Flat earth theory?

34 pages and an abundance of scientific and empirical evidence but still the engrained ignorant refusal to accept definitive proof.

Truly amazing.

a reply to: Freeborn


Welcome to the loony bin.

a reply to: Nothin

You called me evasive then didn't answer my question .

Explain to me exactly how you debunked my pictures taken from the Concorde? Hmmmmm?

All you did was claim they "could" be Photoshop. I guess in your mind you think people hunt down pictures of the horizon all day and photoshop them to fool stupid people who think the earth is round ?

a reply to: Nothin

What about the sunlight hitting the bottoms of cloud-cover on sunset? You can see this to happen fairly often.. and it's beautiful to observe, too!

How can that happen in flat earth model?

a reply to: John0101


There are actual YouTube videos claiming to show that the Sun is below the clouds. Yes, really. Tried to link to one but started to lose the will to live.

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: Nothin

You called me evasive then didn't answer my question .

Explain to me exactly how you debunked my pictures taken from the Concorde? Hmmmmm?

All you did was claim they "could" be Photoshop...

They MUST be photoshop. The proof is that the Earth is flat, so those photos can’t be real.

/ConfirmationBais

originally posted by: John0101
a reply to: Nothin

What about the sunlight hitting the bottoms of cloud-cover on sunset? You can see this to happen fairly often.. and it's beautiful to observe, too!

How can that happen in flat earth model?

But it's not as much the sunset a flat earther needs to explain as the sunrise, how they wake up everyday a moron.

Up to 35 pages and counting. Forecast for average temperatures and the state of civilization, moving into the winter months: expect steady declines.

a reply to: Scrutinizing


No sign of intelligent life. Beam me up.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: Nothin

You called me evasive then didn't answer my question .

Explain to me exactly how you debunked my pictures taken from the Concorde? Hmmmmm?

All you did was claim they "could" be Photoshop...

They MUST be photoshop. The proof is that the Earth is flat, so those photos can’t be real.

/ConfirmationBais

Yup

That's position he says he "won" on. He didn't offer one iota of proof just a question.

Plus I put three examples up. This is the only one he tried to debate me on. He ran from the other two examples .


Just another day in the flat earth fantasy land .

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Scrutinizing

No sign of intelligent life. Beam me up.

Damned straight, partner! And I want a ticket refund!

originally posted by: Scrutinizing

originally posted by: John0101
a reply to: Nothin


But it's not as much the sunset a flat earther needs to explain as the sunrise, how they wake up everyday a moron.

It's not hard to explain how they wake up as morons when you take into consideration they also go to sleep as one.

originally posted by: 14377

It's not hard to explain how they wake up as morons when you take into consideration they also go to sleep as one.

You're making it harder and harder to try and see the glass as half full. Yes, who was it that said beauty is only skin deep, but stupid is to the bone?

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” Albert Einstein

a reply to: Scrutinizing

Good one. Have you ever heard this version?

"There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life"


Frank Zappa

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: Scrutinizing

Good one. Have you ever heard this version?

"There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life"


Frank Zappa

That is a good one. I think I saw that here for the first time, recently. One of my favorites, so good to belong in the Bible, though it is in the Bible very much, in other words, is that immortal phrase of Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does." I like the way it incorporates the all important notion of a person's actions as a true measure, as really stupid people can sometimes seem smart, as a pretense, until you look at their stupid actions. When you think about it, it's often more stupid to act stupid, since actions often require a process to get to actions, people having an opportunity to think many times about how stupid the actions are, yet resolve to be stupid. Now, that's stupid!

originally posted by: Scrutinizing

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: Scrutinizing

Good one. Have you ever heard this version?

"There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life"


Frank Zappa

That is a good one. I think I saw that here for the first time, recently. One of my favorites, so good to belong in the Bible, though it is in the Bible very much, in other words, is that immortal phrase of Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does." I like the way it incorporates the all important notion of a person's actions as a true measure, as really stupid people can sometimes seem smart, as a pretense, until you look at their stupid actions. When you think about it, it's often more stupid to act stupid, since actions often require a process to get to actions, people having an opportunity to think many times about how stupid the actions are, yet resolve to be stupid. Now, that's stupid!

Lol

I like the word stupid. It's one of the most descriptive words ever. Someone can be stupid, someone can have a stupid idea , Someone can have a stupid position then back it was stupid evidence, someone can have a stupid accident, someone can speak up and prove they are stupid, someone can keep quiet and prove they're stupid , someone can make a stupid mistake..... etc.

Hell there's a pretty good chance my post was stupid . Lol


I half remembered this quote so I had to go look it up . ( it was kind of stupid )


"The problem with the world is that everyone does not have a brain, but everyone does have a tongue".

Raheel Farooq

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

So... according to your ideas

Said plane would have to account for 300 feet per hour on a 6 hour flight... flying at 35k feet...

And some how you don't see that as possible...

Give it up man... You've shown repeatedly you know nothing about flight

What accounts for curvature on a flight, specifically?

It's not by sheer magic

The instruments on the plane.... perhaps even.... The Pilot??

moving at approx. 150–180 mph, 240–285 km/h to maintain flight.... at 35k feet, a 300 foot decent over an hour would be inconsequential

It would not be "inconsequential".

First of all, the descent would be measured by the VSI, as feet per minute (fpm). And it would measure a constant descent, of about 5 fpm, during the entire flight.

But there is no such descent measured during a flight - during any flight.

Moreover, it would be required to descend at a constant rate, on every flight, which is not the case.


Pilots would know descent is required on every flight, and what the specific rate of descent must be, for each, and every flight. But, again - no pilot knows, or needs to know, or needs to fly, in a constant descent.


It has nothing to do with 'minor adjustments' - various tweaks to flights, as needed, during a specific flight.

Adjustments don't always need to be made in a flight, or only a few, minor tweaks. Other flights have to make major adjustments, along route.

Adjustments are measured with their instruments, as well.


What now?

a reply to: turbonium1


What now?


Said flight is 30k feet in the air... the decent you're talking about is extremely minor going at the speed required to fly

what now... How about... learn a little bit about flight and stop the nonsensical speculation

how about that?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

oh dear - we has been through all this before - you just run way from previous explainations - and regurgitate the same spew 4 months later

thats the only magic here

ETA :

your utter inability to address the principle of COG [ centre of gravvity ] and aerodynamic lift are the crux of your delusions ovver level flight

oh and your VSI delusions NEVVER explain WHY you expect it to report a divve - when altitude does not change

I've already explained why 'gravity' cannot work - assuming gravity existed, a force of amazing powers.

A force that pulls all objects down, towards a central core?

If a plane is in flight, and a force pulls down on it, from 35,000 feet above the surface, what happens? Is the plane going to be pulled down? If so, what would the instruments measure? It is in a descent, so what makes it not measure the plane being in a descent?

Is a descent not measured because of 'gravity'? How could a force pull down objects, like a plane, but only pull them to an altitude originally set to fly the plane, for some reason, while also managing to show no descent being measured on the plane's instruments, which makes no sense, either....?

A plane flies in atmosphere. Level flight is measured by pressure in atmosphere. So is an ascent, or descent, measured by the atmospheric pressure.

If a force was pulling down on planes, the instruments would measure it as a descent. If a plane is in a physical descent, it is measured as a descent, by the plane's instruments.


Force, or no force.

a reply to: turbonium1

You seem quite smart, do you have an answer to my earlier question, how can you see the sunlight in bottoms of clouds at sunset?

You believe that an incredible force, never proven to exist, would pull everything towards Earth's core, to the surface, anyway. But in air, the force holds objects to an altitude, above the surface!

Gravity is just another lame excuse.