Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Hyperboles

If the earth were flat and capable of sustaining an atmosphere on one side, then by extension, it would have an atmosphere on the other side. If we follow that logic, the "underside" would receive the same amount of sunlight and therefore it would be a viable environment. Why haven't we been to the underside? LOL.

So in this scenario (and I realize you are not advocating it) would gravity -- or whatever it is that keeps us on the surface -- work the same to hold people to the underside as it does on the topside?

In this speculative situation of fairy dust and unicorns (lol), it would not be gravity alone but rather centrifugal force. The planet is spinning at about 1000 mph, I haven't done the math, but it might be sufficient to create gravity-like conditions on the inside of the sphere, if it were hollow. It would be something like the spinning of a space station to create artificial gravity. It would be a very odd horizon to be sure.

Cheers - Dave

I was asking more about the flat Earth scenario.

Let's say Earth is disk-like. If we venture to the underside of the disk, would we be able to walk around on the underside surface as if we were walking around on our top surface?

Or instead would it be that when we got to the edge of our top surface and tried to get to the underside, we would simply fall off?


So in this disk-Earth scenario, I'd ask the flat Earthers the following:

(1) Can we walk on the underside? If so, what is it (garvity? something else?) that keeps us on the underside?

(2) If we can't walk on the underside, then why not? Would we fall off the edge if we tried? If so, then toward what woudl we be falling (e.g.., what's making us fall)? And of people would fall into the void, what's keeping the disk Earth from falling as well?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And if we could be on the underside, what is there? No one has been there in all these years of mankind?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the help, buddy.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Soylent Green Is People--great questions. I’d like to add a couple more, for the flat-Earthers who do believe in gravity:

Since gravity vectors point to the center of mass, how are all flat-Earthlings able to stand upright? For example, if the disk-Earth were shaped like a poker chip, wouldn’t those on the outer edge have to stand at an outward angle? Is there any shape other than a sphere which provides universal, gravitational perpendicularity across its surface?

a reply to: Rollie83
Your hypothesis is illustrated in this video, showing how hard it is the get to the edge of the "poker chip" shaped earth, but as you say the person could stand up there, if earth's gravity was real and if you could suspend the laws of physics that cause the poker chip shape to collapse into a nearly-spherical shape for larger objects like the earth and moon.


The video also explains that flat earthers don't think gravity is real, rather the entire earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s which is why we think there's gravity. If that was true then it would feel like gravity and you couldn't stand up on the edge, you would literally fall off.

He doesn't say what causes it to accelerate up at 9.8 m/s, but as you know [sarcasm] modern science knows nothing and all the answers were written long ago in ancient texts [/sarcasm]. Since some of those ancient texts mention the earth being held up by turtles, maybe the turtles are breeding and that's pushing the earth up at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s? I've never talked to anyone who has actually seen the turtles, but here's an artists conception:


One really cool science fact near the end of that video is how the earth actually would appear flat to you if you were a muon approaching earth. Unfortunately the muons can't talk to tell us whether they noticed any turtles or not.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Quick question, how fast are muon turtles?

Wait, there's no actual muon turtles in this theory, just stationary earth holder turtles and muons.

This theory sucks I want my money back

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I’m going to start a movement supporting the turtle model. We’ll call ourselves the Yertle-ists.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And if we could be on the underside, what is there? No one has been there in all these years of mankind?

Or so "they" say.

Maybe that's where the grey aliens live. Maybe that's where abducted people go. Heck, maybe that's where all of my missing socks and ink pens end up.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

BLASPHEMER - burn teh BLASPHEMER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no elephants ????????????????????????????????????????

just WTF ???????????????????????????

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Look, you can sh*t all over the flat earth all you want.

But, Dont EVER take my hollow earth from me!

this would make a great bumper sticker
:-)

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And if we could be on the underside, what is there? No one has been there in all these years of mankind?

Or so "they" say.

Maybe that's where the grey aliens live. Maybe that's where abducted people go. Heck, maybe that's where all of my missing socks and ink pens end up.

I bet if a person switches surfaces then they most likely claim something called the Mandela Effect.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Arbitrageur

BLASPHEMER - burn teh BLASPHEMER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no elephants ????????????????????????????????????????

just WTF ???????????????????????????

Yes, I and the artist left out the elephant and the tiger too, but they are not as important as turtles all the way down, because if it weren't for them, what would hold up the elephant and the tiger?

Turtles all the way down

Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court discussed his "favored version" of the saying in a footnote to his plurality opinion in Rapanos v. United States:[15]

In our favored version, an Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down."

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Hyperboles

If the earth were flat and capable of sustaining an atmosphere on one side, then by extension, it would have an atmosphere on the other side. If we follow that logic, the "underside" would receive the same amount of sunlight and therefore it would be a viable environment. Why haven't we been to the underside? LOL.

So in this scenario (and I realize you are not advocating it) would gravity -- or whatever it is that keeps us on the surface -- work the same to hold people to the underside as it does on the topside?

In this speculative situation of fairy dust and unicorns (lol), it would not be gravity alone but rather centrifugal force. The planet is spinning at about 1000 mph, I haven't done the math, but it might be sufficient to create gravity-like conditions on the inside of the sphere, if it were hollow. It would be something like the spinning of a space station to create artificial gravity. It would be a very odd horizon to be sure.

Cheers - Dave

I was asking more about the flat Earth scenario.

Let's say Earth is disk-like. If we venture to the underside of the disk, would we be able to walk around on the underside surface as if we were walking around on our top surface?

Or instead would it be that when we got to the edge of our top surface and tried to get to the underside, we would simply fall off?


So in this disk-Earth scenario, I'd ask the flat Earthers the following:

(1) Can we walk on the underside? If so, what is it (garvity? something else?) that keeps us on the underside?

(2) If we can't walk on the underside, then why not? Would we fall off the edge if we tried? If so, then toward what woudl we be falling (e.g.., what's making us fall)? And of people would fall into the void, what's keeping the disk Earth from falling as well?

Physics that apply to the topside, should by virtue of symmetry apply to the bottom-side. After all, both would be located in the same universe. Therefore, if there was atmosphere on top, there would also be on the bottom. Gravity on top, also on the bottom. Light, who knows, maybe Niburu is hiding behind the alleged disk-like underside of the earth lol. I imagine an edge to this disk-based-earth would simply be like going over the top of a mountain, up one side and down the other with gradual changes in the direction of the center of gravity with reference to the surface. If we are to presume disk-like distribution of mass, the edge should have much higher gravity than the flat sides of the disk (tidal effects and all that), probably 6-10 times greater gravity dependent on the thickness of the alleged disk. People living closer to the edge, by virtue of the increased gravity should be shorter and stronger, while people living towards the center of the disk should be taller and weaker due to the variations in gravity and its effects on biological development. The atmosphere around the edge should also be much denser due to the increased gravity.

However, this is not the case. Gravity is quite uniform according to classical physics for an earth-sized sphere. That is not to say that there are not small variations in the gravity field, because there are, due to mineral loading, underground liquid reservoirs, differing thickness in the mantle/crust, tidal effects, ocean depths, mountain ranges, etc. We can locate mineral deposits and other resources by measuring and analyzing the gravity field.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Rollie83
The video also explains that flat earthers don't think gravity is real, rather the entire earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s which is why we think there's gravity.

So they believe that the Earth’s inhabited flat surface is perfectly perpendicular to its flightpath through space? I guess that means God didn’t flip the earth into the universe like a coin, or toss it in like a Frisbee, but just dropped it in like a piece of toast—buttered side down, of course.

Hey ya'll. The AI is a vertical gyro. Just imagine a vertical gyro in space ( rigidity in Space ) and all pilots and non pilots alike will know what the op is talking about in the flat earth debunking part

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Yeah, but to fly at a level horizon reading and a constant altimeter reading relative to the curved surface, a pilot (or autopilot) constantly and actively makes micro-adjustments to the controls in order to keep the horizon reading level and the altimeter reading constant.

Adjustments must also constantly be made for air currents, changes in pressure, ect and these are also all part of the tiny pilot (or autopilot) are making at all times in order to fly at a constant altitude.

Most of these micro-adjustments would be so small because they are being done continuously, and not one could be called a "noticeable correction".

You forgot to mention the VSI, for some reason....


I've explained the VSI to you, ad infinitum, yet you just go on and on, acting like it doesn't even exist.


The VSI measures pressure around the plane. Ascent or descent have nothing to do with the ground. Whether the ground is completely flat, or curved, or mountain laden, or cavernous, or anything else - IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FLYING LEVEL.

The air pressure is what the altimeter uses to ascertain atitude above sea level. If you know the elevation of the ground beneath you, you can then know how high you are off the ground.

Similarly, the VSI can use air pressure to determine climb or descent rate. This all goes hand-in-hand with the altimeter -- i.e., if the VSI is zero, then the altemieter would not change. If VSI is showning that you are climbing, then the altimeter would increase at the rate the VSI says you are climbing. Similarly, if the VSI indicates that you are descending, the atimeter reading would decrease.

So when I wrote "constant altimeter reading", that would indicate a VSI reading of zero.


However, just like I mentioned above, if a pilot or autopitot wants to keep the VSI at 0 or other constant number, micro-corrections to the controls must contstantly be made. That's because (1) in the short term (locally), atmospheric pressure varies slightly due to weather factors, and (2) In the long term (over greater distances), the atmosphere is a spherical bubble, so even in a hypothetical world where local atmospheric pressures don't vary due to weather conditions, the amount of atmosphere above you could constantly vary along that spherical shape.

None of those microcorrections on their own would be something that is a noticeable flight correction, but it adds up over the long run.

"Micro-corrections" are not the same as a constant descent, though.

Sea level is used to gauge other altitudes, throughout the flight. In other words, the plane sets altitude at one level, and uses it to measure altitude throughout the flight. It does not matter what the ground is during the flight, so curvature can't exist, in any way.

And the VSI confirms that. Ascent, descent, and level flight is only measured within the air, not the ground below. Curvature can't exist, in the same way.

originally posted by: Rollie83
So they believe that the Earth’s inhabited flat surface is perfectly perpendicular to its flightpath through space? I guess that means God didn’t flip the earth into the universe like a coin, or toss it in like a Frisbee, but just dropped it in like a piece of toast—buttered side down, of course.

I've been reading the flat earth "theory" documentation for entertainment, and it's really bizarre. One of the consequences of accelerating "through space" as you put it is that if the earth was doing that relative to the CMB at 9.8 m/s then the CMB asymmetry would be much much higher than it is, so you'd think they have to just throw all science out the window to make that claim. But they still try to hang on some sciency sounding things like the earth can keep on accelerating without ever reaching the speed of light, not even considering the CMB apparently.

And so the standard answer for anything like that CMB discrepancy or anything else like satellites, Apollo 11 pictures of the Earth, etc, is it's all fake. So it seems odd to claim science for support and then dismiss scientific evidence claiming it's hoaxed, but such is the flat earth conspiracy.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Sea level is used to gauge other altitudes, throughout the flight. In other words, the plane sets altitude at one level, and uses it to measure altitude throughout the flight. It does not matter what the ground is during the flight, so curvature can't exist, in any way.

That's called a non-sequitur, meaning "it does not follow".

To some extent it is true that "It does not matter what the ground is during the flight" as given by my example of flying toward a mountain range, but in no way does that imply "so curvature can't exist". The logical conclusion of your own statement is that flying at constant air pressure doesn't tell you anything about what the ground is doing, therefore it tells you nothing about whether the ground is curved or not curved, like in my example of flying toward the mountain range.

originally posted by: Rollie83
a reply to: turbonium1

turbonium1, you’ve mis-represented what I wrote, but perhaps my first explanation was over your head. If so, then I apologize for that. I’m simply used to conversing with people who already have some aeronautical knowledge, or understanding of physics. But I’m a sport, so I’ll try to simplify and re-state here.

A conventional altimeter (NOT a radar altimeter) senses only pressure directly, and in this strict sense it doesn’t know or care what the Earth’s shape is. But for the pilot’s benefit, the instrument is designed to extrapolate its pressure-reading into a numerical display of altitude. The display is thus an indirect measure of altitude, and an approximate one at that, albeit a very accurate and extremely useful one. (To measure altitude directly and exactly would require dragging around a very long tape measure over the ocean, and for obvious reasons that’s impractical.)

The aircraft itself, which houses the altimeter, performs exclusively to the atmosphere. In this strict sense, it also doesn’t know or care what the Earth’s shape is. When the pilot configures the aircraft for level flight, the pilot reads the altimeter’s display to do so, but in the direct sense, the pilot is actually trimming the aircraft for a specific atmospheric condition (density altitude, which is governed by barometric pressure) because that’s what the aircraft performs to.

Because the pressure gradient is roughly the same across the globe, an aircraft configured for level flight high above one point will cross another point, thousands of miles away, at very nearly the same altitude—give or take a couple of hundred feet. In other words, because the atmosphere and its pressure gradient follows the Earth’s curvature, so will an aircraft configured for level flight. There’s no need for the pilot to “dip the nose” or execute any other control input, to compensate for the curvature.

I won’t address all of the rest of what you wrote in your latest posts, partly because I don’t understand what you were trying to say in a lot of it. Still, here are a few bullet-point corrections for you.

• Level flight is defined exclusively in relation to the Earth, as a constant altitude over a constant datum—typically, MSL. Your description—“level within the atmosphere”—makes no sense, because the atmosphere contains no frame of reference.
• You misunderstand what a descent is. In aeronautical terms, a descent is relative only to the Earth (MSL or other constant datum). So a level flightpath which follows the Earth’s curvature is NOT a descent, because it does not converge upon that constant datum. The flightpath is LEVEL.
• Instruments do not, as you claim, “measure level flight within the air” because that phrase has no meaning. The altimeter measures atmospheric pressure, which the pilot extrapolates into an approximation of altitude MSL, then uses that approximation to establish a flightpath which is level over the same MSL. Simply put, the aircraft follows the earth’s curvature because the atmosphere does.
• Your emphasis on the VSI is odd. The VSI is a trend/rate instrument only, and pilots use it to gauge their rate of divergence from, or convergence to the Earth. For example, an instrument approach may require a descent of 500 FPM, and the VSI is useful for this. In level flight, the VSI helps to identify deviations as they begin to occur, but the altimeter remains the primary instrument regardless.
• By the way, AngryCymraeg was absolutely correct, in another post to you, in saying that an aircraft at a constant altitude over the curvature is “…flying over level ground, as it measures it.” In response, your repeating the notion of “LEVEL flight within air” is nonsense, because the air contains no frame of reference, and so it doesn’t provide for any up, down, sideways or level. The Earth is needed to define those.
• As a pilot, I’ve flown many aircraft without a VSI. It’s not a required instrument for legal flight, and I can fly level just fine without it.

A ball is never flat, or level. It is impossible for planes to fly 'level' over a ball.

You argue measuring 'level' flight is actually measuring 'level' over a sphere, even though spheres are never at all 'level'.

You cannot fly 'level' over a sphere.


What is 'level, over ground, as it measures it'??

A sphere is not level ground, so how can you be level over it, while 'measuring' it??


How do planes fly over a sphere without dipping their nose?



You also claim that 'level' flight is NOT measuring level within air.....

Somehow, you believe the Earth's surface measures what is 'level', or not 'level'....since Earth's surface is not level, in any way, being a spherical-shaped 'level'!


Atmosphere, the 'air', measures everything within it, from ascent, to descent, to level flight. In what flies, or not, within air.

Level flight is based entirely on the aerodynamic properties.

Flying level has nothing to do with Earth's shape, or surface(s). Every surface is different, all over Earth.

Powerful 'curvature', you see?


Simply in physical terms, a plane will either FOLLOW above the curved surface, or not.

To follow a spherical shape requires a constant descent, to go AROUND a spheroid.

You suggest a powerful force holds planes to a grand curvature, which is not measured as a curvature, but rather, it is measured as being a 'level' flight??

Spheroids are not level, as flights over spheroids cannot be flown level.

How could you fly level over a sphere?

Why are they called 'airplanes'? They fly along a plane of air.


Why would they call it 'sea level', if Earth is not level?

Why call it a 'horizon', when Earth supposedly has no horizontal surfaces?


They measure a sea of water as level, to find altitude above level.

They measure the horizontal axis stretching across Earth, to find level flight.


I realize why they'd measure horizontal lines and seas, as true level. They ARE true level.

Why are they measuring sea as level, if it's curved?


Anyone see curves over the horizon?


Horizons go miles across, and not a sign of 'curvature'.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Here are indisputable proofs that Earth indeed is flat;

youtu.be...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Even if you are flying towards the highest mountain range you are still making downwards correction to maintain your assigned altitude above MSL