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

a reply to: MissionTruth

Depends on which photos you see:

i.ytimg.com...

Don't assume you are the only who has looked into things.

Von Braun was a Christian. He put a Biblical verse obliquely relating to his work on spaceflight. Proving?

Braun's work on Spaceflight helped to produce countless images of Earth as a sphere.

As for planes having to maintain altitude - if they are just flying in a circle why aren't they constantly having to adjust their wings when flying east? I've flown long haul many times and never noticed them continually banking in one direction.

a reply to: MissionTruth

Exhibit A

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Go jump in a lake.

Or, better yet, off a 10 story building.

Are you claiming that jumping off a 10-story building is proof of gravity? Shouldn't you be the one who proves it? Sure.

You have to get someone to film your jump, obviously, to document your experiment.

What this proves is that most things on Earth will fall to Earth, at the same speed. To suggest a great force within the Earth holds all objects to it's surface, a force known as 'gravity'. Except we know this 'great force' can't make a balloon fall to Earth, or a bird, or a plane, with humans on board. All humans would fall without the plane. But the plane defeats the massive forces of gravity, and so do the humans in the plane!

Did a sparrow possibly defeat the incredible forces of gravity by flapping its tiny wings? Apparently so.

How would you explain a force so incredible, so inescapable, so inevitable, that pulls everything down to its surface, while it can't pull down a frickin' mosquito? Or a balloon? Or clouds?

There is no force pulling everything down to its surface, obviously. As birds are not pulled down, or insects, etc.

We are all in the same atmosphere, air, yet we drop to Earth, and birds do not. Air itself is pulled to gravity, though objects in air defeat the same forces. Objects much heavier than a bird can defeat the forces, as well.

So there is nothing that proves this great pulling force called 'gravity' exists. That's why it will forever be considered a 'theory'. And several different versions of the same theory, too.

a reply to: turbonium1

There is no force pulling everything down to its surface, obviously. As birds are not pulled down, or insects, etc.

Do birds float like balloons in your world?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: MissionTruth

Depends on which photos you see:

i.ytimg.com...

Don't assume you are the only who has looked into things.

Von Braun was a Christian. He put a Biblical verse obliquely relating to his work on spaceflight. Proving?

Braun's work on Spaceflight helped to produce countless images of Earth as a sphere.

As for planes having to maintain altitude - if they are just flying in a circle why aren't they constantly having to adjust their wings when flying east? I've flown long haul many times and never noticed them continually banking in one direction.

Planes don't need to fly in a circle over a flat surface, since they could simply fly a straight line to any destination, first of all. Not that they do, but they could.

If you look at a map of the flat Earth, you'll see that flights can go from LA to NYC in a straight line, and NYC to London in a straight line, London to Shanghai in a straight line, and finally, from Shanghai, back to LA again - all in a straight line.

You fly East, on each flight, or mostly Eastward. There is no circle flown, since each flight is in a straight line. All Eastward, of course. There is no reason to fly around Earth in a circle, unless you wanted to.

A flight would never need to fly in a circle, because it serves no purpose. Planes usually will fly from point A to point B in a direct path, or as direct as possible. Less fuel, shorter flight, obviously.



Can you explain the VSI measuring level flight, as not being proof the Earth is flat?

a reply to: turbonium1

Lol

I love you man..

The Statue of Liberty stands at 326 ft and is visible from 60 miles away - but it should be 2,074 ft below the curvature - so should not be visible if the earth is a ball.
Is this true?

a reply to: turbonium1

Another long, boring rant.

Then you should have no problem explaining why planes have always flown level, and always will fly level

Lift, weight, thrust and drag. Gravity helps too.

You should have stayed in school.

Why do you accept a theory that is not even known to exist

Says the person who thinks flat earth is real LOL.

a reply to: turbonium1

In the same argument, one can see with their own eyes that the Earth is flat, everywhere they look. Not curved.

I guess you really are alien or 1 seriously messed up troll.

yes, its flat when you look at the ground below you, not when you look out and see things vanish over a horizon.

Can you not answer the questions,

can you go outside twice in one day?

You can do this with the moon or the sun

When one of the objects are directly above and when one is close to the horizon,

Can you do that?

Are you blind or disabled that you cannot?


can you answer?


or just keep dodging with nonsense?

No proof required, just one's own eyes, is all that is needed.

do have them?

can they send images to your brain?

Do your legs work and can you walk?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Another long, boring rant.

Then you should have no problem explaining why planes have always flown level, and always will fly level

Gravity.

You should have stayed in school.

Why do you accept a theory that is not even known to exist

Says the person who thinks flat earth is real LOL.

Based on actual measurements, it is flat. Not based on a non-existent phenomenon, multiple theories that all fail to prove gravity exists, like your side.

A plane flies level in air. The ground below has nothing to do with it. What does a non-existing theory of 'gravity' prove? Nothing.


The VSI measures three things planes do during flight - ascent, descent, and level flight. If an external force was making the plane 'level' over a curvature, by some magical process, it would not fly level at all. Because a sphere has no flat surface which is 'level' to begin with. You cannot be 'level' over a ball.

Now, if 'gravity' holds planes in a curvature, then the plane must be in a DESCENT, in order for the plane to follow the curvature at altitude... right?

DESCENT is measured by the VSI, yes?


So when the VSI shows NO descent, only level flight, what does that tell you?


It feels like I'm dumbing it down so much, even a baboon might grasp it.


It's as simple as it can get, so either you finally get it, or you have no hope of getting it.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The Statue of Liberty stands at 326 ft and is visible from 60 miles away - but it should be 2,074 ft below the curvature - so should not be visible if the earth is a ball.
Is this true?

Sorry, but no.

At 326 feet tall, that is 3,912 inches.

Due to the diameter of the Earth, the amount of altitude affected by the curve is 8 inches per mile.

60 miles means only 480 inches of the statue will appear to go away, still leaving 3,432 inches, or 286 feet visible.

a reply to: turbonium1

Based on actual measurements, it is flat.

No, it’s not.

There is no evidence for a flat earth, but you can prove that it’s a spheroid by getting or making a theodolite.

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The Statue of Liberty stands at 326 ft and is visible from 60 miles away - but it should be 2,074 ft below the curvature - so should not be visible if the earth is a ball.
Is this true?

Sorry, but no.

At 326 feet tall, that is 3,912 inches.

Due to the diameter of the Earth, the amount of altitude affected by the curve is 8 inches per mile.

60 miles means only 480 inches of the statue will appear to go away, still leaving 3,432 inches, or 286 feet visible.

Wrong.

The curvature is 8 inches per mile squared. Not 8 inches the first mile, and another 8 inches the second mile, for 16 inches of curvature. We'd never get a sphere that way.

Do you know what 8 inches per mile SQUARED means?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Do you know what 8 inches per mile SQUARED means?

No, I don't - can you explain?

And would you mind telling me if this is true or not and why?
The Statue of Liberty stands at 326 ft and is visible from 60 miles away - but it should be 2,074 ft below the curvature - so should not be visible if the earth is a ball.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

You may also be able to help me out - what is the difference between 'the curve is 8 inches per mile' and 'the curve is 8 inches squared per mile'?
Everyone is welcome to clear this up for me - I am not that smart!

oh FFS - 11 pages on our resident flat earth proponent is still regurgitating its " aircraft VSI prooves flat earth " delusion

ok - here goes :

the VSI - measures the rate of airpressure change over time [ and extrapolates a rate of climb // descent from this ]

the anneroid altimeter measures the mass of air ABOVE the instrument

the radar alitimiter measures the distance from the aircraft to the ground // ocean

now - for the purpose of this argument - lets assume - that an aircraft with a mechanical VSI , radar`and anneroid altimeters is flying at ASL 10OOO M [ 35K FEET ] and LOCAL airpressure = 23.8 KPA -

as the aircraft is in perfect trim - and not affected by any weather - its assumed that no adjustment of control surfaces is required to maintain " level flight "

further - its assumed that at for all points at a given altitude - air pressure = uniform

lastly - its`assumed that the aircraft is flying over a spheroid earth on a flight leg of 10000 km [ 25% of the earths circumfrance ] over ocean for its entire flight leg

got all that ? - its also important that you comprehend it

lets play :

now our flat earth proponent claims [ wrongly ] that in this senario that the VSI should indicate climb and the altitude of the aircraft should increase as it alledgedly flies off at a tangent to its start point

i has addressed why this is utter bollox in a previous reply that was ignored [ but i digress ]

back to the senario :

now according to our flat earth proponent - the aircraft pilot is " supposed " to initiate a constant shallow dive to " maintain level flight " - and this alledged dive should be measured by the VSI

now - according to our FEP [ FLAT EARTH PROPONENT ] if the VSI does not indicate dive - then the altitude SHOULD increase

in reality - both anneroid and radar alitimeters display a constant 10000 M altitude and the VSI indicates zero [ level flight ] for the entire leg

what went wrong ? - the simple answer is that the FEP is a delusional cockwomble

the scientific answer is that if the VSI indicated a dive - then altitude SHOULD fall [ measured by both radar and anneroid altimeters ]

the absolute proof that the FEP is wrong is that altitude does not vary over the entire leg - its that simple - you cannot dive and still be at the same altitude

its that simple - for the VSI to record " dive " - airpressure MUST increase -

and if you have flown ANY distance without an indication from the VSI you are in level flight

and the conclusion - if you have flown a distance in level flight - and the altitude has not changed then ..........

draw your own conclusion

Who wants to explain the wires (which when pointed out are obvious) on the crew of the space station?

originally posted by: turbonium1

So when the VSI shows NO descent, only level flight, what does that tell you?

It tells you that the atmospheric pressure has not changed, meaning you have not gained or lost altitude.
What you completely fail to understand is that, since the atmosphere curves around the spherical earth, if the plane flew in a completely straight line it would end up in space at some point. And the VSI would show that the plane is gaining altitude because the atmospheric pressure would drop.

Stop using your idiotic argument about aeroplanes and level flight, it's an expression that indicates that the aeroplane is neither gaining or loosing altitude, not that it flies in a straight line.

This has been explained to you in several posts and in several ways.
I conclude that you are either trolling, or completely ignorant.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Gravity explains everything, that's why it was invented in the first place!!

Gravity wasn't "invented". Gravity is what it is, no matter how much you say otherwise. Try jumping off a roof. There, you just proved gravity real.

Still waiting for your evidence of a flat earth. So far we have "omagerd! planes!", "gravity isnt teh realz!" and a whole load of ranting.

Try reading a little bit about gravity, instead of making a fool of yourself....

GRAVITATIONAL THEORIES
Jacob D. Bekenstein

A theory of gravitation is a description of the long range forces that electrically neutral bodies exert on one another because of their matter content. Until the 1910s Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, two particles attract each other with a central force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, was accepted as the correct and complete theory of gravitation: The proportionality constant here is Newton's constant G = 6.67 x 10-8 dyn cm2 g-2, also called the gravitational constant. This theory is highly accurate in its predictions regarding everyday phenomena. However, high precision measurements of motions in the solar system and in binary pulsars, the structure of black holes, and the expansion of the universe can only be fully understood in terms of a relativistic theory of gravitation. Best known of these is Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which reduces to Newton's theory in a certain limit. Of the scores of rivals to general relativity formulated over the last half century, many have failed various experimental tests, but the verdict is not yet in on which extant relativistic gravitation theory is closest to the truth.


ned.ipac.caltech.edu...

I showed you the above, because you can't grasp that gravity is not "real", it does not exist, because it is only A THEORY.

In fact, as you can see from above, there are NUMEROUS theories on gravity.

As I mentioned before, gravity does not explain everything it SHOULD be able to explain. That's why gravity has many different theories, none of which can explain everything.

Gravity is NOT proven "real" by jumping off a building.

It is a THEORY, trying to account for why objects fall to Earth. And why some objects do NOT fall to Earth. And why people and spacecraft can float above Earth, in ZERO gravity, but it can grasp the moon in it's grip, 250,000 miles away, but instead of drawing it closer and closer to Earth, as the theory suggests, it REMAINS IN PLACE. Gravity can also hold oceans around a sphere, curving it, in place. Gravity can spin the entire planet at 1000 mph, with the whole atmosphere spinning at the same time. A force that holds the atmosphere to Earth, and its rotation, cannot even hold objects to Earth, or its rotation.

Do you understand that gravity is not "real", it is merely a THEORY, or theories??

For the last time, I'm asking you to READ, and ACCEPT, from actual sources, that gravity is a theory.


If you can't even do that, you are obviously a troll.

I'm here to discuss the actual issue. Are you?

First of all you need to look up what a scientific theory means.

Second you are failing completely to understand gravitational pull versus centrifugal force and how these two are working together both regarding the moon and spacecrafts.

Water stays where it's supposed to be for the same reason you, or say your pen isn't floating of constantly.


When it comes to birds and mosquitos ,
that's aerodynamics.

The same rules apply to every bit of mass in the universe..... Even aeroplanes and the ISS.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Why don't you explain it, since you seem to be implying that you know.