ANTARCTICA AIRBUS
Rick says-- Overall, at this point, I'm not making much progress on determining true distances BETWEEN stations from various sources and so I cannot confirm flat or global earth yet. There are plenty of examples of distances confirmed from jumping off points TO any point in Antarctica-- but NOT "between" the Antarctic stations themselves.
I DID find this very interesting piece describing an AIRBUS network for Antarctica with a map showing distances between stations -- the first of its kind I've found but again, I cannot confirm the distances yet via blogs and other evidence. Because "Airbus" is now applied to a specific company, we can call this particular reference the "airbus network" in quotes and date it to 1968 when it was first proposed.
A NEW "airbus system" for Antarctica still makes sense OTHER than the possibility that it simply is not possible yet around a 60,000 circumference if Earth is flat. The fact that we don't have the Airbus Network described in 1968, 1971 and again in the PDF below is rather curious to me. The article describes again, more recently, the advantages of a "continent wide network of aviation support facilities"-- something which I imagined as useful to my mission to travel from station to station, virtually, to determine true distances.
TIME BETWEEN STATIONS
This table is interesting-- though I haven't studied it and compared it with what I think ought to be the times on a flat vs. global earth at time of publishing this on this blog. I note that Halley (which location I'm familiar with) to MOLOdezhnayad is 29 hours of flight time. From this, we might determine distance given estimated speed of the airplane, the C130.
[PDF]
Airbus: an international air transportation system for Antarctica
https://s3.amazonaws.com/Antarctica/AJUS/.../AJUSvVIIIn1p16.pdf
It is feasible to build an en- larged facility on Seymour Island, and Argentine antarctic authorities are exploring ways of up-. 16. ANTARCTIC JOURNAL ...
More on John B. Dana, US Navy, author of the PDF Airbus article
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22john+b+dana%22+%22us+navy%22&btnG=Search&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbas=0
These internal planes have a very large range:
ReplyDeletehttp://dromlan.org/
The Basler BT67 plane C-GAWI of the AWI has a range of between 3000 and 4000km dependng on load crusing between 156 and 400 khp -- that's a wide range. 570 litres of fuel per hour.
There's more info here - range upto 2140 nm on long range fuel tanks.: [5871 litres] i.e almost 4000km
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/travel-and-logistics/aviation/intra-continental-operations/basler-bt-67-aircraft
There's a nice map here showing all the distances, but not times between the Norwegian hub at Troll and all the bases, plus some other inter-base distances
http://www.alci.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/DROMLAN-Network-Operations-Map.jpg
How will the circumnavigation of Antarctica prove or disprove whether the earth is flat or has curvature? If you base your assessment off either a predetermined spherical (curved) globe or a AE/IceWall (flat) earth, you are working from the assumption that one of those models is correct, and that curvature of the earth can be gleaned from "proving" which model it is. I see this as a false proof. You might be able to determine the circumference of Antarctica, but it will not show whether or not the surface of the earth is actually curved.
ReplyDeleteIf the distance around Antarctica is 60,000 miles, that would be inconsistent with the globe model which requires that distance to be 15,000 miles. So at least we would know that the earth is not a globe with a 25,000 mile diameter.
DeleteI'm not proving what the model "is"--- I'm proving what the model is "not".