The Flat Earth "conspiracy" and a glaring error by those who suppport it...

a reply to: turbonium1

What utter garbage. This is a repeatable test you can do and get consistent results.

I’m with the others. You must be trolling. No one can be as dumb as what you’re typing.

Here’s a challenge (if you actually believe it’s flat): PROVE IT. No more rants about level flight, ignoring basic physics and saying gravity isn’t real (LOL). Show us all your evidence that the world is flat. If you can’t, then we’ll all know why you’re here and we can just ignore you.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

What utter garbage. This is a repeatable year you can do and get consistent results.

I’m with the others. You must be trolling. No one can be as dumb as what you’re typing.

Here’s a challenge (if you actually believe it’s flat): PROVE IT. No more rants about level flight, ignoring basic physics and saying gravity isn’t real (LOL). Show us all your evidence that the world is flat. If you can’t, then we’ll all know why you’re here and we can just ignore you.

Level flight is not a 'rant', it is fact. And ignoring it shows who is trolling here. Your childish insults only confirm it.

a reply to: turbonium1

So you can’t prove the world is flat? Thought not.

Like I’ve said, get (or make) a theodolite. REPEAT it several times and you get the SAME result. The result is the world is a spheroid.

I could post many videos that show it IS flat, obviously.

Your video doesn't mention distance, or if it does, point it out...


It doesn't double a distance, either, to confirm the findings hold up.

All it shows are dim lights, which mean squat. Nothing can even confirm his position is actually true or not.


The instruments on planes CANNOT be doubted. This is provable, to anyone. Nothing else matters.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

So you can’t prove the world is flat? Thought not.

Like I’ve said, get (or make) a theodolite. REPEAT it several times and you get the SAME result. The result is the world is a spheroid.

Level flight proves it's flat. Not some homemade level test, nobody can confirm is accurate.


Accurate instruments cannot be disputed, which you simply ignore....of course.

a reply to: turbonium1

Get or make a theodolite.
Test multiple times.
The crosshairs will consistently be ABOVE the horizon.

Proof the earth isn’t flat.

a reply to: turbonium1

Level flight proves it's flat.

Nope. What it proves is you don’t understand physics.

Not some homemade level test, nobody can confirm is accurate.


Accurate instruments cannot be disputed, which you simply ignore....of course.

Fine. Go buy a professional theodolite. You’ll get the same results. It’ll just cost you more.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Dude he is either trolling or something is up with him don't waste your time.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: TerryDon79

Dude he is either trolling or something is up with him don't waste your time.

I’m bored and flat earth debunking is an easy time waster.

But yeah, we know what turbo is

a reply to: DJW001


Spoken from a true SJW!!!!!!

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Easiest way to debunk a flat earth? I mean, REALLY easy.

Theodolite and an ocean or large lake.

If the Earth was flat, the crosshairs would be on the horizon. They’re not. They’re ABOVE the horizon.

Don’t believe me? You can make your own for relatively cheap.
-SmartPhone app
-Stand for said SmartPhone
-A level

-Set up the stand, attach phone, make sure phone is level by using the level, turn on app, laugh because flat earthers are wrong.

The problem is that a large body of water, over several miles, without any reference point - ie: a shoreline across a lake - is not capable of measuring for curvature, or flatness, etc. The horizon you believe shows, and measures, a curvature of Earth, does not measure any such thing.

You cannot look across the ocean, to the horizon, and measure anything, like curvature, etc. One of the problems is that an ocean, over miles, does not stay motionless. It swells, and contracts, numerous waves, of all types, lengths, and heights. Not to mention what happens if a massive ocean liner just passed by. Even a 40' fishing boat causes movement along it's path.

We cannot measure any curvature, or flatness, by this method,

As I mentioned, there are many videos that use this method - with and without a Theodolite, and/or laser levels. Some who measure it for curvature, others who measure it for flatness. Neither case is valid. That's why there are so many videos that support each side.

This also creates confusion for which one is correct, which one is not correct. THEY ARE BOTH INCORRECT.

I'm not supporting either claim, because they are not valid arguments.

If this is actually about the truth, which it should be, we can't be defending an argument merely because it's from your side, or my side. That's bs.

We cannot measure the horizon across an ocean, that's how we get two opposite measurements, which seem to support both arguments, which causes uncertainty, and conflict. They both seem valid, while they are both very wrong.


That's the reason I keep 'ranting' about the instruments of planes, the Altimeter, and the VSI.

It is only these 2 instruments, which are on virtually every plane. They measure level flight, by two separate methods. One uses the horizon - or simulated horizon - to measure level flight

Horizon, as in horizontal. Level, as in Sea Level.

Why would we measure Earth from a level surface, which is supposedly never a level surface to begin with?

Why do planes use a horizontal line, when Earth is supposedly not horizontal at all? Why do we fly level within air, over a surface that is never level? How do planes manage to fly level, within air, throughout the flight, at the same altitude, over a curvature? Planes do not need to manage a curvature that does not exist.

The VSI is what really proves that the Earth is flat, though.

It shows the plane in a descent, or an ascent, and a level flight.

0 'feet per minute' is level flight. Any descent or ascent will be indicated the same way.

That is why planes are truly flying level in air, through the flight, because if it wasn't level, the VSI would indicate it, in 'feet per minute'. A curvature cannot exist, because the planes fly level, throughout, while at the very same altitude, until it hits the tarmac.

We'd never fly level in planes, if curvature existed, because there is no possible way to fly level over a sphere, first of all, but even if you tried to stay 'level' to a big ball, it would never be level, and the VSI would indicate it as a 'descent'. No matter how slow, or minute, the rate of descent would be, over curvature, it is still in descent.

The cruising speed of a 757 is about 533 mph. The curvature is supposedly 8 inches per mile, squared.

So the 757 flies over 4264 inches of curvature per hour, or about 355 feet per hour.

Which means the 757 must fly at a constant rate of ascent - about 6 feet per minute.

If the plane did not fly a constant rate of descent, it would have many adjustments along the way, flying level for 30 minutes, descending at a higher rate for the next 30 minutes, to make up for level flight, and so forth. Not only that, the planes would never fly the same altitude, either.


Nobody is flying a plane in a constant descent, of any type.

Wouldn't this be something we'd ALL know in schools?

Wouldn't this be a 'golden rule of all flights'? No doubt, it would be 'the golden rule of all pilots'.

To fly a plane without accounting for curvature of Earth, would have planes reach higher and higher altitudes above Earth, throughout the flights. Who knows what would happen to planes, if our pilots didn't always know, and follow, the 'Golden Rule of All Flights??


Curvature is something planes would HAVE to follow, something pilots must all know, and must always follow. A Golden Rule of All Flights' Planes must fly a constant rate of descent, of 6 feet per minute. A level flight would not be done, or only in certain conditions. That requires a greater descent afterwards, which is done as soon as possible.


If you don't understand why this proves there is no curvature, after I've explained this to you, in detail, go ahead and explain why not...

a reply to: turbonium1

Another long rant showing your ignorance.

If the horizon over sea is always swelling and contracting to such a high degree, you would get measurements from the theodolite of above, level and below the horizon. Guess what? Each time you do it, it will be ABOVE the horizon by an obvious degree. Not just a little, we’re talking a NOTICABLE amount.

And then you rant about planes again, as if you think that’s some holy grail to prove a flat earth lol.

Theodolites prove a curve.
North Star and Southern Cross prove a curve.

Ignore them if you want. Rant again if you want. But all that does is prove you don’t understand the most basic things.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Another long rant showing your ignorance.

If the horizon over sea is always swelling and contracting to such a high degree, you would get measurements from the theodolite of above, level and below the horizon. Guess what? Each time you do it, it will be ABOVE the horizon by an obvious degree. Not just a little, we’re talking a NOTICABLE amount.

And then you rant about planes again, as if you think that’s some holy grail to prove a flat earth lol.

Theodolites price a curve.
North Star and Southern Cross prove a curve.

Ignore them if you want. Rant again if you want. But all that does is prove you don’t understand the most basic things.

I've explained why oceans don't prove anything.

I've never heard you explain why instruments don't prove it, though.


I've heard you call it a 'rant', over and over, so I'm not expecting any sort of relevant, mature discussion.


Oh, well.

a reply to: turbonium1

I’ve already explained this a few times. Your ignorance doesn’t change facts.

Theodolites prove a curve.
North Star and Southern Cross prove a curve.

If you were actually interested, you’d go out and test these things, but we all know you won’t.

a reply to: turbonium1

I've explained why oceans don't prove anything.

Except you’re wrong. If you were right, you would get results from above, below and on the horizon. You don’t. You get consistent results ABOVE the horizon.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

I've explained why oceans don't prove anything.

Except you’re wrong. If you were right, you would get results from above, below and on the horizon. You don’t. You get consistent results ABOVE the horizon.

Instruments are proof, not arbitrary horizons over oceans. What is the distance to the horizon? How is it possible to be a consistent result over an inconsistent, constantly moving, body of water, not even measured for distance?

Impressive.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

I've explained why oceans don't prove anything.

Except you’re wrong. If you were right, you would get results from above, below and on the horizon. You don’t. You get consistent results ABOVE the horizon.

Instruments are proof, not arbitrary horizons over oceans. What is the distance to the horizon? How is it possible to be a consistent result over an inconsistent, constantly moving, body of water, not even measured for distance?

Impressive.

(Facepalm)
Good grief, this is now officially beyond embarrassing. Why is this thread not filled with images of people facepalming over the utter ignorance of the troll we're 'arguing' with?

The fact is that all sorts of things are believed without true evidence. Unless you have actually seen the entire earth with your own eyes you will not really know what shape it is.
NASA can print as many computer generated images as they wish and people can claim that they have seen images of the earth but they have only seen images NASA have generated.
What do we really know for sure?
Who has actually been high enough up to see with their own eyes? Maybe those that have keep secrets and deceive. aplanetruth.info...
I will admit - I do not know if the earth is a sphere or flat - it seemed flat until I was told it was a sphere.

a reply to: turbonium1

Instruments are proof

Theodolites are instruments.

Thank you for finally admitting that the theodolite is proof of a curve.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The fact is that all sorts of things are believed without true evidence. Unless you have actually seen the entire earth with your own eyes you will not really know what shape it is.
NASA can print as many computer generated images as they wish and people can claim that they have seen images of the earth but they have only seen images NASA have generated.
What do we really know for sure?
Who has actually been high enough up to see with their own eyes? Maybe those that have keep secrets and deceive. aplanetruth.info...
I will admit - I do not know if the earth is a sphere or flat - it seemed flat until I was told it was a sphere.

Got a challenge for you:

You will never see radioactivity with your own eyes. EVER. So please do us a favor and go to pripyat, namely to the core of the former power plant, and let us know, in real time, how you feel.