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: 81
14
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Nice rant of blatant falsehoods. Now answer to:

If the earth is flat, why are there two different polar stars? Polaris for the northern hemisphere, and Sigma Octantis for the Southern Hemisphere?

The question was, “why does the GPS system need at lest 24 satellites when 3 points for triangulation should work on a flat earth?”



Still waiting for a valid answer to why airplanes don't account for curvature on any flights. By that, I mean actual evidence, not magical forces that make planes fly over non-existent curvature.

As to YOUR questions...

There is only the northern star, Polaris. There is no southern star, akin to Polaris...

At magnitude +5.42, Sigma Octantis is barely visible to the naked eye, making it unusable for navigation, especially by comparison with the much brighter and more easily visible Polaris.[14] Because of this, the constellation Crux is often preferred for determining the position of the South Celestial Pole.[15] Once Sigma Octantis' approximate position has been determined, either by the major stars in Octans or using the Southern Cross method, it can be positively verified using an asterism: Sigma, Chi, Tau, and Upsilon Octantis are all stars of around magnitude 5.6, and form the distinctive shape of a trapezoid.

en.wikipedia.org...


The so-called 'southern star' is "barely visible", and has only an "approximate position". It is hardly comparable to Polaris, at best.


As to your second question, it makes no sense. There are no satellites, let alone 24 of them needed for GPS, which is also a fantasy.

Here's a video you need to look at...

www.youtube.com...

If satellites exist, then why does the pilot have to set his flight beforehand, when satellites would know the plane's location at all times?


Why do you lose reception ANYWHERE, on ANY device, if satellites exist overhead? Satellites are supposed to be circling high above the Earth, aren't they? If so, then we should always get a signal, no matter where we are on the surface, right?

LORAN, which is long range radio navigation, was developed in the 1940's - well before any so-called 'satellites' existed. That's something you aren't aware of, either. It had a range of up to 1500 miles...

en.wikipedia.org...


Radar existed well before anybody heard of 'satellites', either.

Add fibre-optic technology, which also improved communications, and drones, which are also current tech, among other things, and you can see there is no need for 'satellites' to travel over the Earth.


It's easy to research this subject, and I suggest you start, instead of believing NASA, like a noob.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
our turbo troll has clearly vacated to n alternate " reality " where its delusions are true

there has not been any coherent response in over 10 pages

just the repetition of its babble

can staff just close the thread - for the sanity of all concerned

it has truely run its course



Why don't you leave the thread, if all you want is to make personal attacks, on an issue you supposedly think is not relevant?

This forum discusses alien abductions, and bigfoot, and everything else under the Sun, but you are so concerned about the shape of the Earth, you plead for the mods to close this thread??

I suppose you think alien abductions are okay, but to ever doubt that the Earth is a ball, flying through space, with every star in place, while a magic force holds us, the atmosphere, and the oceans, to that ball, is not up for discussion, because it's all true!!!!




Thanks for the advice, genius.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: turbonium1

So how do you explain meteors?


How about proving that meteors exist first?

Show me where the meteor debris exists, immediately after one of them is shown hitting the Earth, because I've yet to see any such debris in the soil.

These 'meteors' should leave a ton of debris in the region they hit the Earth's surface, right?

Have you seen a ton of debris, or not?



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: turbonium1

right so if gravity is non existent what is flat earth's alternative to gravity ?



The alternative is right in front of you - an object has more mass and density than air, so the object will fall through air, until it contacts a denser surface, like the Earth's surface, or the floor of a building.

If there was a force pulling objects to the Earth's surface, why would we be able to stay 35 floors above the Earth, in a building? Wouldn't the force pull us to the ground? Or wouldn't the force offer resistance to something 35 floors above the Earth's surface?

You believe there must be a 'force' that pulls things to Earth's surface, and nothing else can explain why objects are on Earth, other than a 'force' within Earth, pulling objects down to the surface. Why do you believe there must be a 'force' at all? Because you believe Earth is a ball, flying aimlessly through space, and only a 'force' would explain how objects are holding to the surface of a flying ball in space, and nothing but a 'force' could explain this phenomenon....right?


Gravity was invented to explain everything that is not really true, not sensed, not seen, not logical, and cannot be proven, in any way.

A bird flies above Earth without any resistance from the most powerful, omnipotent force in the universe, which is 'pulling' all objects to the Earth's surface?? Are you serious? That's a complete joke!]

Would a real force, pulling all objects to the Earth, holding the atmosphere in place to the Earth, holding, and CURVING, all oceans to the Earth, and grasping a moon 1/4 million miles from Earth, be utterly incapable of resisting a tiny insect, or bird, from flying above the Earth's surface?? It seems this greatest, most powerful force holds nothing, resists nothing, but it somehow can hold every object, except insects or birds, to the Earth!!


If you had a magnet, how would you prove it can pull metallic objects towards it? What if you put a metallic object on top of your 'magnet', and said 'look, the metallic object was 'pulled' by a force within the magnet, and that's why the metallic object is on this magnet!'

Someone said 'I think you put the object on top of this 'magnet', it was not 'pulled' by the magnet!'

Then, you could prove the magnet forced the object on top of it, by moving the metallic object away from the magnet. Right?

Because the magnet would RESIST you pulling the metallic object away from it.


That is how you prove there is a force within the magnet. It resists an opposing force.


Forces will always be opposed by other forces, in all cases.

That is how we know a force exists, in the first place. No exceptions.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Every force has to be work with the same physical laws. You cannot make an exception to those laws, with 'gravity'.

A force that 'pulls' objects toward it, must offer resistance to forces opposing that pull. A magnet, for example, shows resistance to a force opposing the pull.

How would a force not show resistance to an opposing force? Such a force does not, cannot, exist.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   
How can actual forces not resist opposing forces? It's absurd, to claim such a force exists.

Physical laws apply to all forces, no exceptions.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Why do conspiracists have short memories....

From turbo...


Still waiting for a valid answer to why airplanes don't account for curvature on any flights


Was answered in several posts by different. Below was my post.



originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Are you just ignorant or f’d up.



Ships navigated the Earth centuries ago, nobody needed 'satellites'!



If the earth is flat, why is polars not visible from the Southern Hemisphere?



The North Star: Polaris
By Joe Rao May 16, 2017 Science & Astronomy

www.space.com...

When you head south, the star drops lower and ultimately disappears once you cross the equator and head into the Southern Hemisphere.


The real question is how did “Ships navigated the Earth centuries ago in the Southern Hemisphere without Polaris?”

Is it false the North Star is not visible in the Southern Hemisphere?



THE EXTENSIVE BEGINNERS GUIDE TO NAVIGATING BY THE STARS

www.space.com...

In the northern hemisphere, Polaris is significant for finding True North. Once you cross the equator, you will no longer be able to see the North Star. The southern hemisphere has a different set of stars to depend on for navigation.

While there is a star, called Sigma Octantis, that is similar to Polaris because it sits very close to the South Pole, it is too dim to see. Instead, most people navigate through a different constellation.



If the earth is flat, why are there two different polar stars? Polaris for the northern hemisphere, and Sigma Octantis for the Southern Hemisphere?

The question was, “why does the GPS system need at lest 24 satellites when 3 points for triangulation should work on a flat earth?”

You


The entire Chicago skyline is visible, from across Lake Michigan - this would be totally impossible, if 'curvature' really existed!!


Visible from where? Gary Indiana? Manistique Michigan? If the earth was flat, the shore line would be visible on any day from any given distance, not the skyline. There is a difference between a visible shore vs the upper part of a skyline. Is that false?

Please state where your vantage point is?



Chicago skyline 'looming' from MI - explained
flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

Researching this topic I also found in the 'Chicago Skyline' thread on Flat Earth Debunked someone had done a building-by-building match-up between several of the 'distant Chicago' images and a skyline shot.

You can see here that all but the tallest buildings are often obscured by the horizon and that the amount changes between this comparison image, some of the other images above, and especially in the video - where you see it change right in front of your eyes.

In the middle image (which I believe was from 30 miles away in this case) you can see the lighted Spires clearly inverted over the top of the building. and just as clearly, we can see that most of Chicago is hidden behind the horizon (due to curvature of the Earth).


Break

Asking why we see what see is a good question to ask and understand, but to reach understanding you must also study all the relevant aspects. How can you watch the Chicago skyline 'rise up' from behind the horizon, constantly shimmering and flickering through all kinds of different refraction and mirage effects and deny that you seeing the effects of atmospheric refraction? You can literally see the buildings moving up and down in some cases and, in other cases, the horizon visibly drops.

Even Rowbotham cites from Britannica on how refraction curves the light in exactly this manner, he just then proceeds to dishonestly ignore it. But this shows that the greatly varied effects of refraction were clearly known in his time and that he was very clearly aware of this


You


Airplanes DO make measurements during their flights, and it proves, beyond a doubt, that the Earth is flat.


Wtf? It’s called level flight. To escape earth’s grave you have to thrust or lift against and overcome gravity and use increased energy. (Or what ever you want to call the force that pulls you back down when you jump into the air.) When a aircraft is trimmed for level flight, it has balanced lift vs gravity to reach an equilibrium that maintains its altitude. If the jet wants to gain altitude, it has to break its equilibrium against gravity and create more lift force to over come the force of gravity to gain altitude.




Flat Earth Follies: Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!
flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

Conclusion

I think that about wraps it up for this Flat Earth Folly.

Planes are not 'dropping' 8 inches every mile (per se), they are flying along the constant curvature of the gravity equipotential, while constantly adjusting pitch ever-so-slightly by means of the elevator trim setting which controls the pitch RATE of the airplane. ANY deviation from that rotation results in the plane climbing or descending which immediately shows up in the Vertical Speed indication and power settings would be adjusted accordingly. This constantly rotates their 'tangent' so there is no 8" to drop at the end of each mile, it's a constant, smooth, and VERY SLIGHT curve that presents no problems for pilots, and would be virtually undetectable in the face of other forces acting on the airplane, even at 500 mph. The plane is simply tweaked for near zero vertical speed and that's all that is required.

The Attitude Indicator is very clearly compensating for all kinds of precessional forces acting up on it and to remain accurate over the longer term must be tied to the gravity potential as well (so it remains vertically aligned over time, reacting only to sharper movements of the airplane over the short term).


Keep trolling on with blatant falsehoods and posting items out of context.

The more you post the more ignorant and/or disingenuous you look.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Whole article who’s link has been provided for you before


Flat Earth Follies: Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!

flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

Conclusion

I think that about wraps it up for this Flat Earth Folly.

Planes are not 'dropping' 8 inches every mile (per se), they are flying along the constant curvature of the gravity equipotential, while constantly adjusting pitch ever-so-slightly by means of the elevator trim setting which controls the pitch RATE of the airplane. ANY deviation from that rotation results in the plane climbing or descending which immediately shows up in the Vertical Speed indication and power settings would be adjusted accordingly. This constantly rotates their 'tangent' so there is no 8" to drop at the end of each mile, it's a constant, smooth, and VERY SLIGHT curve that presents no problems for pilots, and would be virtually undetectable in the face of other forces acting on the airplane, even at 500 mph. The plane is simply tweaked for near zero vertical speed and that's all that is required.

The Attitude Indicator is very clearly compensating for all kinds of precessional forces acting up on it and to remain accurate over the longer term must be tied to the gravity potential as well (so it remains vertically aligned over time, reacting only to sharper movements of the airplane over the short term).

edit on 29-3-2019 by neutronflux because: Added link



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



The so-called 'southern star' is "barely visible", and has only an "approximate position". It is hardly comparable to Polaris, at best.


As to your second question, it makes no sense. There are no satellites, let alone 24 of them needed for GPS, which is also a fantasy.

Here's a video you need to look at...


What is it like to blatantly lie?

Let’s put it this way. I asked this once before. I will be specific.

Why did ancient sailors have to rely on a completely different set of constellations and stars for navigation in the Southern Hemisphere because the north star and many northern constellations are not visible once you cross south of the equator. And the Earth’s South Pole has a different set of constellations and stars circling what is considered the South Pole Star vs the very different stars and constellations that circle polars. You are blatantly ignoring the different stars and constellations that are different between the north and south Hemispheres. And the different stars and constellations for the southern and northern Hemispheres that circle to different points in the night sky.

Are you just going to keep blatantly lying?
edit on 29-3-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And exactly why is the sun more overhead in the summer in the northern Hemisphere and the sun is simultaneously lower to the horizon In the Southern Hemisphere lets say at noon on June 25th?
edit on 29-3-2019 by neutronflux because: Addec



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I guess June 21st would be a better date....



www.britannica.com...

At the summer solstice, the Sun travels the longest path through the sky, and that day therefore has the most daylight. When the summer solstice happens in the Northern Hemisphere, the North Pole is tilted about 23.4° (23°27´) toward the Sun. Because the Sun’s rays are shifted northward from the Equator by the same amount, the vertical noon rays are directly overhead at the Tropic of Cancer (23°27´ N). Six months later, the South Pole is inclined about 23.4° toward the Sun. On this day of the summer solstice in the Southern Hemisphere, the Sun’s vertical overhead rays progress to their southernmost position, the Tropic of Capricorn (23°27´ S). The






When and What Is the Summer Solstice?
www.timeanddate.com...

The summer solstice is the longest day of the year. Solstices are opposite on either side of the equator, so the summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere is the winter solstice in the Southern Hemisphere, and vice versa.



How you going to blatantly lie your way out of this one.
edit on 29-3-2019 by neutronflux because: Added



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Whole article who’s link has been provided for you before


Flat Earth Follies: Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!

flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

Conclusion

I think that about wraps it up for this Flat Earth Folly.

Planes are not 'dropping' 8 inches every mile (per se), they are flying along the constant curvature of the gravity equipotential, while constantly adjusting pitch ever-so-slightly by means of the elevator trim setting which controls the pitch RATE of the airplane. ANY deviation from that rotation results in the plane climbing or descending which immediately shows up in the Vertical Speed indication and power settings would be adjusted accordingly. This constantly rotates their 'tangent' so there is no 8" to drop at the end of each mile, it's a constant, smooth, and VERY SLIGHT curve that presents no problems for pilots, and would be virtually undetectable in the face of other forces acting on the airplane, even at 500 mph. The plane is simply tweaked for near zero vertical speed and that's all that is required.

The Attitude Indicator is very clearly compensating for all kinds of precessional forces acting up on it and to remain accurate over the longer term must be tied to the gravity potential as well (so it remains vertically aligned over time, reacting only to sharper movements of the airplane over the short term).


Planes measure the atmospheric pressure to achieve level flight.

Level flight has nothing to do with the Earth's surface.

Planes have to measure the atmosphere during flight, to achieve level flight.


Show a valid source that supports your claims, if you can. I've seen nothing but prattle from your side, to this point.

What is 'gravity equipotential'? Any sources you can cite on that 'phenomenon of pure invention'?


Planes achieve level flight in the atmosphere.

A plane will achieve level flight by measuring the pressure around the plane, during flight.

It can only measure atmospheric pressure around the plane, to achieve level flight. It cannot measure the atmospheric pressure beyond the instruments on board the plane, obviously.

As I mentioned earlier, a normal level works on Earth by measuring only a small part of any larger surface in the same way...it cannot measure beyond the level itself. It can only measure out to the length of the level itself.

Do you understand that, or not?


How do we know normal levels are measuring actual, true level? A small air bubble, in a tube of water, measures level.

Planes use atmospheric pressure, instead of an air bubble, to measure level flights in the atmosphere.


A level is measured as level, no matter what method is used for it.


Any 'curvature' of Earth would barely span over a fraction of an inch, when a plane achieves level flight. Same as bubble levels measure for a level surface on Earth, only smaller in size.

The principle is the same, of course.


You cannot measure level, if it is not actually level.


I guess a floor isn't actually measured level, in your 'genius' argument!

Level is not level at all, it is level to the 'curvature' of Earth!


Hilarious, indeed.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

And exactly why is the sun more overhead in the summer in the northern Hemisphere and the sun is simultaneously lower to the horizon In the Southern Hemisphere lets say at noon on June 25th?


You think it should not look this way?

When you look down a road, what do the light/electrical posts appear like, which are beside the road, further and further away from you?

The posts appear lower and lower in the distance, of course.


A plane appears lower in the horizon, with more distance away from you, as well.


The Sun appears lower at a distance, for the same reason.


Simple as that.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




The posts appear lower and lower in the distance, of course.
Smaller. Like a balloon looks smaller as it gets higher. It doesn't look lower though. It looks higher. Things that are farther away look smaller.

Since you want to talk about airplanes again, let's talk about how the Earth is variable. Why is it trigonometry doesn't work on a flat world?
edit on 3/29/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1




The posts appear lower and lower in the distance, of course.
Smaller. Like a balloon looks smaller as it gets higher. It doesn't look lower though. It looks higher. Things that are farther away look smaller.

Since you want to talk about airplanes again, let's talk about how the Earth is variable. Why is it trigonometry doesn't work on a flat world?


Tell me exactly why you claim trig does not work....if you want a proper reply..


Objects do indeed appear smaller at a distance, that is a given...

And objects at greater distance DO appear lower in the horizon, but the objects have to be large enough to still see them at such a distance. The Sun is large enough to see from such a distance.

We cannot see objects very far away, but when they first can be seen, they appear to be lower in the horizon..



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Tell me exactly why you claim trig does not work....if you want a proper reply..

I did. Remember?



We cannot see objects very far away, but when they first can be seen, they appear to be lower in the horizon..
Unless they are overhead. How far away is the Sun, again? The dome?
edit on 3/30/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Still on the ball vs the plane?

Wot about Tartaria and the Mud Floods?



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 01:34 AM
link   
The irony is that a belief in Earth as a ball, flying through space, is considered factual, yet those who don't believe it deserve to be scorned, insulted, and belittled, for simply having a different opinion, like any other issue has different viewpoints.


It's okay if you believe aliens are visiting Earth, abducting humans to cross-breed with aliens, to make hybrids, or whatever else, while there is not a shred of proof that aliens even exist, let alone anything else proven, for that matter, and no aliens appear, outside of those who have claimed to see, or claimed to be abducted by, said aliens...

Not a shred of proof exists, at all. Claims of aliens are not evidence of aliens. Nor is anything else proof of aliens, either.


But nobody mocks, or insults them for believing in aliens. Only one issue deserves scorn, and insults - a belief in Earth not being a ball flying through space, who dares to question this as not true is some sort of nut case, or a complete fool, obviously!


Gravity is a 'proven' force, so stop asking for proof of it, okay??




posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh, look.
Changing back to gravity isn't real. What a surprise.

I guess trigonometry isn't real either.




top topics



 
14
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join