It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Flat earth theory?

page: 37
14
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 07:50 PM

Indeed, pressure which is relative to the sensors proximity to the ground. You know, how air pressure decreases as you gain altitude?

That doesn't address flying level in air. Pressure, at any altitude, is used to measure for level, or not level, flight.

Atmospheric pressure is based on gradients, or layers. A plane will fly within a single gradient, or layer, during a given period of time. No matter how many gradients, or layers, the plane flies during the entire flight, the plane is flying within one gradient, or layer, along the voyage.

Let's say a plane leaves the runway, at sea level. It slowly ascends, to a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.

At that point, the plane will stop its ascent, and begin to level off...

It is called level flight, because it IS level flight. Makes sense, yes?

I've never heard anyone refer to 'level', alone, to be NOT level.

Nobody calls it 'flying level, in relation to Earth's curved surface'. If they meant it that way, they'd have described it in such a way. Makes sense, yes?

So it's called level flight. Every source I've found describes level flight, as level. Unless you can show me otherwise, it's meant as level.

Your claim is pure nonsense, without a doubt. It would easily be proven, otherwise, and you know it.

Level flight cannot mean it is NOT level!

Now, what makes it level in air? The air pressure.

How is air pressure measuring a flight as level, or not level?

Because atmosphere is a level plane, above the level surface.

Even a paper airplane proves this.

Air molecules flow in a level path. Winds may unsettle the normal path, obviously.

Why would air 'know' what level is, otherwise?

Level flight is achieved before 'curvature' could have any effect.

The instruments in planes will measure atmosphere throughout the flight, and measure a level flight, or not level, along the way...

'Curvature' of Earth, at 8 inches per mile - is purely absurd.

A surface 35,000 feet below a plane is somehow acting on planes, to follow an 8 inch per mile curve, which reads as a level flight, because it's level to Earth's curvature!!

No proof at all, but so what?

posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 07:59 PM

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04 a reply to: Nothin A pilot's license. Anyone in the middle class who was interested in doing it could verify it. So you won't trust science that tells us. You won't trust someone who has actually experience and verified it. You trust Youtubers. Got it.
I have done it. Flown a Cessna 150 to 6k feet and even at that altitude you can see the Earth is curved at the horizon, but it seems easier to notice in a hard banked turn looking out the side window. Of course he won't take my word for it.
If it's really a curved horizon, you claim to see from such an altitude, then why do planes measure the horizon as level, as a straight line across? No curve is used at all, which is what you claim to see.... What sort of pilot would claim to see a curved horizon which is not indicated from any instruments within his plane, that depicts the very opposite....is dreaming, or lying, or whatever, because the horizon is not curved, at any altitude flown, and if it were, all planes would have a simulated curved horizon, to match the real horizon, as curved...for that would make sense, right? A flat, level horizon is used to measure the horizon, and it refers to the real horizon. Another pilot, supporting the round Earth, without any instruments measuring it! When anyone wants to measure a flight, above the Earth, instruments refer to the actual surface below....that's common sense, right? A horizon is not shown flat, and level, to a pilot, if the horizon is curved, when viewed high above the Earth.... If a pilot follows the level, flat horizon, no matter what the altitude, it means the horizon is always level, and flat. Planes would show a curving horizon. Not only a flat horizon. Why show the horizon is flat, if it's curved? If you believe a plane flies over 1800 feet of curvature on a 6 hour flight, while the instruments measure a level flight, it is actually not a level flight. It is a curved flight, over the curvature of Earth. Instruments measure the curve as level flight, but nobody knows it. Nobody learned it, ever before. Never will learn it, either. Sure.

Absolute RUBBISH!

It is easy to know that you are not a pilot. An "Artificial Horizon" indicator is not put in an airplane to represent the curvature of the Earth!
It is there to tell a pilot if he is flying straight and level, or climbing, or descending. Also shows banking turn in descent and banking turn in ascent.THAT is it's only purpose.
But just to show your argument is baseless:

An artificial horizon, (attitude indicator) with a curved horizon.
How will you explain this? "The designer of that instrument must have been a crazy round earth theorist"?

Any source for it?

I can't address it until I see a source, first of all.

Then I can actually address it.

That a horizon in planes sometimes have a curve?

posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:05 PM
I don't care what you argue, as long as you can support it with some sort of valid evidence.

NASA holds up airbrushed paintings which are supposed to show what 'Earth' looks like from 'space'. Since only NASA has flown into 'space', then Earth must look exactly like their airbrushed 'renditions' of Earth!!

That shows how North America grew twice normal size for a few years, back in the 80's, and shrunk to normal size later on!!

Because NASA's images of Earth show North America gained so much weight, and later found Jenny Craig's diet for planets, with fatty land mass problems! That's how Earth shed all the extra pounds off North America, in only 2-3 years!

And, the Earth has NEVER gained any weight since then! Not even a single pound of extra fat!!

I think any other planets can use this same diet, to control their weight. Since a lazy slob planet, like Earth, could lose all that flab, then it'd be a cinch, for healthy, fitter planets, like Mars or Jupiter!

Thanks to NASA's great images, and Jenny Craig's planetary diet program, we are happy to know that our planets will stay fit, and healthy, centuries ahead. Perhaps a planet might live longer, by losing a fatty land mass!!

posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 11:20 PM

originally posted by: oldcarpy

I find your lack of logic disturbing.

Have you been hankering to give us a demonstration, of your kind of logic?

posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 12:48 AM

Since only NASA has flown into 'space', then Earth must look exactly like their airbrushed 'renditions' of Earth!!

You believe that NASA is the only company/country in space?

posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 04:30 AM

That shows how North America grew twice normal size for a few years, back in the 80's, and shrunk to normal size later on!!
False.

posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 04:46 AM

For barking out loud, make a sextant and go on a road trip already.

posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 05:10 AM

originally posted by: Phage

That shows how North America grew twice normal size for a few years, back in the 80's, and shrunk to normal size later on!!
False.

You mean, it's false that North America shrunk to normal size?

Or, do you mean it's false that North America grew to twice the size?

Or, do you mean NASA's images of Earth are false?

What exactly do you mean, as 'false'?

posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 05:57 AM

What exactly do you mean, as 'false'?

Try working it out for yourself.

posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 03:50 PM

originally posted by: sapien82

you bang on about finding truth yet when offered to share truth you decline ,

says it all really ! (at this point we should all just embrace that which we so often deny at ATS , Ignorance )
because you should be ignored because its repetitive , you fail to acknowledge that which is already truth to support a wild theory , which you cant prove, and are "unwilling " to prove

Also I have to love flat earth people using aeroplanes to debunk spherical earth

why do you think gyroscopes were invented!

humans cant create anything which is perfect as there is no such thing as "perfect" its an abstract idealist concept of reality.

Thing is no one is saying science is infallible accept you!
we all agree (accept you) that science is a continual process of illumination to find the truth of the matter so to speak.
Scientists will continually search for the answers if the currently held theories are challenged and its always update and improved with more truth.

And yes we humans have created infallible items, Art , art never fails to inspire or provoke emotional reaction in humans
we have also created many things in our history which never fail , easy one for you the spirit level !
There are many many things we have made that never fail to provide truth!

the abacus !

a thermometer

that's just off the top of my head !

If I said no that , then id be a liar !

why would anyone use a fallible source of info to find truth ?
unless using it to contrast between two things, in which case using a fallible source of info to contrast with a truthful source of info then brings further truth through illumination!

So ask yourself your own question " why would you use a fallible source of info to find truth"
i.e. youtube videos of flat earth

Am not interested in sharing your version of 'truth', because it is full of holes.

All of your best truths, and infallible stuff, can be shredded in multiple ways each.
Yes: including locic gates.

But am not so much interested in an intellectual excercise that it would take to research, and write all of that out.
Only to have you still reject it.

You see: have gotten the feeling that no matter what, you will never open your mind to the possibility that you are engaging in beliefs, and calling them truths.

So many beliefs, and no way of telling what might be true, or not.
Not a crack of light yet. That could manifest as doubt or questionning.
Any chance, or are we done?

posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 06:09 PM

originally posted by: Nothin

So many beliefs, and no way of telling what might be true, or not.
Not a crack of light yet. That could manifest as doubt or questionning.

Well, at least the "shape of the Earth" question can be approached rather directly without worrying about "beliefs".

It's pretty simple: Take all of the observations a person can make (such as the motion of the Sun, the location of the Sun and stars in the sky relative to the location of the observe on Earth, the orientioan of the moon and constellations relative to the location of the observer, the parallax effect, the effects of gravity, etc), and then align those observations with possible shapes of the Earth.

There's no reason to complicate the matter by worrying about the philosophy of it all.

posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 04:28 AM

originally posted by: DJW001

What exactly do you mean, as 'false'?

Try working it out for yourself.

I worked it out as nonsense.

What'd you get?

posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 08:57 AM

From your sig: "Our Perceptions become our reality via the choices we make.". Are we not here in this thread trying to examine what these perceptions are, that lead to our supposed reality?

No.

no examining any perceptions.

This is a flat earth thread that has nothing to do with philosophical concepts or debating what reality is

We have agreed that what we are discussing are opinions.

Sorry but I have no clue what you are on about.

When did we agree that we are discussing opinions, this is a flat earth thread, whats being discussed is the bunk science and just flat out ignorant statements and claims in YouTube videos and the real science that anyone of us can do to work out it is a globe.

If our reality is based-upon our perceptions, and our perceptions and senses are fallible, Can we not see that our reality might also be flawed? "...I knew this would be your next play...." Thinking we 'know' what will happen next, is an ego-trap. At best: it was a guess.

So you are just blabbing on about whatever you can to derail or go off topic?

posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 09:02 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: DJW001

What exactly do you mean, as 'false'?

Try working it out for yourself.

I worked it out as nonsense.

What'd you get?

That's because you can't wrap your head around the fact that pictures frame things in ways that change their apparent size. You never could understand why photographs taken on the Moon look different than photographs taken on Earth. You need to learn about photography, geometry, and other simple life skills.

posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:04 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: 14377

You called me evasive then didn't answer my question .

Explain to me exactly how you debunked my pictures taken from the Concorde? Hmmmmm?

All you did was claim they "could" be Photoshop...

They MUST be photoshop. The proof is that the Earth is flat, so those photos can’t be real.

/ConfirmationBais

Yes: You agreeing with an extremely dishonest poster, in their once-again dishonest post,
for the simple reason that they mock the FE theory;
is an excellent example of confirmation bias.

Thank-you for modelling that for us.

posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:14 PM

It is false that there are images which show North America of different sizes.

edit on 9/9/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:22 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Nothin

So many beliefs, and no way of telling what might be true, or not.
Not a crack of light yet. That could manifest as doubt or questionning.

Well, at least the "shape of the Earth" question can be approached rather directly without worrying about "beliefs".

It's pretty simple: Take all of the observations a person can make (such as the motion of the Sun, the location of the Sun and stars in the sky relative to the location of the observe on Earth, the orientioan of the moon and constellations relative to the location of the observer, the parallax effect, the effects of gravity, etc), and then align those observations with possible shapes of the Earth.

There's no reason to complicate the matter by worrying about the philosophy of it all.

That almost sounds reasonable.

There is no aim to complicate matters, but to simplify.
And you have made a solid attempt here. Good post.

posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:39 PM

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

From your sig: "Our Perceptions become our reality via the choices we make.". Are we not here in this thread trying to examine what these perceptions are, that lead to our supposed reality?

No.

no examining any perceptions.

This is a flat earth thread that has nothing to do with philosophical concepts or debating what reality is

We have agreed that what we are discussing are opinions.

Sorry but I have no clue what you are on about.

When did we agree that we are discussing opinions, this is a flat earth thread, whats being discussed is the bunk science and just flat out ignorant statements and claims in YouTube videos and the real science that anyone of us can do to work out it is a globe.

If our reality is based-upon our perceptions, and our perceptions and senses are fallible, Can we not see that our reality might also be flawed? "...I knew this would be your next play...." Thinking we 'know' what will happen next, is an ego-trap. At best: it was a guess.

So you are just blabbing on about whatever you can to derail or go off topic?

It's page 37, and the thread has become wide.
You don't get to decide that it's not about something that you don't like,
that we have been debating for a few pages now.

Your scientism is being claimed as truth,
that's why we are discussing perceptions.

Your claim of knowlege, is disputed as opinion.
That's why we are discussing opinions/beliefs.

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 06:36 AM

so we may as well just discuss whether or not we are real then instead of #ing around with flat earth!

absolute bollocks , as soon as folk post facts which debunk flat earth you change the goal posts to philosophical debate on truth and reason in order to bring into question the objective reality and the foundations of scientific theory !
Funny though , when you use objective fact and reason , you find flat earth is a giant steaming pile of #e!

I have already offered to engage in a experiment which will either prove or disprove flat earth or spherical earth
and we can publish data in unison for all to see you know to find the truth you keep banging on about. Yet offered to you on a silver platter
you refuse, speaks #in volumes mate I would ask ye again to take me up on the wee experiment but its clear for all to see that yer a #ebag !

edit on 10-9-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

edit for auld scots , #ebag = someone who is afraid
edit on 10-9-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

You are just like that fossilinn eejit who keeps changing the goal posts in his falsify my claim that columnar basalt is man made thread !
You two dont happen to know each other do you ?

edit on 10-9-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 07:24 AM

It's page 37, and the thread has become wide. You don't get to decide that it's not about something that you don't like, that we have been debating for a few pages now.

Seriously?

I am stupid just for feeding you even more.

I never said I don't like the idea about perceptions and illusions and maybe how a lot of reality is just an illusion our perception is programmed to see.

Its become wide because posters try derailing like bringing up whats in a posters signature.

Flat earth threads are always about a physical flat earth with No one allowed to Go to Antarctica and never about anything metaphysical or philosophical which would be more intellectually stimulating instead of this comedy and trolling threads that pop up that now seems once a month.

Your scientism is being claimed as truth, that's why we are discussing perceptions.

My scientism?

Your blindness has speaking nonsense, I never used any science to explain anything in flat earth threads.

I have never tried to explain anything in flat earth threads.

Your claim of knowlege, is disputed as opinion.

I never claimed any knowledge.

You asked a question about how is accepting or agreeing with NASA not a belief.

I answered with simple logic explaining how a belief can have good reason but at the same doesn't need it, anyone can believe in anything, with or without reason.

Accepting or agreeing usually has a logic behind it, like if NASA scientists make a claim anyone agreeing or accepting usually has used their brain and explored the claim and verified it to agree or accept.

Believing NASA scientists is what many may do, belief in claims by those more knowledgeable can have its benefits but can also allows those less knowledgeable to be manipulated.

That's why we are discussing opinions/beliefs.

I guess the things you don't understand you just have to believe and have an opinion about it while others can understand and are discussing the beliefs others hold that earth is flat or are simply feeding trolls with things that are verifiable.

edit on 10-9-2018 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

14