a point by point demolition of the flat earth claims

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: totallackey

Well it is about demolishing the claims of flat earth.

You are a flat earth believer. Where's your proof? I mean, you must have some to believe it over a spherical earth, right? You wouldn't just believe something without....what's the word.... Oh yeah....proof?

Do you normally leap to unfounded conclusions in this fashion?

Is it that you have presented any proof? Nope, that's a fact.

Is it that you're a flat earthers (or more inclined to that thinking)? Nope, you've proved that you are.

So what unfounded conclusions?

Also, where's your proof the world is flat?

You labeled me a flat earther. I have clearly stated in this forum that I do not know right now and have taken no position, pro or con, other than to question statements and label them false, if they are. You see, a lot more people here have made statements concerning disproving something that is not disprovable. I apologize for any ambiguity you are experiencing due to the questions.

Regardless, you are now on ignore.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.

The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.

Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.

Thanks for the advice.

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.

E2A: Lackey out...

I don't understand. You just posted a link to a source that proves you are wrong. It says that the curvature was visible from the Concorde.

And name calling? Tyson a douchbag....super lame my friend.

I was confused about that one too, thinking I misread his post when he wrote:

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

...because the very thing that he supposedly posted in order to show that the curvature cannot be seen from a plane clearly states that the curvature can if fact be seen from a plane.


Excerpts from his link:

high-altitude physicist and experienced sky observer David Gutierrez reported that as his B-57 ascends, the curvature of the horizon does not become readily sensible until about 50,000 ft and that at 60,000 ft the curvature is obvious.

and

Passengers on the Concorde (60,000ft)routinely marveled at the curvature of the Earth.

Just in case you missed it, these people are claiming to see the curve...field of view offered by the windows (paper states a 90 degree FOV is necessary) is unknown. These planes do not operate at commercial altitude level...plus, the paper goes on to say the curve can only be measured at these heights.

My original statement was directed at those engaged in asshattery, claiming to see the curve at 40K...

What part of the words SEEMS and MEASURED escapes you?

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.

The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.

Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.

Thanks for the advice.

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.

E2A: Lackey out...

I don't understand. You just posted a link to a source that proves you are wrong. It says that the curvature was visible from the Concorde.

And name calling? Tyson a douchbag....super lame my friend.

Tyson is a douchebag...my opinion.

And yep...at 60,000 feet, people reportedly to be, "routinely marveled," at the curvature...So yeah, my mistake...Concorde was a plane.

Is Concorde still flying? Did I miss something? What type of windows were on the Concorde? Did they offer over a 90 degree view? I do not think so, but I do not know... Do regular passenger planes fly at the height of the Concorde? Or did Concorde operate regularly at 40,000 feet? The paper states 60,000...

Further reading from the previously cited paper,

Reports of curvature from high mountains and commercial jets are often supported with photographs showing the putative curvature [5].Such photographs are suspect,

Sorry buddy. I find "move the goalposts" a very boring game. You want to be ignorant, your choice, good luck.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.

The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.

Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.

Thanks for the advice.

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.

E2A: Lackey out...

I don't understand. You just posted a link to a source that proves you are wrong. It says that the curvature was visible from the Concorde.

And name calling? Tyson a douchbag....super lame my friend.

Tyson is a douchebag...my opinion.

And yep...at 60,000 feet, people reportedly to be, "routinely marveled," at the curvature...So yeah, my mistake...Concorde was a plane.

Is Concorde still flying? Did I miss something? What type of windows were on the Concorde? Did they offer over a 90 degree view? I do not think so, but I do not know... Do regular passenger planes fly at the height of the Concorde? Or did Concorde operate regularly at 40,000 feet? The paper states 60,000...

Further reading from the previously cited paper,

Reports of curvature from high mountains and commercial jets are often supported with photographs showing the putative curvature [5].Such photographs are suspect,

Sorry buddy. I find "move the goalposts" a very boring game. You want to be ignorant, your choice, good luck.

You do not even recognize goal posts, for one...and you are calling me ignorant.


I was not even the one making the claim. People made a claim they could see curvature at 40,000. I posted a paper stating they could not. And there is nothing in the paper contradictory to that...

I do realize I used the words, "Not from planes." And I admit I made a mistake however, 1) the planes presented do not operate at routine commercial flight level; 2) One is no longer in regular service; 3) I do not know the type of distortion aspects rendered on eyesight and imaging caused by these windows.

a reply to: totallackey

There is little to no distortion caused by a curved canopy, contrary to what was attempted to be said in that linked source. Pilots have to be able to see and judge height looking through it, to be able to land safely. You can't do that if the shape of the canopy distorts your vision, and changes the way things look. And passenger windows are fairly flat, with very little distortion to them.

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.

The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.

Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.

Thanks for the advice.

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.

E2A: Lackey out...

I don't understand. You just posted a link to a source that proves you are wrong. It says that the curvature was visible from the Concorde.

And name calling? Tyson a douchbag....super lame my friend.

Tyson is a douchebag...my opinion.

And yep...at 60,000 feet, people reportedly to be, "routinely marveled," at the curvature...So yeah, my mistake...Concorde was a plane.

Is Concorde still flying? Did I miss something? What type of windows were on the Concorde? Did they offer over a 90 degree view? I do not think so, but I do not know... Do regular passenger planes fly at the height of the Concorde? Or did Concorde operate regularly at 40,000 feet? The paper states 60,000...

Further reading from the previously cited paper,

Reports of curvature from high mountains and commercial jets are often supported with photographs showing the putative curvature [5].Such photographs are suspect,

Sorry buddy. I find "move the goalposts" a very boring game. You want to be ignorant, your choice, good luck.

You do not even recognize goal posts, for one...and you are calling me ignorant.


I was not even the one making the claim. People made a claim they could see curvature at 40,000. I posted a paper stating they could not. And there is nothing in the paper contradictory to that...

I do realize I used the words, "Not from planes." And I admit I made a mistake however, 1) the planes presented do not operate at routine commercial flight level; 2) One is no longer in regular service; 3) I do not know the type of distortion aspects rendered on eyesight and imaging caused by these windows.

Please use your common sense. Why on earth would the windows distort anything? They are perfectly flat!

Come on man..

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: totallackey

There is littleto no distortion caused by a curved canopy, contrary to what was attempted to be said in that linked source. Pilots have to be able to see and judge height looking through it, to be able to land safely. You can't do that if the shape of the canopy distorts your vision, and changes the way things look. And passenger windows are fairly flat, with very littledistortion to them.

Ah...I take it the "little,"word you use here is meant to be taken in the same vein as the word "pear," utilized by Tyson?

E2A: You put glass in front of your eyes, your vision is going to be distorted.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.

The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.

Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.

Thanks for the advice.

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.

E2A: Lackey out...

I don't understand. You just posted a link to a source that proves you are wrong. It says that the curvature was visible from the Concorde.

And name calling? Tyson a douchbag....super lame my friend.

Tyson is a douchebag...my opinion.

And yep...at 60,000 feet, people reportedly to be, "routinely marveled," at the curvature...So yeah, my mistake...Concorde was a plane.

Is Concorde still flying? Did I miss something? What type of windows were on the Concorde? Did they offer over a 90 degree view? I do not think so, but I do not know... Do regular passenger planes fly at the height of the Concorde? Or did Concorde operate regularly at 40,000 feet? The paper states 60,000...

Further reading from the previously cited paper,

Reports of curvature from high mountains and commercial jets are often supported with photographs showing the putative curvature [5].Such photographs are suspect,

Sorry buddy. I find "move the goalposts" a very boring game. You want to be ignorant, your choice, good luck.

You do not even recognize goal posts, for one...and you are calling me ignorant.


I was not even the one making the claim. People made a claim they could see curvature at 40,000. I posted a paper stating they could not. And there is nothing in the paper contradictory to that...

I do realize I used the words, "Not from planes." And I admit I made a mistake however, 1) the planes presented do not operate at routine commercial flight level; 2) One is no longer in regular service; 3) I do not know the type of distortion aspects rendered on eyesight and imaging caused by these windows.

Please use your common sense. Why on earth would the windows distort anything? They are perfectly flat!

Come on man..

Looks like you are arguing against Zaphod...he says fairly flat...

a reply to: totallackey

Depending on the aircraft, they're slightly curved to fit in the curve of the fuselage. Either way, there is nowhere near enough distortion to make the horizon look curved.

a reply to: totallackey

No, it's meant to mean that looking through ANY glass creates SOME distortion, regardless of the shape, because you're looking through something. Canopy glass minimizes the distortion, because if you think the runway is 20 feet to the left, and try to land there, you're going to crash. But there's still SOME distortion, because, again, you're looking through a medium. It's not nearly enough to do what was suggested and create a curve to the horizon though.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: totallackey

No, it's meant to mean that looking through ANY glass creates SOME distortion, regardless of the shape, because you're looking through something. Canopy glass minimizes the distortion, because if you think the runway is 20 feet to the left, and try to land there, you're going to crash. But there's still SOME distortion, because, again, you're looking through a medium. It's not nearly enough to do what was suggested and create a curve to the horizon though.

Who said it creates the distortion necessary to think the runway is 20 feet left? False equivalency.

Landing is confirmed mostly at at 200 ft up anyway, if I remember. Until then, mostly instruments.

Regardless, the planes cited by the paper are not regularly in operation at regular commercial flight level. And that was the point to be begin with. People at commercial flight level claiming to see curvature. False.

a reply to: totallackey

Instruments only get you so far before you have to see the runway. And I didn't say that anyone said that, I was making the point that canopy glass has to minimize distortions, or things like that can happen. It's called "making a point".

That paper, that you so seem to like, clearly says that the horizon could be seen to curve at 35,000 feet. It was visually detected to have a very slight curve to it with a wide enough FOV.

2. Visually Detect the Earth’s Curvature
I first examined the horizon from commercial jet aircraft.
While there was a general sense of the horizon,
actually identifying the horizon’s location was difficult.
It was a very low-contrast boundary in a region
of the sky where there were much higher-contrast
changes. There were almost always clouds on the
horizon that prevented accurate horizon location.
When the horizon was clear, detecting curvature
from around 35; 000 ft was relatively easy, providing
that a wide, unobstructed FOV was available. With a
horizontal FOV of 90° or more, the curvature was
subtle but unmistakable. Under similar conditions
with a FOV smaller than about 60°, the curvature
was not discernible. Thus, visually detecting the curvature
would seem to depend on both the actual curvature
and the FOV.
It seems likely thatthe curvature can be detected at
elevations lower than 35; 000 ft,thus opening the door
to the possibility of seeing it from high mountains.
Mountaintops have very wide FOVs and thus may afford
better viewing opportunities than aircraft. I
regularly visit Mauna Kea (elevation 13; 796 ft ¼
4205 m) and Haleakala (elevation 10; 223 ft ¼
3116 m).From here, a relatively unobstructed horizon
is visible in several directions. I was unable to convince
myself that I could detect horizon curvature.
Thus the altitude necessary to visually detect curvature
would seem to be between about 14,000
and 35; 000 ft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: totallackey

Instruments only get you so far before you have to see the runway. And I didn't say that anyone said that, I was making the point that canopy glass has to minimize distortions, or things like that can happen. It's called "making a point".

That paper, that you so seem to like, clearly says that the horizon could be seen to curve at 35,000 feet. It was visually detected to have a very slight curve to it with a wide enough FOV.

2. Visually Detect the Earth’s Curvature
I first examined the horizon from commercial jet aircraft.
While there was a general sense of the horizon,
actually identifying the horizon’s location was difficult.
It was a very low-contrast boundary in a region
of the sky where there were much higher-contrast
changes. There were almost always clouds on the
horizon that prevented accurate horizon location.
When the horizon was clear, detecting curvature
from around 35; 000 ft was relatively easy, providing
that a wide, unobstructed FOV was available. With a
horizontal FOV of 90° or more, the curvature was
subtle but unmistakable. Under similar conditions
with a FOV smaller than about 60°, the curvature
was not discernible. Thus, visually detecting the curvature
would seem to depend on both the actual curvature
and the FOV.
It seems likely thatthe curvature can be detected at
elevations lower than 35; 000 ft,thus opening the door
to the possibility of seeing it from high mountains.
Mountaintops have very wide FOVs and thus may afford
better viewing opportunities than aircraft. I
regularly visit Mauna Kea (elevation 13; 796 ft ¼
4205 m) and Haleakala (elevation 10; 223 ft ¼
3116 m).From here, a relatively unobstructed horizon
is visible in several directions. I was unable to convince
myself that I could detect horizon curvature.
Thus the altitude necessary to visually detect curvature
would seem to be between about 14,000
and 35; 000 ft.

Again, 90 FOV and clear. And I am unaware of passenger windows in commercial aircraft allowing a 90 FOV. I do not even think a pilot can see 90 FOV unobstructed in any commercial plane. Maybe they can.

And now you have a problem with a peer reviewed paper. And now you pick and choose.

No problem. Human behavior in action.

Can you please explain how gravity works, as it does how we experience it everyday, on a flat earth?

Gravity on a sphere will apply a "straight down" force on any object on or above its surface, towards the centre of the mass. On a "flat" mass, someone at or towards an edge will not have anywhere near as much downword force as they would toward the area of greater mass, eg, sideways to them. Someone at or nearer the edge will have all the mass on the sides of their position acting on them, at the very least "slanting" the force towards the area of greater mass sideways.

In fact, gravity at the very centre of a flat mass will be mostly equally sideways in all directions, due to the equal and greater mass surrounding them compared to whats under them. I cannot see any situation on a flat mass where gravity exerts a "straight down" force

However, on earth, gravity is "straight down" everywhere, there are no areas where the force is skewed sideways. I can go to Australia, drop a rock, it goes straight down. I can go to Alaska, drop a rock, it goes straight down

a reply to: totallackey

No, I have a problem with your interpretation of it, actually. I don't have any problem with the paper itself.

You think that you can't get a 90 degree FOV out of a plane window? Really? So when you're looking out a plane window, you can't see this?



Wow, that's news to pretty much every who has ever flown on a plane. Pilots have the best view of anyone. They have to have 180 degrees at least, so that they can see oncoming aircraft from any forward angle, or even slightly behind them if they crane around.

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.

The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.

Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.

Thanks for the advice.

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.

E2A: Lackey out...

I don't understand. You just posted a link to a source that proves you are wrong. It says that the curvature was visible from the Concorde.

And name calling? Tyson a douchbag....super lame my friend.

Tyson is a douchebag...my opinion.

And yep...at 60,000 feet, people reportedly to be, "routinely marveled," at the curvature...So yeah, my mistake...Concorde was a plane.

Is Concorde still flying? Did I miss something? What type of windows were on the Concorde? Did they offer over a 90 degree view? I do not think so, but I do not know... Do regular passenger planes fly at the height of the Concorde? Or did Concorde operate regularly at 40,000 feet? The paper states 60,000...

Further reading from the previously cited paper,

Reports of curvature from high mountains and commercial jets are often supported with photographs showing the putative curvature [5].Such photographs are suspect,

Sorry buddy. I find "move the goalposts" a very boring game. You want to be ignorant, your choice, good luck.

You do not even recognize goal posts, for one...and you are calling me ignorant.


I was not even the one making the claim. People made a claim they could see curvature at 40,000. I posted a paper stating they could not. And there is nothing in the paper contradictory to that...

I do realize I used the words, "Not from planes." And I admit I made a mistake however, 1) the planes presented do not operate at routine commercial flight level; 2) One is no longer in regular service; 3) I do not know the type of distortion aspects rendered on eyesight and imaging caused by these windows.

Please use your common sense. Why on earth would the windows distort anything? They are perfectly flat!

Come on man..

Looks like you are arguing against Zaphod...he says fairly flat...

Well..I would never argue with him about anything to do with aircraft. Either way...use your common sense unless you are a child who hasn't experienced glass objects yet. Even a flat piece of glass with some imperfection distortion in it would never curve the earth. Plus each window would have to be distorted in exactly the same way to show the same curvature.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

It's one of those fun technicalities. Bigger aircraft with more fuselage room are flatter, where as smaller aircraft the curve of the window is almost in the curve of the fuselage, so are curved somewhat.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 3danimator2014

It's one of those fun technicalities. Bigger aircraft with more fuselage room are flatter, where as smaller aircraft the curve of the window is almost in the curve of the fuselage, so are curved somewhat.

Of course. It's my mistake. I should have been more precise with my choice of words.

But i suspect totallackey knew what I meant.

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: charlyv

new WORLD order. The answer is right in front of your face, the world (aka the Earth) is the one behind the whole thing.

If you believe that, then hey.. put it on your resume.
That should solve the problem of people believing this crap getting into the work place where the rest of us get things done.