12
13

Why don't we fly over Antarctica? (imgur.com)

EmoHaircut が 投稿

全 105 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]ShillyMadison 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Comparing temperature in space and temperature in antarctica and calling hypocrisy? what the fuck

[–]EmoHaircut[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry, the above graphic is a bit misleading as I knew people would debate if modern aircraft have the technologies to travel over Antarctica.

[–]shargy 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (4子コメント)

"What's a great circle?"

The quickest route over a the surface of a sphere is NOT a straight line. That's why these flight paths don't exist.

[–]My_reddit_strawman 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is the answer. If you look on google maps, antarctica is REALLY far away from the other land masses (except the bottom of South America... and really how many flights are coming out of that area?)

[–]cinaedhvik 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly. Whoever made that graphic does not understand map projection or great circles, to say nothing of prevailing wind currents.

[–]EmoHaircut[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

For example this (I mapped it out for you) is a typical flight path (Mercator), vs the same flight path (Azimuthal Equidistant). The distances are within 500km if you add up all the connecting flight paths on the Azimuthal Equidistant, 1350, 1800, 1425, 1325, 3000, 1075, 1200, 1325, 1500 you'll come to 14,000km, the distance I received from Google is 13,513 km to be exact. Seeing as how some of these maps are rather old I could assume Australia not being stationary could have something to do with the discrepancy in numbers as well as a non-direct flight path. But regardless it's still fairly close.

Now, why don't these flights also take place directly over the South Pole in which they would be faster, and cheaper if they already do tours of certain parts of Antarctica?

Examples

[–]CatOfGrey 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because there is very little demand for air travel to and from Australia, Southern Africa, and Southernmost America.

These are literally flights that nobody takes.

[–]AVWA 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ_cWaQxaaA

[–]EricCarver 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You compare the Southern Hemisphere with very few population vs north with very large population. So risk to reward. They can plan and prepare for search and rescue in the north, or plan alternate runways. South has little to no alternate if there is engine trouble.

Would you feel safe flying Southern Hemisphere with no safety net?

[–]NG2Ki3cIibABUHZA 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The wikipedia article states something similar.

Because of ETOPS limitations on twin-engined aircraft—the maximum distance the aircraft can operate from an airport for emergency landings—only 4-engined aircraft such as the Boeing 747 or Airbus A340 can operate routes near Antarctica.

Accordint to the article, there are some flights near antarctica.

[–]WadeWilsonforPope 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Book your trans arctic flight here

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

Pan AM flight 50 used to go over both poles on its routes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ci4G2JGxQo

I would also be curious about the effects of the wind, straight lines arent even flown by planes, due to curvature the flightpath looks like a large arc.

To fly over certain areas you also have to get certain certifications and have certain equipment on board. For airlines this means giving up revenue generating seats

[–]EmoHaircut[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

We operate one day sightseeing flights over Antarctica departing from Australia every summer. Taking around 12 hours the flights are the easiest way to view this great white Continent.

Qantas has prepared 19 different flight plans to enable the Captain to choose the best possible routing, taking weather conditions into account. An example of one of our most popular flights routes from Melbourne is to fly over Hobart then head directly to the South Magnetic Pole. Normally we see the first icebergs approximately 3 hours 30 minutes south of Melbourne. We continue over the sea ice to the French base at Dumont d’Urville, where buildings and vehicles are usually visible, before heading east along the coast over Commonwealth Bay (location of Mawson’s Hut). From there, we turn inland and fly south east over the Transantarctic Range to Cape Washington and explore the spectacular mountains of Northern Victoria Land, Cape Hallet and Cape Adare.

So do they ultimately end back up where they started?

[–]WadeWilsonforPope 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (14子コメント)

So do they ultimately end back up where they started?

I believe so, just pointing out that you were wrong about there being no flights over antarctica

[–]EmoHaircut[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I meant like a flight from Sydney to Rio de Janerio or something. I have no doubt modern aircraft can travel over Antarctica (unlike most people in this thread).

For example this (I mapped it out for you) is a typical flight path (Mercator), vs the same flight path (Azimuthal Equidistant). The distances are within 500km if you add up all the connecting flight paths on the Azimuthal Equidistant, 1350, 1800, 1425, 1325, 3000, 1075, 1200, 1325, 1500 you'll come to 14,000km, the distance I received from Google is 13,513 km to be exact. Seeing as how some of these maps are rather old I could assume Australia not being stationary could have something to do with the discrepancy in numbers as well as a non-direct flight path. But regardless it's still fairly close.

Now, why don't these flights also take place directly over the South Pole in which they would be faster, and cheaper if they already do tours of certain parts of Antarctica?

[–]WadeWilsonforPope 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (12子コメント)

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/screenflow-gif.22388/

Now, why don't these flights also take place directly over the South Pole in which they would be faster, and cheaper if they already do tours of certain parts of Antarctica?

Cheaper is not true. You have to get certain certs and equipment to fly over antarctica. Every extra bit of equipment means less revenue generating seats.

I hate just dumping links but this back and forth answers quite a few questions.

https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/

[–]EmoHaircut[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Oh shit, we're bringing Mick West into this. Does anyone think for themselves anymore, or does some asshole have to do it for you?

Funny Metabunk 'debunks' almost every conspiracy on r/conspiracy, yet I bet you only turn to it when it's relevant to your personal beliefs.

Edit: "This flight would be impossible on the Flat Earth model"

No, it's literally the exact same flight, see: http://imgur.com/a/8xI40

'A typical flight path (Mercator), vs the same flight path (Azimuthal Equidistant). The distances are within 500km if you add up all the connecting flight paths on the Azimuthal Equidistant, 1350, 1800, 1425, 1325, 3000, 1075, 1200, 1325, 1500 you'll come to 14,000km, the distance I received from Google is 13,513 km to be exact. Seeing as how some of these maps are rather old I could assume Australia not being stationary could have something to do with the discrepancy in numbers as well as a non-direct flight path. But regardless it's still fairly close.'

See:

CBS American School of Air

MONO Service Co

Hammond's

Rand McNally's

Prior to the late 1950s 'air maps' were 'Flat Earth' maps. So for one to say these are inaccurate is completely asinine. Such as Mick West.

[–]WadeWilsonforPope 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Feel free to bring up a point that you would like to address.

If you cant just say so.

[–]EmoHaircut[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Prior to the late 1950s 'air maps' were 'Flat Earth' maps. So for one to say these are inaccurate is completely asinine.

For someone to say: Flight paths work on both models. That would be true.

As the Azimuthal Equidstant projection is far more accurate (land mass size) than the Mercator projection.

http://www.businessinsider.com/boston-school-gall-peters-map-also-wrong-mercator-2017-3

[–]WadeWilsonforPope 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Just so we are clear, this is what you think the current flight path is?

No, it's literally the exact same flight, see: http://imgur.com/a/8xI40

https://www.metabunk.org/sk/20150703-151608-1j9wq.jpg

Prior to the late 1950s 'air maps' were 'Flat Earth' maps. So for one to say these are inaccurate is completely asinine. Such as Mick West.

... Are you really suggesting that because we used 2D maps that the world is flat?

[–]EmoHaircut[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Just so we are clear, this is what you think the current flight path is?

I'm saying it's the same distance given the sources I used.

... Are you really suggesting that because we used 2D maps that the world is flat?

Nope. I'm saying it's a little silly saying; flight paths don't work on a "Flat Earth" model when air maps derived from maps of the "Flat Earth" model?

"Not, two days ago I was having a look in a book

And I saw a picture of a guy fried up above his knees

I said I can relate

Cause lately I've been thinking of combustication as a welcomed vacation from

The burdens of the planet Earth, like gravity, hypocrisy, and the perils of being in 3-D...

And thinking so much differently

Pardon me while I burst into flames

I've had enough of the world, and it's people's mindless games.."

Edit: Seriously, I wouldn't take what Mick West says to heart. THPS, and it's sequels were some of my favorite games growing up.

So thank you Mick West for Tony Hawk Pro Skater, and introducing me to Rage Against the Machine.

"The teacher stands in front of the class

But the lesson plan he can't recall

The student's eyes don't perceive the lies

Bouncing off every fucking wall

His composure is well kept

I guess he fears playing the fool

The complacent students sit and listen to some of that

Bullshit that he learned in school"

[–]WadeWilsonforPope 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm saying it's the same distance given the sources I used.

I guess what Im trying to say is what is the point?

The same path on two different maps is about the same distance? Just because they are two different 2D representations doesnt mean the earth is flat...

There is a reason you didnt trace a straight line...

Also I find the fact that maps from the 50's are flat doesnt mean anything... If anything it debunks your point even further because why the hell would they use a fake map?

Nope. I'm saying it's a little silly saying; flight paths don't work on a "Flat Earth" model when air maps derived from maps of the "Flat Earth" model?

No what you are shwoing is that the same path on a FE map is the same as we project.

Use straight lines since the Earth is flat...

[–]EmoHaircut[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I guess what Im trying to say is what is the point?

'Feeling manic for a day

Depends on the trends

Depends on the surface

If the Sun never sets

We can't both become the same pawn that's made to fall'

https://youtu.be/kQeHSC-kwlk

[–]LupinePeregrinans 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Tangentially related spectulation with no data, but following various blockbuster films and stories like hungergames, divergent, maze runner and so on I've wondered if the world is perhaps bigger than we think it is and whether there are unknown (possibly advanced) civilisations on (an)other continent(s); a kind of 'Zeroth World' nation, as it were. If this is the case then I think this place would be beyond antartica. I have no data or actual argument for this, but it's an idea which keeps itching at my mind when I lurk here and listen to HigherSideChats etc

[–]EmoHaircut[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

There might be several places beyond Antarctica.

http://imgur.com/a/qIQNQ

'But strangely enough there's left in the world today, an area as big as the United States that's never been seen by a human being. And that is beyond the pole, on the other side of the south pole from middle America'

https://youtu.be/-53N0rQjEc4

Edit: This is indeed speculation as we cannot travel to Antarctica due to the ATS

'The Antarctic Treaty and related agreements, collectively known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), regulate international relations with respect to Antarctica, Earth's only continent without a native human population. For the purposes of the treaty system, Antarctica is defined as all of the land and ice shelves south of 60°S latitude. The treaty, entering into force in 1961 and having 53 parties as of 2016'

[–]WadeWilsonforPope 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So uh... Who has been to Gemina and named it?

[–]izzzzzzzzzzzzz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

i love that first picture! i dont think its true (havent seen eveidence to support it) but i love the imagination that comes from thinking of our world in a completely different light.

[–]toomuchpork 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

~400 passengers per flight. Maybe there is no regular flight between these cities because they are not economically viable. Hell, they cut bus routes if no one is going that way.

[–]Weezull- 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Antarctic is much colder than the Arctic, due to lack of ocean which mediates temperatures. Planes are not space shuttles and are not equipped to handle the temperature of space either, not sure why you mentioned that one.

[–]kernel-0xff 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whatever opening was there is now not visible anymore.

[–]callmebaiken 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (11子コメント)

You'd also think that despite the extreme conditions Humans would have located the exact North and South poles and have real markers there commemorating our achievement. But no, just barber shop poles where they admit is not the pole. Of course, they claim the difficulty is the poles "move", which is necessitated by no experienced phenomenon other than pesky people asking why we can't find the poles.

[–]nliausacmmv 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The magnetic poles do move around though.

[–]callmebaiken 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

What evidence is there for that? Why is there no video of anyone walking in a circle at the north or south pole with an analog compass showing an actual pole? Even if moves...

[–]nliausacmmv 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because the field lines are almost perpendicular to the surface of the earth at that point. You can see video of people that far North, and magnetic compases just point towards the nearest metal object. That's why aircraft will often have gyroscopic compasses calibrated at a lower latitude.

As for evidence that the magnetic poles move, the best I can think of is that the heading numbers on runways occasionally have to be changed to match the actual magnetic bearing they're on, and clearly the runways aren't moving. Though I suppose that isn't direct evidence, just something I can point to as being pretty well-documented.

[–]MahBoy 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Evidence from the geological record indicates that the Earth's magnetic poles have moved over time. You know how some rocks contain little pieces of iron? When rock is created during volcanic processes, these ferromagnetic minerals align in the direction of where the pole is located as the rock cools. By comparing rock samples of similar ages from various places, geologists have deduced that the poles are not stationary based upon the alignment of ferromagnetic minerals in the rocks.

This makes sense. Sometimes, if the earth experiences something like an asteroid impact or a large seismic event, the planet's axis may shift a degree or two. The spin of the planet is altered slightly, and the churning ball of molten iron in its interior shifts as well to create a new pole in a slightly different place.

[–]callmebaiken 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So if they move only over long periods of time, that should not be an impediment to identifying the exact spot today

[–]br0wnb3rry 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

experienced phenomenon of magnetic field coming from the core in our earth is the other one....

[–]callmebaiken 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

well we experience a magnetic north and south, I'll agree with that. The rest is speculation. No one's drilled further than a few miles down.

[–]WadeWilsonforPope 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

But no, just barber shop poles where they admit is not the pole.

Dude the south pole is within sight of magnetic south.

[–]callmebaiken 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why not correct it then?

[–]WadeWilsonforPope 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Correct it to what exactly?

There are 3 south poles altogether.

Magnetic, geographic and the ceremonial pole.

The geographic is difficult because the Earth has a slight wobble so its variable (by a little) so geographic is close but not practical for measurements. The ceremonial pole is just close to the Antarctic research base so its convenient, both poles are marked and only a few hundred feet from each other.

Magnetic south is exactly what it sounds like

Here is a wiki entry on it.

For most purposes, the Geographic South Pole is defined as the southern point of the two points where the Earth's axis of rotation intersects its surface (the other being the Geographic North Pole). However, the Earth's axis of rotation is actually subject to very small "wobbles" (polar motion), so this definition is not adequate for very precise work.

The geographic coordinates of the South Pole are usually given simply as 90°S, since its longitude is geometrically undefined and irrelevant. When a longitude is desired, it may be given as 0°. At the South Pole, all directions face north. For this reason, directions at the Pole are given relative to "grid north", which points northwards along the prime meridian.[1] Along tight latitude circles, clockwise is east, and counterclockwise is west, opposite to the North Pole.

The Geographic South Pole is located on the continent of Antarctica (although this has not been the case for all of Earth's history because of continental drift). It sits atop a featureless, barren, windswept and icy plateau at an altitude of 2,835 metres (9,301 ft) above sea level, and is located about 1,300 km (800 mi) from the nearest open sea at Bay of Whales. The ice is estimated to be about 2,700 metres (9,000 ft) thick at the Pole, so the land surface under the ice sheet is actually near sea level.[2]

The polar ice sheet is moving at a rate of roughly 10 metres per year in a direction between 37° and 40° west of grid north,[3] down towards the Weddell Sea. Therefore, the position of the station and other artificial features relative to the geographic pole gradually shift over time.

The Geographic South Pole is marked by a stake in the ice alongside a small sign; these are repositioned each year in a ceremony on New Year's Day to compensate for the movement of the ice.[4] The sign records the respective dates that Roald Amundsen and Robert F. Scott reached the Pole, followed by a short quotation from each man, and gives the elevation as "9,301 FT.".[5][6] A new marker stake is designed and fabricated each year by staff at the site.[4]

Also notice the shifting of the glaciers affects this.

[–]toomuchpork 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Spurious reasoning. "They claim" I guess every boyscout with his orienteering badge is in on this giant hoax too

[–]WeAreTheSheeple -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

We don't fly over because it is too cold. It tells you on the info you posted.

[–]EmoHaircut[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/byrd-flies-over-south-pole

It wasn't 'too cold' for Richard Byrd in 1929.

[–]WeAreTheSheeple 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

What type of aircraft was he using? I highly doubt it was a commercial flight.

There is aircraft that can go there but not commercial. Commercial is a very light craft and wouldn't be able to withstand the weight (I think.) Aircrafts would be a lot smaller and tickets would cost a fortune in order to change every plane to adapt flying over the poles.

[–]EmoHaircut[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

https://library.osu.edu/projects/conquering-the-ice/BYRD7764_13.jpg

This is the plane he used. I do not know the exact specifications, tho pre-WWII I can't imagine it being technologically superior in anyway to a typical commercial aircraft.

[–]WeAreTheSheeple 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Compare that to a Boeing 747 and tell me what the differences are.

[–]EmoHaircut[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/aircraft-1920-1929.asp

Assuming Byrd's plane is a Boeing F4B / P-12,

I would say the 747 is MUCH faster, better insulated, and has a larger fuel tank. As there is a 40 year difference in technology.

[–]WeAreTheSheeple 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As my other comment says, weight reduction on commercial airlines is the main cause for not being able to go over the poles due to not having insulation for the mechanics of the plane.

Smaller, passenger planes are more tightly built and can afford to use more weight for insulation since there is literally zero weight being used up for luggage and passengers.