Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: turbonium1

Ok walk out your first floor window tell me when you hit the ground and break your legs that gravity doesnt exist !

No..

thats "down syndrome"

Not gravity

Shhh...

a reply to: Hyperboles

When it gets to circumference it's a bit more significant because of the pi r squared thing... As I specifically called out.

For an "engineer" and a "pilot" you're not very good at reading the regular sized print much less the fine stuff.

It's definitely enough to demonstrate just how fast this stuff adds up. (It would be much more significant at around 108,000 feet above sea level or better yet to the von karman line or even the maximum LEO altitude, but even 37,000 feet gives you an additional 7 miles to the radius)

You can try and correct people all you want or be a pusillanimous pedant even, and it still won't change the fact that you're not a pilot or an engineer and are still wrong about most everything you have said in this thread until the last few pages!!

I just thought you should know that.

a reply to: Akragon

Down Syndrome broke a jet ski of mine in half once, it's no joke people.

a reply to: roguetechie

Bravo. Heck of a dumb post. Starting from the op read all my posts again. About credentials, you can believe as you please

a reply to: Hyperboles

I have read them, it's why I don't believe you.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a dilettante and a fable, I'm pretty much a consummate dilettante and dabbler after all. The problem arises when you claim to be a professional and an authority on things when even the dilettantes know different.

a reply to: roguetechie

To each his own I guess even it it come to ignorance is bliss.

cheers

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: roguetechie

Ive posted about the curvature of a circle as it would apply to objects / planes.
the radius of the earth is 4000 miles approx and adding another 6 miles to this radius is not very significant change

So how much is it?


not very significant?


Seriously please do show how insignificant of a difference it is?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

So using 3959 miles as radius you get 24875.

Adding 7 miles corresponding to around 37,000 feet which is a common cruising altitude you get a radius of 3966 and a 24919 mile circumference

That's a 44 mile increase in circumference which adds a little less than an eighth of a mile to how many miles you must go to travel over one degree of curvature.

It's by no means massive but it's also not small.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: turbonium1

You really are the Ronald McDonald (ie Clown) of science on here watch below proof of gravity.

there seems to be a problem linking youtube videos here the link youtu.be...

If this proves gravity, then why is it only a theory?

Since it doesn't prove gravity, obviously.

Show me how this works the same way, but with only non-metallic objects, like wood,....

originally posted by: wmd_2008
As for planes flying above a curve, the Earths curvature is expressed as 8 inch per mile squared so first mile is an 8" drop. So 8" in 5280 feet an A380 is 240 ft long flying at 30,000 feet you think that 8 " is a problem. Each mile traveled is only an 8" drop from the end point of the previous mile.

The problem is flatties take it as a tangent from the starting point so they measure a vertical drop from that tangent line.

If planes only floated through air, then you'd have a valid point!!

Speed is a critical factor here....which all of you keep on ignoring....of course...

I've explained how a plane at an average cruising speed, for a 6 hour flight, would have about 1800 feet of 'curvature' to account for....

No excuses.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Wow I missed that particular dose of stupid.

Anyone who has looked through a telescope at the moon can see with their own eyes that it is a sphere simply by looking at the length of shadows at the terminator compared with the fully lit part. Then there is the fact, observable with your own eyes that when the moon is not full the terminator curves - the only exception being the half way mark.

I didn't say it wasn't a sphere, or it was a sphere, I said if it IS a sphere, it's light source cannot only be, if at all, from reflection of sunlight.

You are making up crap about me, as usual.

You don't ask if it's true, or not, why bother, it must be true!

Only an 'idiot' would say that the moon isn't a sphere?

So then, only trolls would make up someone claiming it, which allows for MORE non-stop crap?


Wow.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Wow I missed that particular dose of stupid.

Anyone who has looked through a telescope at the moon can see with their own eyes that it is a sphere simply by looking at the length of shadows at the terminator compared with the fully lit part. Then there is the fact, observable with your own eyes that when the moon is not full the terminator curves - the only exception being the half way mark.

I didn't say it wasn't a sphere, or it was a sphere, I said if it IS a sphere, it's light source cannot only be, if at all, from reflection of sunlight.

You are making up crap about me, as usual.

You don't ask if it's true, or not, why bother, it must be true!

Only an 'idiot' would say that the moon isn't a sphere?

So then, only trolls would make up someone claiming it, which allows for MORE non-stop crap?


Wow.

If light cannot reflect off of the Moon and back toward our eyes if the Moon were a sphere, then how does the light being reflected off of a ping pong ball or a basketball or any spherical object be seen if (according to you) that light cannot reflect light back toward our eyes?

You seem to be saying that spheres canNOT refelect light in all directions (which would include in the direction of our eyes), and thus cannot proberly be seen. However, it is my experience that the light reflected off of a sphere can be seem quite well, no matter what direction away from it my eyes are relative to the source of that reflected light

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: turbonium1

Ok walk out your first floor window tell me when you hit the ground and break your legs that gravity doesnt exist !

No..

thats "down syndrome"

Not gravity

Shhh...

Objects are falling to the surface of Earth, because air is less dense than those objects, that's why they fall through air, to the surface. Other objects don't fall through air, for the same reason.

Nothing forces those objects down to Earth, as we know.


And a force would oppose those objects from being airborne - as real forces have shown to exist with any one, or more, of an opposite force(s) applied....


Gravity has no opposing force, as we know. To prove a force exists, an opposing force works against it, to resist that force in some degree. Without some opposing force, which merely is the greatest, most powerful, force that holds our entire universe together, let alone cut all force because it wants planets to stick moons nearby, attracting the moon, stopping them in place, although no force of attraction will decide whether or not forces work the same as usual, or in a very different way, or perhaps not work at all, from time to time...

A force capable of pulling in moons, which stops the pulling force at once, when it becomes a holding force, which is rarely shown, among gravity's vast array of super-powers.

In this example, we have gravity's unique 'holding force', on display.

Unlike when gravity is a force of attraction, which moves all objects of lesser mass towards it. This force never, ever, stops in attracting those objects. When objects are closer, only more force is generated. The surface holds the most powerful gripping force, where nothing escapes..... if you ignore birds, insects, or balloons....

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Wow I missed that particular dose of stupid.

Anyone who has looked through a telescope at the moon can see with their own eyes that it is a sphere simply by looking at the length of shadows at the terminator compared with the fully lit part. Then there is the fact, observable with your own eyes that when the moon is not full the terminator curves - the only exception being the half way mark.

I didn't say it wasn't a sphere, or it was a sphere, I said if it IS a sphere, it's light source cannot only be, if at all, from reflection of sunlight.

You are making up crap about me, as usual.

You don't ask if it's true, or not, why bother, it must be true!

Only an 'idiot' would say that the moon isn't a sphere?

So then, only trolls would make up someone claiming it, which allows for MORE non-stop crap?


Wow.

If light cannot reflect off of the Moon and back toward our eyes if the Moon were a sphere, then how does the light being reflected off of a ping pong ball or a basketball or any spherical object be seen if (according to you) that light cannot reflect light back toward our eyes?

You seem to be saying that spheres canNOT refelect light in all directions (which would include in the direction of our eyes), and thus cannot proberly be seen. However, it is my experience that the light reflected off of a sphere can be seem quite well, no matter what direction away from it my eyes are relative to the source of that reflected light

As I said, a sphere would reflect light everywhere, including in Earth's direction.

But spheres do not reflect light in a SINGLE direction, a single, distinct area....


In being round, a sphere does not reflect all light evenly, in brightness, in one direction, as we all have seen, with moonlight.

This shows that the moon, itself, is the actual light source. An even distribution of light, equal, all around, in brightness.

a reply to: turbonium1

Which means we would never see a half moon... or anything but a full moon in your theory

Im not even going to respond to your reply to me

Its just not worth it

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

Which means we would never see a half moon... or anything but a full moon in your theory

Im not even going to respond to your reply to me

Its just not worth it

The moon has nothing to block half of it out, although it is being blocked halfway.

There has to be another object blocking the moon, near enough to block the moon, and in the same cycle of the moon, while nobody dares speak of it, at least, in public.

What they say about the half-blocked moon is total nonsense. It cannot be replicated, with any actual models, or with even one, single, valid simulation.

Because there is nothing they can make to block out half the moon, with simulations, or with models, so obviously it's never done. Not possible to realistically support it.

a reply to: turbonium1

actually its very easy to replicate...

All you need is a dark room, a light source... and a ball

Hopefully you can figure it out, then you might quit pulling illogical garbage out your ass

a reply to: turbonium1

Just so you know, there are many "childrens" explanations on the holy YouTube...

Since i believe you are an adult, even though you have the mentality of a child... i'll even help you out

a reply to: Akragon

Shh.. turbo is comedy central but quite mature and doesn't insult anyone.

way you go turbo, thanks for all your input.

a reply to: Hyperboles

im not prone to insults...

Some ridiculousness drives me nuts though

It doesn't explain the case I'm referring to, only pretends to be, like usual.

The problem is when the sun and moon are both seen directly above Earth, at the very same time, in daylight, while the moon is half blocked out....

What can block the moon, here?