears to validate a spherical Earth.
So I am not sure that this case supports your argument that the Earth is not round, unless there is something I am missing.
Here is the link...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Highjump
Operation Highjump is severely in the conspiracy theory category, and thus you would not rely at all on what is in wikipedia.
Find the old footage of Admiral Byrd talking about what they found down there. And then... nothing.
Further, just after this, ALL of the nations signed a treaty that Antarctica is off limits to everyone. You have to get permission to even drive a boat around down there.
And yes, there is stories about making it to the south pole. I believe they are purely works of fiction. If they were real, then operation Highjump wouldn't have quit 6 months into its 3 year plan. Admiral Byrd had crossed the Arctic plenty of times.
There are no plane flights across Antarctica. There are lots of plane flights across the Arctic.
Antarctica is an enigma. Hitler sent lots of troops down there. The US later sent lots of troops down there. We don't know anything about Antarctica except what the lying liars that lie tell us.
Since we don't know, its just more pieces to store away till a later date.
Remember, all we have is NASA, a known group of lying liars that lie, telling us that the earth is a ball. Besides that, there is no evidence that the earth is a ball.
Satellites are used as one of the "explanations" for the earth being a ball... but we actually do not know anything about satellites. Only what they tell us. And what they tell us, doesn't add up.
Actually it is an ellipsoid. Not a pear. They say it is almost a sphere but it is slightly taller than it should be, but a pear the top would be smaller than the bottom, and this is not the current theory as I understand it.
They actually made the conclusion without any flat earther involvement just from measurements and observations from space.