Common Sense Science & Religion   ><>
Common Sense Science
On This Page:
--- SPACESHIP 101     

--- TORNADO SAFETY

--- FLAT EARTHER’S   
Home Page
SPACESHIP 101                                                                          v2.8

How about a bit more SCIENCE, in the Science Fiction?
Almost everything you see on TV and movies…
It just doesn’t work that way!
  • TV and Movie Spaceships are very COOL looking!
However, “Cool Looking” does not cut-it when it comes to efficiency. The video producers have
reasoned that a pointed bow or a wedge shape would be very efficient as a war machine.
(Like the
Imperial I-class ‘Star Destroyer’ that was chasing Princess Leia at the beginning of
Star Wars, ‘A New Hope’.)
All your weapons are mounted along the sides in ‘pill boxes’. It would allow you to aim ALL of your
weapons at a single point directly in front of the ship, as well as to the sides.
  • That is really great, but only if you are the one doing the chasing!
However, if you are being followed, having all your weapons only able to be aimed to the front and the
sides, then your propulsion system will take a pounding!
Oh, well! Except for any weapons designed to
fire to the rear of the craft, you would not be able to return a devastating fire. A spherical Spacecraft in
war is a good compromise, half of your weapons can be aimed in any one direction at a time.
  • Perhaps the most efficient spaceship configuration is a SPHERE, (even a ‘Borg’ CUBE) for deep-
    space spaceships because it would contain the most internal spacial area, as well as the least amount
    of surface area, it’s mass versus volume. There is no need or use for wings or aerodynamic
    configurations unless the spacecraft is designed to be flown in an atmosphere and/or landed on the
    ground like an airplane.

WARP SPEED
“On Star Trek (depending on the source) “Warp 1” is equivalent to the Speed of Light, Warp 2 is 8
times the Speed of Light, and Warp 3 is 27 times the Speed of Light. Yet according to the what the
writers portray, objects coming towards the observer at Light Speed (or many times faster), the object
can be seen and/or detected from a distance. Of course, this is quite impossible. That would be like
hearing a distant sound before the sound reaches your ear.
Recall the hundreds of times the “Deflector Dish” came up in the many seasons, episodes, and
movies? It pushes the dust and bigger items out of the way that normally would cause a horrendous
crash.
How?
Sci-fi magic.

Ponder the possibility of a ray of light that can travel at many times FTL (Faster Than Light) speed and
push all debris that is over 200 million miles away, along your direction of travel, before you strike
it at FTL speed! Why would it not cause the same affect to all those probes that they always send out on
Star Trek, let alone remove or cause damage to other objects like Space Stations or other spacecraft?

Ensign Pavel Chekov: “Captain, the Deflector Dish just sent the Science Station into the planet’s
atmosphere causing it to crash into the planet!”
Captain James T. Kirk: “Oopsy!”

HITTING a GRAIN of SAND at SPEED of LIGHT
From a Quora Post by Kevin Lux Aug 22, 2020 – (Edited)
Large hailstones can dent a car. Half the speed of light is about 335 million mph. Think about an
asteroid at the distance to the moon. It’s pretty much invisible at that distance. At only 0.5c, it’s about
two seconds away. Space ships in some movies have a kind of energy shield that vaporizes most of the
asteroid, but they usually depict a closing velocity on the order of hundreds of miles per hour when the
reality would have been a nearly instantaneous and an immensely spectacular collision.

A light-year is the distance light travels in one year. Considering that in our Milky Way
Galaxy the average distance between stars is around 5.5 light-years apart. To accomplish this,
the Enterprise would have to be traveling many light years per SECOND! Not at all feasible!

Now get This!
GOING WARP 5000?
“Hey guys, anyone care to visit the Andromeda Galaxy for lunch?”
On Star Trek, they show ‘stars’ whizzing past a window at several stars per second. Considering that in
our Milky Way Galaxy the average distance between stars is around 5.5 light-years. To accomplish this,
the Enterprise would have to be traveling over 10 light-years per SECOND! Not at all feasible!!
TRUTH: At 100 times the Speed of Light it would still take 3.65 days to travel just one Light Year!
Therefore, to reach the average distance star would still be over 20 days of travel.

“It takes light from our sun an average of eight minutes and 20 seconds to reach Earth. That may not
seem like very much time but given how fast light travels — just under 300,000 kilometers per second,
or over 186,000 miles per second — it's not insignificant. For comparison, light from the moon reaches
Earth in just a little over one second. The moon is only 238,855 miles away, though. (The distance
varies a bit as it orbits, but that is the average cited by NASA.) The sun, meanwhile, is approximately 93
million miles away — hence the eight minutes and 20 seconds it takes for light to make the trip. Still,
that pales in comparison to how long it takes sunlight to reach the outer solar system. On Neptune,
which is an average distance of 2.8 billion miles away, sunlight takes four hours to reach the planet.”
-- Source: Phys.org

How Fast Is 'Warp Speed' Really?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/tv/a28108/star-trek-warp-speed-comparison/


SPACE HELMETS
They can’t get something as simple as a helmet right, in most Sci-Fi videos they have helmets face-shield
lit up from the inside so you can see the face of the person wearing the helmet. This would cause the
light to obscure anything beyond the face-shield completely ruining the person’s vision. This you can try
at home. Just stand in front of a window at night with a lamp between you and the glass.

“WHAT’S UP?”
“Any direction away from the center of a source of gravity” such as a planet or star.
Or as here on Earth:
“Any direction away from the center of the earth”.
However, once you get far enough out into a zone of free fall or into orbit, there is no such thing as ‘up’
or ‘down’. A spaceship under acceleration does have an artificial gravity throughout the entire craft:
However, the force of this “gravity” is solely dependent upon the amount of acceleration. “Up” would
normally be the direction of travel, and “Down” would be toward the engine’s thrust. There is no
exception when the craft is reversed when slowing down to approach your destination, then the
direction of travel is towards the stern, because the craft is decelerating while reversed, “Down” is still
towards the rear.
Otherwise rotating all or part of the craft around its length will create an artificial gravity. “Down” would
be towards the outer hull, with the most gravity being the ‘floor” nearest the outer hull, and the least
amount of gravity, to zero gravity being along the centerline. All ‘floors’ would be curved inward, it
would appear as if you are in the bottom of a valley, from the vantage point of an observer on the floor.
This is the only possible way to induce anything simulating gravity as science can produce today.
  • HOORAY! Some Science Fiction Movies get this right, such as: 2001: A Space Odyssey, filmed in
    1968!
However, some movies get this very wrong, they have two capsules out on the ends of rotating arms.
Usually they are either an open lattice gantry structure or cables for the arms, but no possible way to get
into the capsules or leave them without donning a spacesuit and leave the confines of the spacecraft!
A spacesuit weighs approximately 280 pounds on the ground - without the astronaut in it. In the
microgravity environment of space, a spacesuit weighs nothing. Putting on spacesuit (in the recent past)
took 45 minutes, including the time it takes to put on the special undergarments that help keep
astronauts cool.
A FEW MONTHS ago, NASA unveiled its next-generation space suit that will be worn by astronauts
when they return to the moon in 2024 as part of the agency’s plan to establish a permanent human
presence on the lunar surface. The
Extravehicular Mobility Unit—or xEMU—is NASA’s first major
upgrade to its space suit in nearly 40 years and is designed to make life easier for astronauts who will
spend a lot of time kicking up moon dust. It will allow them to bend and stretch in ways they couldn’t
before, easily don and doff the suit, swap out components for a better fit, and go months without
making a repair.

YOU CANNOT DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, OR THE LAWS OF MOTION
TV and movie “Spacecraft” cannot behave like that in real life. You can’t fly in a circle or a curved line,
(There is nothing in Space to get the required friction.) On the opening credits of “Star Trek:
Enterprise”
, the Enterprise is shown as doing several ‘banking turns’, this is quite IMPOSSIBLE to do
in outer space!
Sure, you can use the steering rockets to turn the spacecraft, but you have not done anything to change
the direction of travel, by simply rotating the axis! All that you have done is to rotate the craft. Then you
must accelerate in the actual direction, but you are still not traveling in the direction your spacecraft is
pointed!
More on that below
Of course, orbiting is certainly possible, but only IF the object being orbited has enough gravity to allow
that! If you could orbit a small moon, it would need to be extremely low and slow. The faster you travel
in an orbit the farther out away from the orbited body you would travel, until you head out in a straight
line.
Sure, science may somehow find a way to invent a method of
“Inertia Dampeners” and true “Artificial
Gravity”
but as for now, no one has a clue as to what those scientific principles would be based upon.
It is entirely fictional. A true artificial gravity would simulate the conditions on Earth, so that you could
not detect any difference whether in a spaceship or on the ground, like in the filming of most Science
Fiction movies, because it is very expensive to simulate Zero Gravity!

In Movies and TV, the spacecraft are shown to accelerate and decelerate at what would be extremely
high G-Force rates that are impossible for people to withstand.

“In the Space Shuttle era and beyond, astronauts experience varying amount of G forces during launch
and landing. Normally, the highest G forces are seen during landing, not launch. The Shuttle crew
would see about 3 Gs during landing. Now that the shuttle is retired and the US astronauts are flying
exclusively on Soyuz craft, they experience about 4.5 Gs during descent if things go correctly. If not, the
Soyuz will enter what’s called a
ballistic descent or a ballistic reentry. During a ballistic reentry, an
astronaut can experience upwards of 8 Gs. Just imagine having 8 clones of yourself sitting on top of you
and trying to move. Though these types of reentries are extremely uncomfortable for the astronauts to
experience, they are rare, and, in the end, they all come back safely.”
https://www.quora.com/When-is-the-maximum-g-force-experienced-by-an-astronaut

Therefore, the Sci-Fi writers ‘invented’ “Inertia Dampening” this would be required to keep everything
from smashing into the front or rear bulkheads, like a bug splattered on your car windshield. However,
using known scientific principles a spacecraft should not change its rate of speed beyond about three
G-Forces.
In the world of Science Fiction Movies and TV the actual G-Force as indicated, would be many times
greater. At a G-Force of 3 times the normal gravity, a person weighing 200 pounds would then weigh
600 pounds, at 10 G the same person would weigh 2000 pounds!
Now try to operate the controls...
Let alone breathe!

There is a severe lack of scientific knowledge by some of the writers…
Han Solo’s famous boast that the Millennium Falcon “…made the Kessel Run in less than
12 parsecs”
may have sounded impressive, but from an astronomical perspective, it
made no sense. A parsec is a unit of distance, not time, so why would Solo use it to
explain how quickly his ship could travel?

The parsec is a unit of length used to measure large distances to astronomical objects
outside the Solar System. A parsec is defined as the distance at which one astronomical
unit subtends an angle of one arcsecond, which corresponds to astronomical units.
One parsec is equal to about 3.26 light-years in length.

However, here is an “explanation” written to “prove” such a thing is indeed possible…
if you do some
after the fact gymnastics…
HOW THE STAR WARS KESSEL RUN TURNS HAN SOLO INTO A TIME-TRAVELER
https://www.wired.com/2013/02/kessel-run-12-parsecs/

Many times, on Star Trek the “Environmental Control System” (this regulates atmospheric conditions
such as heat, breathing air, air temperature, etc.)
goes out of order and people start suffering
immediately due to lack of oxygen or overcome by excess CO
2 and are just minutes from dying.
The fact is that cramped little WWII Submarines could remain underwater for 48 hours, or more if
pressed. You can breathe the same air many times! In a ten-foot cube (1000 cubic foot) space you could
survive for over 17 hours. Therefore, why would the people in a very spacious spacecraft be suddenly
out of oxygen or overcome by CO
2 poisoning, just because the Environmental Controls go offline?

Note from QuadGMoto: “The Last Jedi” lost me with the use of slow-moving heavy bombers that
were supposed to use gravity
(in space, which doesn’t have such gravity!) to drop bombs onto another
ship. Even worse, those stupid bombs were armed while they were still in the ships. Even In WWII,
pre-computer dumb bombs didn’t arm until they were dropped. It was idiotic and yes, haphazard.

FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
Sir Isaac Newton's three laws of motion:
    (1.) An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion
    continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an
    unbalanced force. This law is often called "the law of inertia".

    (2.) Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being
    accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object)

    (3.) For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.

In space, changing direction to a new heading requires that unless you first LOSE all of your
previous directional momenta, you will continue in the direction that you were originally heading, but
now you would be including the new acceleration direction of travel, but that is not your heading!
Think of a graph showing a straight horizontal line from the left near the bottom, to the right edge is
your current heading and destination, now draw a line somewhere near the middle going straight up
from your original line. That is your new acceleration direction, but it is NOT your heading! Because
you have not lost any of the original direction and heading or speed, considering that IF you were now
accelerating in the new direction and blasting for just as long and with the same power as you used
previously, then the new heading and destination would be approximately 45 degrees from the original
heading and about 45 degrees from the new acceleration direction. Just about halfway in between!
Why the approximation and not exactly? It is because you had to accelerate from Zero (in the new
travel direction) to your resulting full speed in the new direction. Of course, any difference in thrust
(time or power) between the old and new acceleration would change your actual heading and
destination.
You would actually be traveling in an exceptionally long lazy curve, until you get to your cruising
speed.

When using the any of the eight steering thrusters to adjust your heading, you would use one or two of
the four thrusters in both the front and the stern (if using two, on an end, they would be at 90 degrees
from each other) while also using the ones on the opposite sides in the stern.
Then to halt the course adjustment from setting up a continuous spin, you must use the thrusters on the
opposite-sides at the exact same thrust and duration.  
--Newton’s Third Law
However, you must still accelerate in that new heading direction, or you will not be going in that
direction!

You lose momentum the same way you gained it, but by reversing your direction of thrust. You cannot
just
“Come to a halt” all of a sudden! (“All engines stop”) as in Star Trek, you’ll just keep coasting along.
--
Newton’s First Law

Neither can you turn around and immediately go back the way you came. You can stop the engine, but
you can’t stop the momentum that way! It takes just as much time to lose your speed, as it did to be at
your then-current speed or employing a humongous increase of the use of energy, to slow down to an
eventual stop.
Just as you can’t stop a car that is going downhill, by putting it in neutral and shutting off its engine.

When leaving the orbit of a planet, you can’t just leave at any time you want. You will still be orbiting
the planet on an outward spiral, as you accelerate. You must wait until you are properly positioned to
accelerate in the direction of where you want to go.
(Where your destination will be.) Otherwise, you
could be on the wrong side of the planet, going the wrong direction, when you actually leave the

planet’s gravity.

WHEN YOUR ENGINE IS FUNCTIONING, YOU ARE ACCELERATING!
Continuous acceleration is NOT required! Even a rock in space needs no acceleration to keep moving,
except for the acceleration that it was originally given, it will just keep traveling on at its constant speed
until eventually affected by gravity or collision. You blast your engine until you get up to the speed you
want to travel then stop accelerating (Using precious fuel). You then coast, until it is time to reverse the
spaceship and blast in the opposite direction of travel. This is the way you slow down to a stop, to halt
your movement at your destination.
--Newton’s First Law

The heavier a rocket is, the more fuel and thrust it takes to get off the ground, and requires an
exponentially increasing fuel supply to push it up to orbital height.
There is always a point of diminishing returns, until you reach the point that the rocket engine has not
enough power or thrust to launch the rocket. However, (unlike a toy rocket, that fires like an arrow),
that is the proper place to start from, just below the point of the rocket engine’s ability to launch.
That is why a ground launched rocket lifts off so slowly, and gain momentum as it burns off the fuel
weight. Otherwise the G-Force would crush you immediately upon launch.
--Newton’s Second Law

SPACE BATTLES
would be completely different from the movies and TV. They would be over
and done with rather quickly. The tactics at the beginning are not overly complicated. It would be
exceedingly difficult to come alongside them for any length of time, matching speed, and direction.
No matter what direction you approach your quarry from, including from behind. (You would
necessarily have to be going faster than they are to catch up to them from behind.) Then you would
continue to fly in a straight line past them, shooting all the way.
(If you came from behind) Now they are chasing you! Going back for a return engagement is where it
gets
really complicated! It would require you to get well out of range, slow down to a stop, then come
back to where you think they
will be, by the time you get there. You would be adjusting your heading
direction continuously because they are trying to outmaneuver you too. If you miscalculate where they
will be, you will have a difficult time catching up to them. Meanwhile, they are either trying to escape
from you or outmaneuver you, to attack you.
Unlike in the movies, blown-up spacecraft that were in high orbit outside of the atmosphere do not
immediately fall away to crash to the ground!

Whenever you maneuver in space, you must head to where the location of your destination will be,
by the time you get there, not to head to where it is now!

FIRE is certainly possible in space, as long as there is sufficient oxygen or an oxidizing agent to burn…
certain materials will even burn underwater.
Or do you believe that rockets don’t work in space?
A spacecraft that has a hull breach that is open to space, will quickly vent all available atmosphere, but
until the oxygen is depleted to 16% any fire will continue to burn, then it will self-extinguish… except
for any fires burning a self-oxidizing material.

EXPLOSIONS IN SPACE: Due to the fact that explosions have a shockwave effect, and you are in a
breathable atmosphere, the shockwave would impact on your spacecraft and the air and the material
that the spacecraft is made of, would convert that back into sound.

A SPHERICAL SPACESHIP: would be built on the same “highly rigid and light-weight structure as
geodesic dome, which is a hemispherical thin-shell structure (lattice-shell) based on a geodesic
polyhedron.
The triangular elements of the dome are structurally rigid and distribute the structural stress throughout
the structure, making geodesic domes able to withstand very heavy loads for their size.”

There would very few external and internal main structural components, and they would all be the
same, size and shape, greatly simplifying construction and transport to the space port construction site.

One other reason for a spherical spaceship is because it is easier to steer, using eight rotating or
omnidirectional steering rockets, you can change your direction of heading with the least amount of
stress on the ship’s structure.


MOVIE REVIEW: Ad Astra: Who wrote this?
The hero leaves his ship while orbiting Neptune, using a shuttlecraft to get to his father’s ship on the
opposite side of the asteroid belt that he travels through. (Get closer and on the same side!) Then
because the docking ring is damaged, instead of tying up the shuttlecraft, he abandons his craft and
allows it to drift off.
On the return, he is later shown jumping off his father's ship and traveling many miles back through the
asteroid belt to return to his own ship. Do you know how impossible that is? The farther you need to
jump, the less accurate your aim! Sure, you could jump off and travel many miles, which is the easy part,
but to ARRIVE at a specific destination and at moving target, would be uncannily accurate! Both vessels
are orbiting Neptune at different distances from the planet and thereby traveling at different speeds.
You must head-out in the direction of where your target will be when you get there, not where it is now,
and there is no way to tell. Let alone be approaching the ship at a perfect angle to skirt along its length!
The chances of all this happening as portrayed are less than 0.000,000,000,001%. If you mess-up even
slightly there is no possible way for a do-over! Absolutely no steering is possible in this situation. You’re
dead, drifting through space for eternity!
  • At least the writers of Ad Astra did not resort to scientifically doubtful 'technology’ as done by many
    Sci-Fi writers!

Certainly, some of the highly advanced technology as presented in the movies and TV programs will
eventually come to fruition, however:
Science Fiction writers rely too heavily on made-up technology, with no known scientific principles.
Real scientists do not have a clue as to how and where to begin for any research to create such a thing.
Imagine Renaissance scientist Leonardo Da Vinci (1452 – 1519) trying to create a modern electronic
computer or cell phone!

MOONS
I find it highly amusing that when-ever a space-crew needs to immediately land, there is always a handy
moon to land on, and it normally has
oxygenated air, water, plants and trees, and an Earth-like gravity
etc.
All compatible with Earth conditions. However, the Mass of any planet determines its gravity!
No environmental protection required!


You have permission to copy and use this document by crediting the source.
This essay in a printer friendly format: Spaceship 101.docx

><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

TORNADO SAFETY
If you saw one nearby, would you know if you are in actual danger or which
direction to go, to escape?
Many people have ‘fled’ to where the tornado is going!
Important FACTS…
Tornadoes almost always travel from the
South-West to the North-East.
Know this to escape in the right direction! Or stay put where you are!

TORNADO RISK MAP -
OF THE USA AND POSSESSIONS
Spaceship 101Proof? Do a photo web search on “Tornado Path Map”
https://www.bing.com/search?q=%E2%80%9Ctornado%20path%20map%E2%80%9D&qs=ds&form=QBRE

What they WON’T tell you about tornadoes is:
The overwhelming percentage of tornadoes generally travel from Southwest to Northeast. They do have
a tendency to meander a bit along their path but still most maintain a general S/W to N/E direction.
If a tornado is in a general S/W direction of your location, you may very well be in its direct path.
What you don’t want to do is: fool around wasting time, trying to determine if it is coming toward you or
not.
If you see a tornado, or it forms anywhere to your N/W, North, N/E, East or S/E, or less reliable South
or West of you, you may be in no danger at all from that tornado, but be careful as other tornadoes can
develop nearby.
If you see a tornado is in your South-West direction from you, try to travel an escape route preferably in
a South/East or North/West direction so you have the tornado well out of your location.

“Tornado Path Maps”
EXAMPLES:
https://www.weather.gov/images/bgm/severe/february252017/pictures/pathMap.jpg   

http://maptd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/supercell-track-information-alabama-tornado-april-2011.jpg

https://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/images/thumb/2/24/April_2011_tornado_tracks.png/575px-April_2011_tornado_tracks.png

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/21/article-2328000-19E71FE8000005DC-556_964x722.jpg

https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/about/history/may3rd/images/outbreakmap.gif

https://www.weather.gov/images/bmx/GIS/042711_StatewideMap.jpg

https://stormgasmcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/tornadoes-damage-paths-moore-ok-1998-1999-2003-2010-2013-2015-map-preliminary-2015-path-
legend.jpg  

Unusual tornado track paths do occasionally occur, and they can backtrack.
Very seldom does a tornado travel due East, or North, but it can happen.
https://kocoweatherblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/bran1f5.gif

I found one tornado that did the opposite of the norm and traveled from the N/W to the S/E, and then
it traveled right along a road in the S/E direction.
(But that map seems to no longer exist on the Internet)

This is a rendering of a track map of tornadoes in Alabama showing the tornadoes starting points, and
several different track directions. Including a reverse from the normal direction going N/E to S/W.
(The Class 2 tornado at the bottom right of the map)
Once again for the overwhelming number of tornadoes the normal track runs from the Southwest to the
Northeast.
TornadoHistoryProject.com
http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/tornado/Alabama/map

They never tell you any of this, yet every time there is an Earthquake, they bore you to death, yet
AGAIN, with a detailed explanation of just what is a ‘Richter Scale’.


You have permission to copy and use this document by crediting the source.
This essay in a printer friendly format: Tornado Safety.docx

><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

FLAT EARTHER’S
How can anyone TODAY believe the earth is flat? #ShowMeTheEdge!
Yet it is now more believed than any time in the recent past!  

One ignorant Internet poster hazarded this ridiculous comment:
“I’m sorry but you’re wrong this is the age of lies being uncovered. Antarctica is not what you have been
taught, it is an ice ring that surrounds the whole earth and you or anyone else can’t just up and go there.
It is protected and guarded.
Yea you can go to a place they call Antarctica but it’s just a place they made to support the lie. Go there
and try to wander off on your own, you will find yourself in jail.”

I replied:
“‘The stupidity runs DEEP in this one’ However, your logic is Two Dimensionally thin!
If what you say is true, how long is the perimeter of the ‘ice ring that surrounds the whole earth’ it must
be long enough to surround the entire ‘knowable’ earth and all of its known seas and continents?
However, the continent of Antarctica is not anywhere near that big!
You can sail around the entire continent of Antarctica; the trip is not THAT long!

Your Conspiracy Theory makes no sense!
Protected and guarded by WHO? And to what purpose?
How did ‘Antarctica… a place they made to support the lie’ come to exist? That would be an
engineering feat to outdo all the engineering, logistics, and security that has ever taken place in the
entire history of the world, COMBINED!

Why would they even bother to jail you in such a remote place, they would have to keep you there for
LIFE, because if they released you, what would stop you from blabbing all that you know? They would
just kill you, or let you go, far enough away from help so you freeze to death and be done with you!
What would be the purpose of any of this?
How do you know any of this BS? Do you have any PROOF?
Either put-up or shut-up!

If there really was such a thing as a Flat Earth, we would know all about the edge already, this is the age
of technology and communication, and we would know about such a thing, if it were true, and it would
be common knowledge. People would be running up against the ‘Edge’ or your elusive ‘Ice-Wall’ in
very unexpected places such as the Equatorial Region!

We have had ships since forever, cameras since the 1860s, airplanes since 1915, and satellites and
Spaceflight since the 1960s... It would not matter what direction you flew, or where you started from,
eventually, you would have to come to the edge… Why is it that aircraft have never flown beyond the
‘EDGE’? We currently have people in the International Space Station, and you can see it with your
own eyes, just by looking up, according to its scheduled orbital time… but no one has seen or found the
‘Edge’ because there is none to be found!

Airplanes and ships would be constantly bumping into the ‘Edge’, or how do you explain that they
‘mysteriously and instantaneously get transported to the opposite ‘Edge’ and going the opposite
direction as before…’ to continue on their ‘apparent’ direction of travel, without anyone noticing
anything at all peculiar?
Now if you believe that the above paragraph is totally ridiculous (Which of course it is!) but you still
believe in a Flat Earth…”

THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER:
Let them prove it, or disprove it, with this simple experiment.
Just have the Flat-Earth believer point to any STARTING PLACE on Earth that you CANNOT FLY
TO their choice of ANY OTHER DESTINATION going in a straight line directly to that destination,
using the SHORTEST ROUTE POSSIBLE, as based on the ‘ROUND EARTH’ model.


EXAMPLE: Suppose the standard paper Wall-Map of the World was the actual ‘Flat Earth’ (with the
corner of Russia on the West side, and the corner of Alaska on the East side removed)
Nome, Alaska is on the left (West) side of the map and Provideniya, Russia is on the right (East) side
(the full width of the map apart) but because the Earth is ROUND they are actually less than 400 miles
apart, just a short distance by air across the Bering Sea, not about 10,500 miles away from each other.
IF the Earth were indeed flat, the only way to get there, would be to fly Eastward from Nome over most
of Alaska, across Canada, the Atlantic Ocean, Europe, and the greater part of Russia to get to
Provideniya, as a ‘Flat Earther’ would have you believe!

Even the Ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round; they saw the shadow of the Earth on the
Moon, during a Lunar Eclipse.
They even calculated the circumference of the Earth.

Did the writers of the Bible believe the Earth was flat?
• Christian Answers.Net
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

The logical burden of proof lies with those pushing the claim that oceans hold and display convexity.
It is an absurd claim that defies all applied, observed, and reproducible reality. It is also an illogical
argument from ignorance to suppose the onus of proof lies with any other to disprove a claim that has
never been shown by a measurable substance in practical reality! The solution is simple. Apply logic
and expose the affirmative claim about reality to thorough and critical attempts at refutation. Failure to
do so is anti-intellectual, anti-scholarly and anti-scientific. Again, ALL claims about reality are required
to be shown by practical examples of a measurable substance that meet the observable, testable and
repeatable nature of the scientific method. Failure to provide such examples, offering logical fallacies
and continuing to push preposterous claims, then expecting others to ‘believe’ or ‘disprove’ your
ignorance rather than you yourself scientifically verifying this for yourselves, and everyone else… is the
behavior of a deceptive and zealous ‘religious’ cult. Where are the practical examples of bodies of water
naturally conforming to the exterior of shapes? - Beyond Belief!


OK, Flat Earther’s... NOW Put-up, or Shut-up!
Show us the EDGE!
It would have to be a very L O N G edge!
...or shut up your STUPIDITY!

GUESS WHAT? He never replied!

One final word: “The only thing Flat Earther’s have to fear, is ‘Sphere’ itself!”


You have permission to copy and use this document by crediting the source.
This essay in a printer friendly format: Flat Earther.docx

   
                                                                                                                                    v2.3




><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>