It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

page: 24
8
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
even our single computation that we rely on for gravity and a planets total mass is based on the assumption that electricity has no effect on the gravitational pull of a celestial body..... Which is something that we haven't touched on since the experiment was established.
For the Earth to be substantially hollow would require huge discrepancies with the gravitational constant, so such a large discrepancy should be very easy to measure. The reason gravitational experiments are so hard to make now is because of the precision required, but if electricity could affect it as much as you suggest, precision would not be an issue as all you would have to show is the value is way off, collect your Nobel prize money and be rich and famous.

Yes the arctic was warm in the past, but that has nothing to do with hollow earth, it was due to climate change. It might get warm again if we add enough greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. See video about the warm arctic:



Imagine an enormous, lush rainforest teeming with life...in the Arctic. Well there was a time -- and not too long ago -- when the world warmed more than any human has ever seen. (So far)




posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




have yet to hear a rational counter to this, from a flatty. The claim is generally that stars are closer than claimed but when the math (simple trig) is requested, they seem to lose interest.


That's because there is no other explanation--other than a non-flat earth with a curved surface.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Rollie83

In many ways the flat earth thing has been awesome just for how much it has made me go back and really look at why I believe what I do, and as a refresher on basic science as a whole.

Plus it's provided really entertaining moments like the one above where someone attempted to call me on my 69 miles to 1 degree thing, and got really embarrassed judging by their sudden reluctance to engage, when it turned out that I do in fact check my math before I post numerical claims...

Just like my assertion that the 8 inches per mile squared formula is extremely flawed if used beyond certain bounds... I did the math for the that too before I said it... Hell, unlike them, I know EXACTLY where the flerfers got this formula from in the first place! Hint flerfers, Mark Sargent and Jeranism are LYING about a modern flerfer "doing that math for them" that formula is actually very old and being taken way out of context...

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and irritating, really it would.

I mean, the vast majority of them don't realize that Dubay's 200 proofs are more like 26 dubious and easily refuted allegations reworded and restated around 7 times each.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

The real problem is that the closer in you bring the stars and other celestial bodies, the crazier the explanations have to get to match easy to make observations...

I mean when heliocentrism finally caught on I think even the Catholic Church wiped it's brow in relief even if they couldn't say so because the ad-hoc explanations were piling up so fast it was fixing to bury the Vatican under papal decrees.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rollie83

An aircraft traversing the globe in level flight (constant altitude*), would certainly be trimmed, unless there were a mechanical problem or the pilot was a glutton for muscle fatigue. As such, this curved flightpath would be flown hands/feet-free, save for certain adjustments made necessary by other factors—turbulence, fuel burn-off, weight shifts, and other perturbations. But no adjustment are ever needed for the curvature itself, which also explains why no related, display instrument exists**. (Some flatEarthers, when told by pilots that no such “curvature” instrument exists, have tried twisting that fact into proof that the Earth is flat.)

But even the un-trimmed aircraft requires no control input to follow the Earth’s curvature, because an aircraft configured for level flight is actually configured for an atmospheric condition called “density altitude”, which itself is a product of barometric pressure. The aircraft simply hunts the density altitude for which it’s been configured, completely un-commanded, and because the Earth’s atmosphere and its pressure gradient follow the curvature in proportion, so too will the aircraft configured for a specific DA.

**An INS will account for curvature, but does not display such isolated information to the pilot, as it is not needed.


A plane cannot "follow the curvature" of 8 inches per mile squared, when a pressure gradient covers hundreds of miles in altitude! That's ridiculous.

I don't care if you are a pilot or not, I care about facts, and proof. A pressure gradient cannot account for 8 inches per mile squared of 'curvature'.

Please show me ONE source, explaining how pressure gradients could possibly be able to account for 8 inches per mile of 'curvature'. In all of the SPECIFIC DETAILS...

Unless you are making it all up, you should have no problem showing me sources on this...



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:03 PM
link   
i is now curious :

how does an fixed wing aircraft take off ?

caveat - the question is in the context of flat earth cultists delusions

i know how aircraft take off - i just want to see what a flattie thinks [ for amuseent only ]



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Constant altitude is achieved when a plane is not in an ascent, nor in a descent, so obviously a level flight is at a constant altitude.

A plane cannot fly over a curved surface without a descent, so cannot be a level flight.


(post by roguetechie removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

OMG the plane thing again....

how many times do people have to explain things to you ffs...




posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:52 PM
link   
If there WAS a curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, then we'd have instruments to account for it on all our planes.

It would be taught in our schools, for sure.

All pilots would know about curvature, it's average measurement, how to fly at altitude over curvature, etc.

How to correct for curvature along a flight, instead of some imaginary 'pressure gradient' magic..



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Read. Learn. Stop pretending you don't understand.

www.explainthatstuff.com...

www.faa.gov...

if that's too difficult for you, watching the moving pictures as they speak to you.




posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: roguetechie
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


Gravity won't make planes fly level over a sphere, that's the problem.

A force making a plane fly along the surface below cannot make it a level flight.

A plane following a curved surface is always curved in flight, no matter what makes it follow the curved surface.

Planes must descend to follow the curve. No exceptions. No excuses. No illusions.


Saying a plane follows curvature of Earth means it has to descend constantly to match the curvature.

No evidence supports the claim, game over.
edit on Fri Apr 27 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by Akragon removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

Lol work it out again and read my post again. nevermind the oblate spheroid. Consider the planet a perfect sphere .



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Rollie83Here you go again with your hodge podge. I am a pilot, flight instructor and an engineer. Are you really trying to educate me? If so, nice try and while you are at it work out the curvature again



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 02:32 AM
link   
who could have imagined , that in the 2nd decade of the 21st century - getting alledged adults to accept the simplest of scientific concepts would be so hard ?



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles

a reply to: Rollie83Here you go again with your hodge podge. I am a pilot, flight instructor and an engineer. Are you really trying to educate me? If so, nice try and while you are at it work out the curvature again


Hyperboles, I don’t know what your vague plea to “work out the curvature again” means, so I can’t help you there. If you clarify, I’ll give it a shot.

You say that you’re a pilot, flight instructor and engineer…well, in reply I’ll only say that such qualifications clash with arguments you’ve made—to say the very least. ‘Nuff said about that.

As for “hodge podge”, I’m unable to explain things more simply than I have, and I’m sorry that you find the topic’s natural complexity to be confusing. And yes, of course I’m trying to educate you.
edit on 27-4-2018 by Rollie83 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2018 by Rollie83 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 03:05 AM
link   
We were told the truth back in 76.




posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   

REMINDER!!!!!!


Community Announcement re: Decorum
An opposing viewpoint is NOT a valid reason to complain & It takes two to tango
No more scoffing and ridicule



You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!


edit on Fri Apr 27 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join