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.

 

Flat earth theory?

page: 77
14
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

These people still can't even explain a sunset without the sun having to be "in on it" I wouldn't hold my breath, they're exceptionally stupid people.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Nobody seems to have any examples of it, they all mumble about how it's not very accurate, that it takes gravity into account (red flag!), that it is mainly useful for 'satellites' (another red flag!), and that's about it. When it talks about non-existent forces like 'gravity', that's the same garbage excuse for everything else.


Oh yes. You think that gravity, satellites etc are fake. Red flag for me!



Forget the Panama Canal, which is merely 40 miles long, without any curvature accounted for by surveyors!


Why would anyone take curvature into account when digging a canal?




I've proven you wrong. No curvature is accounted for by surveyors, as these examples prove beyond a doubt.


No, you haven't.

Forgotten about the Humber Bridge?




Don't stay in denial, it's simply about time you faced up to the reality here.


That's pretty rich from someone that believes the Earth is flat, gravity does not exist and satellites are fake.

As others have suggested, you can conduct your own experiment with gravity by jumping off a tall building. The taller the better for scientific certainty about the result.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Ignorance is quite contagious, it appears.xt


Fortunately no one seems to have been contaminated by you - perhaps you are well beyond the contagious stage?



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

LHC

Large Hadron Collider


Today, there are a number of LHC-assisting programs either directly or indirectly competing for funding and support. The International Linear Collider (ILC), for example, is envisioned as a slightly longer accelerator, with a 30-km tunnel that would bend slightly to accommodate the curvature of the Earth



Also every bridge more than 1 mile long will account for curvature !


edit on 13-3-2019 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: turbonium1




Ignorance is quite contagious, it appears.xt


Fortunately no one seems to have been contaminated by you - perhaps you are well beyond the contagious stage?


I hop flat earth virus is like ebola and is fast acting and kills the host with rapid onset !



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

What about it?

There is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), talk of a Very Large Hadron Collider (VLHC) but I am waiting for the #ing Massive Hadron Collider - FMHC.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Oh, I see. But, I bet our friend will just say that the LHC is fake. You know, like gravity, satellites etc.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Somethingsamiss


Just look up Richie from Boston on youtube he will explain it all to you lol.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

sorry I forgot to add that part in !

Aye it account for earth curvature otherwise the particles wouldn't smash together in perfect alignment !

they'd be off by a huge amount 8 inch per mile

Seen this article is really cool

the considerations for earth curvature and engineering of the LHC
tunnel talk



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Curvature not allowed for in construction of railways. The London and North Western Railway between London and Liverpool forms a line of 180 miles. The highest point, midway, as at Birmingham station, which is 240 feet above the level of the sea at London and Liverpool. On a globe the chord of the arc between London and Liverpool would be at Birmingham 5,400 feet above sea level at London and Liverpool added to which the actual height of the station between of 240 feet and we have 5,640 ft. Not one inch was allowed for.


Now look here. When you are building a railway or a road, no matter how long, it is built on the ground. On the ground. It follows the Earths curvature and any contours up or down because it is on the ground.

So, no need to account for curvature because it is built on the ground. Now, do you see how flawed and silly your argument is?

No answer for the Humber Bridge, eh?



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

aye also rail track sections dont extend over a mile long , so no need to account for curvature !

it only works on structures which extend over a mile in length , obviously they dont listen to that part!

How do they explain the writings of archimedes and Vitruvius on the construction of Roman Aqueducts?
pre digital age hoaxing and NASA



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

You could always show it to them. But they would probably just colour it in with crayons.



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: turbonium1

hardly ignorance if it was a joke , you dont have to keep that flat earth measuring stick up your ass all the time !

I am well aware of what you meant, I was just using the definition of the word to make a play on the word
Around to poke fun at the flat earth.



Nice try. It's obvious that you weren't aware of the definition, and got caught. Saying it was a 'joke' afterwards doesn't cover up for your error. It was also supported by others, who made the same mistake as you, and never had a clue about it being wrong.

So let's move along...



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for anyone to address the issue of planes, which have instruments on board, measuring for a flat Earth, and that's beyond debate.

That's why none of you will ever try to debate it, obviously.



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

That has been cleared up by an actual pilot a few times... along with all your other nonsense

So lets move along... this is the LOL bin ye know




posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

That has been cleared up by an actual pilot a few times... along with all your other nonsense

So lets move along... this is the LOL bin ye know



You mean the pilot who left the forum, after I told him the problem wasn't addressed?

Sure, I remember this pilot, who - umm - 'cleared up' the matter!



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Do you remember the argument of said pilot?

He claimed that a plane flies within pressure gradients, and these gradients align with Earth's curvature, which makes a plane move along with Earth's curvature, during flight.

But I then told the pilot that - even assuming gradients DO curve above Earth, to match its curvature, that wouldn't explain it..

Why? Because gradients are hundreds, or thousands, of feet - each. A plane flies within one, single gradient, for many miles, and never would go near to another gradient, so how could the plane adjust for curvature, being in the same gradient?

I never got an answer from the pilot. He left the forum and never came back again.


So tell me about the pilot, now...



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Because altitude only occurs in discrete increments. Mountains are only hundreds or thousands of feet high. No mountain is 1,150 feet high.

edit on 3/16/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Because altitude only occurs in discrete increments. Mountains are only hundreds or thousands of feet high. No mountain is 1,150 feet high.


How is it relevant to the issue?

Cruising altitude is set, the plane flies at altitude. Adjustments are made during flight. So?

Mountains have nothing to do with it. Altitude settings account for any mountains, before flights. So?


It's not relevant to the issue, whatsoever. Are you aware of that?



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Again - a plane reaches 35,000 feet cruising altitude, for example.

The plane flies level, for 6 hours, at cruising altitude.

If Earth had curvature, the plane would be 1800 feet higher than the altitude measured on board the plane.

But the plane is at correct altitude, as it then lands down to Earth.


No curvature to account for, then.


Do you get the point here?




top topics



 
14
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join