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: 45
14
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 10:54 PM

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon

Curvature has been accounted for more times then anyone can count in this and many other threads...

Just because you're too thick to realise it does not make it any less "accounted for"

And your theories on level flight making the curvature not accounted for are pure bullsh!t… and I think you know it

Instruments are not bs, I think you know that.

So can you please, please expand on the 5 feet per minute drop, I really want to understand how you plot a line wether straight or curved without another vector

The constant descent - say 5 fpm - along with an appropriate flight path vector. Same as any other descent is plotted along a FPV.

This 5 fpm descent is NOT simply 'adjusted for during a flight'. First of all, if curvature DOES exist, then the constant descent rate would be automatically calculated for, BEFORE the flight begins. It would also be implemented into the flight plan, and integrated as part of the whole flight path - because it is a KNOWN value of the flight, on each and every flight, at the time of those flights.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Curvature is (supposed to have) standard values, and would apply towards standard flight path calculations.

The 5 fpm value is my rough estimation of a 757, at 528 mph cruising speed, flying over curvature of 8 inches/mile.

It may seem insignificant, but it would be around 1800 feet of curvature, for a 6 hour flight.

The plane would be flying 1800 feet higher altitude than it was only 6 hours earlier, if curvature existed. Because no instruments account for curvature, no flight path has constant descent rate to MATCH any curvature, and no pilot even KNOWS, or is TAUGHT, to account for curvature in flights. They don't even know the average curvature of Earth! They only fly over it every day, thousands of times a day, but it's no big deal, who needs to know that?!?

I'll say it again - if any of you believe that every instrument on planes is measuring something wrong, or needs to be interpreted as something else, rather than what it ACTUALLY INDICATES ......support what you believe, with valid, credible sources.

I'm backing my argument with the actual instruments, and their actual readings. It's called valid evidence.

So far, your side ignores the evidence, calls it 'bs', and invents something that doesn't exist, except in their own minds.

You claim you haven't seen any evidence of the flat earth. THIS is valid evidence of our flat earth. Beyond any doubt, it validates my argument.

If you want to ignore it, and go on talking about how it's been calculated by ancient Greeks, there's nothing I can say, or show you, that will ever convince you to look at the reality.

posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 11:40 PM

The trouble is YOU flatties don't think or understand scale, the Earth is NOT perfectly smooth in curvature over the land masses because of things like valleys moutain ranges etc.

Plenty of evidence of curvature the problem is basic maths, physics, scale etc is like magic to flatties.

Ships dissappearing bottom up over the curve, Moon the other way up on the opposite hemisphere etc etc hundreds of pieces of evide of curve NONE for the flat theory even flatties can't agree on a model that works or on sizes and distances for the Moon, Sun or Stars.

posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 11:52 PM

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Akragon

I find "morons" is more appropriate for flat earthers actually...

Theres only so many words that work with such a ridiculous belief

What if any of your beliefs were ridiculous?
What would that make you?

Someone who understands the world isn't flat?

How can you be sure that you are not confusing your beliefs, with supposed knowledge?

Simply because we've known the earth's shape for millenia… basic proven physics crumble on a flat earth

And im not a moron lol

Are you the same 'we', that has supposedly known things for millennia, or are you simply trusting what you have been instructed to believe?

We are the we who know how to verify things experimentally. Stop watching YouTube videos and get out in the world and experience reality.

What is this ..."...we..."...?

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 12:16 AM
Please tell me you are not serious. Do you understand how planes fly? They rely on something called lift. If i have a wing and i move air faster over the tip of the wing this creates lower pressure above the wing then below it. This makes the plane rise as long as you maintain speed to allow a high pressure area to develop under the wing. As long as lift cancels out the pull of gravity a plane will fly.

Gravity increases air density the closer we get to sea level. So gravity creates different densities in air this is why if you try to climb certain mountains you need to bring air with you. The air becomes so thin you will pass out. Now you keep claiming that adjustments need to be made if the earth was round. You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried.

The reason no adjustment is needed is because lift counteracts gravity. To maintain level flight a plane just needs to maintain speed and the plane will automatically stay at the same air density. No adjustment is neccessary unless you want to either increase or decrease altitude then you alter the speed of the aircraft. Maintaining a speed the aircraft will always follow the earths curve.

So why does this occur automatically simple air density is determined by how high above sea level you are and the temprature of the air. There is no way for a plane to know if its going higher or lower other than using air density. So you expect instruments to show you something they were not designed to do. The only way you could see this drop you mention is by satellite. You could have satellites at fixed points we call it gps. They could show how a plane constantly follows the earths curve. But that would still be maintaining an altitude. And guess what the pilot wouldn't have to do a thing.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 12:22 AM

Please tell me you are not serious. Do you understand how planes fly? They rely on something called lift. If i have a wing and i move air faster over the tip of the wing this creates lower pressure above the wing then below it.

No man it ain't gonna work... I've been raggin on this guy, trying to get him to at least look up "lift"...

The same guy that says sparrows can fly so gravity doesn't exist...

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 12:30 AM

originally posted by: JameSimon

originally posted by: Nothin
So you refuse to answer the questions again?
If he 3D glasses only appears idiotic to you: perhaps you could interpret the intention, rather than only making it personal?
You could not have replied in the third person, as an observer?

So you rely on third party data to interpret your reality, and you totally trust it?

Your kind of experiments don't interest me, for various reasons.
EX: Other than colorblindness, do you completely trust all of your observations as truth?
Do you believe that because something can be caused to happen 3 times, that is therefore truth?
Do you believe in 3rd party data and information as truth?
Do you believe that your own reasoning is truth?

How can they be truth, if they are all prone to occasional error?

Is your self-declared authority not only a delusional belief?
Would that not be ignorance?
Would that not be the denier, being denied?

What questions? You keep saying I refuse to answer but I don't see a question, I see you questioning my senses and then, when convenient, stating that people should trust them.

1. No. This is why I require observational data and calculation. Math doesn't deceive me, my eyes may.
2. If something causes the same reaction 3 times it's very likely it will cause the same a 4th one. It's not 100% likely and will never be.
3. No, I believe in third party data that matches observational data and is verified by MULTIPLE third parties. THe more the merrier. And even then, there is an element of uncertainty, even when a theory is pretty bulletproof.
4. No, my own reasoning has nothing to do with maths and observational data.
5. Everything is prone to falsification. Science doesn't consider anything as 100% truth and fact, and doing so would be going against the scientific method. My car is working perfectly, and this statement is true. It can fail tomorrow. This statement stops being true. I was a Iying at any step?
6. I have no authority, my opinion is as valid as yours. The problem is that my opinion on this particular subject is based off observational data (please learn what observational stands for) and yours isn't. I don't care if you believe in the flat earth of cilindrical pancake world, just don't say you have proof. You haven't.
7. Ignorance is deflecting perfectly valid scientific reasoning to questions someone's observational data because part of it relies on their senses.
8. I really don't understand the last question.

Please stop trying to pull a straw man and address people's questions. Your questions are pretty valid, but you're just deflecting at this stage.

The questions referred-to, for 3 posts now. Are you trying to confuse things so that they go-away?

Don't recall posting here those opposing views about trusting our senses. Please post the proof here, or retract your accusation.

1. Perhaps math may not deceive you, but might not your observation and faith in it not?
2. Great! You have acknowledged that science is not 100% correct: is it not our best guess, or such?

3.Great! So some third-party data, may be more likely closer to being right, than others, and we recognize the always
present uncertainty.
4. Do we not use some sort of reasoning to interpret math/science, and data?
Does not this reasoning, give meaning/sense to it? Maybe sometimes not though?

5. It's not about lying, which is purposeful deception. It's about saying things that are untrue, in a statement that implies
truth. Perhaps inadvertently, or unconsciously? Occasional errors abound, no?
6. Good that you have retracted your previous affirmation of authority. You have stepped-out of a delusional belief. Good!
Which opinion? What proof?

7. The data is what it is: a data set. Its it not our interpretations that may vary?
What about when observational data is shared, or transferred? Is there not a chance for corruption of the data-set?
8. It was a reference to this site's motto, those that wave it about, and the possibility that they don't recognize their own
ignorance.

Which questions are not being answered by me?
What if it's not deflection?

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 05:12 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr
Please tell me you are not serious. Do you understand how planes fly? They rely on something called lift. If i have a wing and i move air faster over the tip of the wing this creates lower pressure above the wing then below it. This makes the plane rise as long as you maintain speed to allow a high pressure area to develop under the wing. As long as lift cancels out the pull of gravity a plane will fly.

Gravity increases air density the closer we get to sea level. So gravity creates different densities in air this is why if you try to climb certain mountains you need to bring air with you. The air becomes so thin you will pass out. Now you keep claiming that adjustments need to be made if the earth was round. You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried.

The reason no adjustment is needed is because lift counteracts gravity. To maintain level flight a plane just needs to maintain speed and the plane will automatically stay at the same air density. No adjustment is neccessary unless you want to either increase or decrease altitude then you alter the speed of the aircraft. Maintaining a speed the aircraft will always follow the earths curve.

So why does this occur automatically simple air density is determined by how high above sea level you are and the temprature of the air. There is no way for a plane to know if its going higher or lower other than using air density. So you expect instruments to show you something they were not designed to do. The only way you could see this drop you mention is by satellite. You could have satellites at fixed points we call it gps. They could show how a plane constantly follows the earths curve. But that would still be maintaining an altitude. And guess what the pilot wouldn't have to do a thing.

Gravity doesn't exist. No force pulls objects to Earth's surface. If a force is 'pulling' objects downward to the surface of Earth, it is a directional force, which acts on all objects above Earth's surface, by 'pulling' the objects directly downward.... correct?

Now, if this force did not exist, objects would not be 'pulled' down to Earth's surface, right? All objects, and people, would float aimlessly, above Earth - without gravity, to 'pull' us all down to Earth. That's what you would have me believe, right?

We would float above Earth without gravity. It would be '0 g'.

Which confirms that there must be a great force, pulling us down to Earth.

There is a force which compares to how gravity would 'pull' objects toward it -

It is magnetic force.

Magnetic force 'pulls' objects with magnetic properties towards a powerful magnet. Same way gravity 'pulls' objects downward to the Earth's surface.... yes?

First, we have a powerful magnet, which 'pulls' an object with magnetic properties towards that magnet.....ever closer, and closer, pulling it with ever greater 'pulling' force...until the object flies through the air, and clings to the power ful magnet.

Which shows that the strength of a force depends on the distance from the object it pulls toward it. The closer the object, the greater it is 'pulled' by that force, the further away, the less it is pulled' by it.

Gravity would somehow apply the exact same force, on all objects, whether near, or very far away. This indicates there is no force acting on the objects. All real forces are strongest at, or nearby, the source of that force, and weakest when far from the source of that force.

Second point - a pulling force is directional. If we hold the object near the magnetic force, the pull is very strong. We feel the pulling force on the object we are holding near the magnet. It requires greater force for us to pull the object away from the source. This is called resistance. The further we pull the object away from the magnet, the less resistance we feel from the force. It is less and less force, with greater distance, just like we found before.

Gravity does not oppose any force applies against it, however. A bird flies without resistance from the force 'pulling it down to Earth's surface'. None.

Once again, this shows there is NO force pulling objects downward to Earth's surface. It offers no resistance to an opposing force, which is not possible for a real, directional, 'pulling' force.

Gravity is a force of sheer fantasy.

Now, to level flight...

Air pressure, or air density, is measured by the instruments on a plane, to achieve level flight.

There is one, very distinct feature, within the atmosphere, we know from paper airplanes, to actual aircraft, that allows for level flight. Atmospheric pressure flows along a level plane.

The VSI measures air pressure for either a descent, or an ascent, or level flight. The atmospheric pressure is optimal at a level trajectory. A level flight path is flown within the atmosphere, as the pressure flows level.

Any deviation from level flight is not flowing with optimal pressure, which is level, in 'stacked layers', called 'pressure gradients', all within the atmosphere.

Nothing to do with Earth's surface, or some non-existent 'pulling' force, which doesn't even resist an opposing force...like a little bird!

Level flight is, indeed, level. The plane flies level, within the atmosphere, because the pressure, which flows level within the atmosphere, indicates an object, or plane, flown through the atmosphere as level, as optimal, as least resistant within atmospheric pressure.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 05:48 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: dragonridr
Please tell me you are not serious. Do you understand how planes fly? They rely on something called lift. If i have a wing and i move air faster over the tip of the wing this creates lower pressure above the wing then below it. This makes the plane rise as long as you maintain speed to allow a high pressure area to develop under the wing. As long as lift cancels out the pull of gravity a plane will fly.

Gravity increases air density the closer we get to sea level. So gravity creates different densities in air this is why if you try to climb certain mountains you need to bring air with you. The air becomes so thin you will pass out. Now you keep claiming that adjustments need to be made if the earth was round. You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried.

The reason no adjustment is needed is because lift counteracts gravity. To maintain level flight a plane just needs to maintain speed and the plane will automatically stay at the same air density. No adjustment is neccessary unless you want to either increase or decrease altitude then you alter the speed of the aircraft. Maintaining a speed the aircraft will always follow the earths curve.

So why does this occur automatically simple air density is determined by how high above sea level you are and the temprature of the air. There is no way for a plane to know if its going higher or lower other than using air density. So you expect instruments to show you something they were not designed to do. The only way you could see this drop you mention is by satellite. You could have satellites at fixed points we call it gps. They could show how a plane constantly follows the earths curve. But that would still be maintaining an altitude. And guess what the pilot wouldn't have to do a thing.

Gravity doesn't exist. No force pulls objects to Earth's surface. If a force is 'pulling' objects downward to the surface of Earth, it is a directional force, which acts on all objects above Earth's surface, by 'pulling' the objects directly downward.... correct?

Now, if this force did not exist, objects would not be 'pulled' down to Earth's surface, right? All objects, and people, would float aimlessly, above Earth - without gravity, to 'pull' us all down to Earth. That's what you would have me believe, right?

We would float above Earth without gravity. It would be '0 g'.

Which confirms that there must be a great force, pulling us down to Earth.

There is a force which compares to how gravity would 'pull' objects toward it -

It is magnetic force.

Magnetic force 'pulls' objects with magnetic properties towards a powerful magnet. Same way gravity 'pulls' objects downward to the Earth's surface.... yes?

First, we have a powerful magnet, which 'pulls' an object with magnetic properties towards that magnet.....ever closer, and closer, pulling it with ever greater 'pulling' force...until the object flies through the air, and clings to the power ful magnet.

Which shows that the strength of a force depends on the distance from the object it pulls toward it. The closer the object, the greater it is 'pulled' by that force, the further away, the less it is pulled' by it.

Gravity would somehow apply the exact same force, on all objects, whether near, or very far away. This indicates there is no force acting on the objects. All real forces are strongest at, or nearby, the source of that force, and weakest when far from the source of that force.

Second point - a pulling force is directional. If we hold the object near the magnetic force, the pull is very strong. We feel the pulling force on the object we are holding near the magnet. It requires greater force for us to pull the object away from the source. This is called resistance. The further we pull the object away from the magnet, the less resistance we feel from the force. It is less and less force, with greater distance, just like we found before.

Gravity does not oppose any force applies against it, however. A bird flies without resistance from the force 'pulling it down to Earth's surface'. None.

Once again, this shows there is NO force pulling objects downward to Earth's surface. It offers no resistance to an opposing force, which is not possible for a real, directional, 'pulling' force.

Gravity is a force of sheer fantasy.

Now, to level flight...

Air pressure, or air density, is measured by the instruments on a plane, to achieve level flight.

There is one, very distinct feature, within the atmosphere, we know from paper airplanes, to actual aircraft, that allows for level flight. Atmospheric pressure flows along a level plane.

The VSI measures air pressure for either a descent, or an ascent, or level flight. The atmospheric pressure is optimal at a level trajectory. A level flight path is flown within the atmosphere, as the pressure flows level.

Any deviation from level flight is not flowing with optimal pressure, which is level, in 'stacked layers', called 'pressure gradients', all within the atmosphere.

Nothing to do with Earth's surface, or some non-existent 'pulling' force, which doesn't even resist an opposing force...like a little bird!

Level flight is, indeed, level. The plane flies level, within the atmosphere, because the pressure, which flows level within the atmosphere, indicates an object, or plane, flown through the atmosphere as level, as optimal, as least resistant within atmospheric pressure.

Thank you for providing me with a great laugh this morning. The above is pure nonsense but at least you are entertaining us all with said nonsense.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 05:53 AM

i believe that we has reached the stage - where actually discussing the veracity of turbos claims - or attempting to educate it - has passed

the only thing remaining is - does turbo actually believe what it types ?

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 06:10 AM

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

i believe that we has reached the stage - where actually discussing the veracity of turbos claims - or attempting to educate it - has passed

the only thing remaining is - does turbo actually believe what it types ?

A good question. I still think not, and that he's trolling us. The kind of utter ignorance of basic science that Turbo spouts is beyond belief, so therefore Turbo has to be trolling us.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 06:20 AM
I believe Earth is flat. I don't subscribe to the view of "planets" either.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:14 AM

Our side ignores evidence and calls bs when presented

I shown you a picture a few pages back and guess what you did

You ignored it, despite it clearly showing a curve and you then called bs, perhaps if you were not so dismissive of what you can actually see we could get somewhere

But you choose to ignore what is literally in front of your eyes

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:21 AM

originally posted by: Nathan-D
I believe Earth is flat. I don't subscribe to the view of "planets" either.

What are your views on the Galaxy, gravity, what the Moon is made of and the flying spaghetti monster then?
edit on 22-9-2018 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo due to poor grammar

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:42 AM
Oh and by the way Turbo, I'd like your thoughts on the issue of the equinox on a pancake Earth.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:21 AM

Ok wow now your denying gravity exists? Well there is no point in further discussion because that is incredibly easy to prove on your own. My suggestion go to a very tall building and jump. I'm betting your belief in gravity would return the moment you look down.

Well there is no point arguing with someone that can't even accept the basics of reality. Good luck i have a feeling not being able to grasp the basics of reality its just a matter of time before you kill yourself. I guess someone has to win those darwin awards.

edit on 9/22/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:48 AM

on the autummnal and vernal equinox - daylight and night time - as viewed from the true north pole - are both exactl;;ly 12 hours .

as the equator is the same distance from the north pole - at all points of longitude - so why is the sun observed to rise and set ??

flat earth proponents runaway - or blabber incoherently at this point

ETA : - the question " so why is the sun observed to rise and set ?? " should be caveated " if the flat earth claim is true ]

just to clarify before some sophist idiot mouths off
edit on 22-9-2018 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:50 AM

can you explain coherently - the multiple observations that demonstrate the earth cannot be flat

as i has just raised it again - north pole sunlight - lets start with that

or latitude and longitude

or even you pick one

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 11:06 AM

Thank you I have been trying to infer about speed and appreciate it being explained properly

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 11:45 PM

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

Our side ignores evidence and calls bs when presented

I shown you a picture a few pages back and guess what you did

You ignored it, despite it clearly showing a curve and you then called bs, perhaps if you were not so dismissive of what you can actually see we could get somewhere

But you choose to ignore what is literally in front of your eyes

Thanks for a mature reply, it's refreshing to see.

There are images from planes that show both 'curved' and 'flat' horizons. Your image shows a 'curved' horizon.

We know they cannot both be correct. We can only have either a 'curved' horizon, or a 'flat' horizon, at a given altitude.

So which is the actual horizon?

That's the problem with using only images to support an argument - they can show something that isn't valid, and also show something that is valid.

I can show you images of the horizon which are perfectly flat, straight, and level. You can show me images of the 'curved' horizon. One is correct, one is false. Which one is correct? Can we prove which one is correct?

That's the problem with conflicting images, from different sources. It's impossible to validate which image is correct, which is not.

If I show you an image of the flat horizon, at the same altitude, and say 'Do you choose to ignore what is literally in front of your eyes?'.....which I can show you, if you wish - what would you think about it? Would you say it is not correct, because your image shows what IS correct? Or would you understand that both images are impossible to verify?

The main reason I didn't address your image is because I've found, from past experience, that it will not help us to resolve the issue. I should have explained this to you at the time, so I apologize for not doing so earlier.

No matter how much we may have a disagreement on such issues, it should remain open, and honest, and respectful to each one's opinions. You seem to be honest, and above board, from what I've seen here.

posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 02:56 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr

Ok wow now your denying gravity exists? Well there is no point in further discussion because that is incredibly easy to prove on your own. My suggestion go to a very tall building and jump. I'm betting your belief in gravity would return the moment you look down.

Well there is no point arguing with someone that can't even accept the basics of reality. Good luck i have a feeling not being able to grasp the basics of reality its just a matter of time before you kill yourself. I guess someone has to win those darwin awards.

I hope you read what follows....

Gravity - the force you believe has been proven, and established, and 100% factual - is nothing but a myth.

You, and others, have taken it as a fact. I understand why. This was partially my own experience at the time I was in school. I was told in elementary school that humans were once apes, millions of years ago. They had an 'evolutionary chart' on the classroom wall, which showed how we 'progressed' from microbes, to sea organisms, to lizards, to little monkeys, to apes, to cave men, and finally, into humans.

Nobody told me it was complete bs, which it is. They were teaching it to us in frickin' Grade 2!! At that age, a child is very impressionable to what is told. Visual impressions are most important to a young child. That's why I remember that 'evolutionary chart' so vividly, decades later.

Gravity is the same thing. You speak of gravity like it is an established fact.

Your argument goes - 'How can you not believe gravity exists? Maybe if you jumped off the top floor of a 30-story building, you would understand that gravity does exist!'

Falling to Earth is your 'proof' that gravity exists, in essence.

If objects are 'pulled' to Earth, why do we always say objects 'fall' to Earth?

Someone jumped off a 10 story building..... Did he FALL to the surface below? Or was he PULLED DOWN to the surface below? If you believe gravity exists, you should believe he was PULLED DOWN to the surface below, right?

So why do you think nobody ever says the man jumped off the building, and was PULLED DOWN to the surface?

Do you think objects are 'pulled' to Earth, yet, for absolutely no reason at all, we have always said that objects are 'falling' to Earth?

Isn't it strange that a force which 'pulls' all objects towards it, is always described as a 'fall'?

Nobody is ever said to have been 'pulled down' to Earth, after jumping off of a building. They always 'fall' to Earth.

It's not because Webster's dictionary made a mistake, or scientists confused a 'pull' with a 'fall', or.that 'we all know' it refers to the same thing, no need to revise it at this point...

'Pulling' is felt. When we hold a metallic object, we can feel when it is being 'pulled' towards a magnet. When we leave a house, and snag our coat in the door, we are 'pulled' backwards. The same as a 'push' is felt.

What do you feel when you drop towards the ground? Do you feel something 'pulling' you down, towards the ground? Not at all.

If it was called a 'pull', and we are not feeling 'pulled' to the ground', it would be clearly understood there is no force 'pulling' us down. When it is called a 'fall', it is not questioned. The force 'pulls' us down, yet we 'fall' to Earth. Nothing wrong, folks, move along!

The reality is that a force will offer resistance to any opposing force(s). A pulling force, like a magnet, offers resistance to anything going against the pull of that magnet. Same as a force pulling objects down to Earth would offer resistance to anything going against it.

Gravity is a complete fantasy. It was meant to fool the world, and it still does, for the most part.

top topics

14