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: 96
14
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2019 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


Physics applies to all forces, there are no exceptions to that rule.


Density is not a force. Mass is not a force. So, if Newton’s first law is true. What force in the flat earth no gravity model causes a brick thrown straight into the air to switch direction and return to earth?

So? what is suppling the force to cause the brick to change direction and return to earth?

Density, mass, and weight are three very different items


www.encyclopedia.com...

Mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.


Density is not a force.
Mass is not a force.
Weight is the measure of the force of gravity.



edit on 4-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

So this question comes to mind.

It’s it false to say for flat earth vs spherical earth, the only way to gain altitude in a jet is to exert energy in both cases. So any increase in altitude requires an increase in energy.

Is it false to say for flat earth vs spherical earth, the pressure reading of the atmosphere at 35,000 ft would be the same in both models.

For spherical earth, why would a jet set to fly at 35,000 ft with settings set to zero rate of vertical climb not fly at a constant 35,000 ft. Because the jet has to exert more energy to climb, so if the jet is flying level with all forces balanced, why would the jet deviate from 35,000 ft?

And I have cited for you a source that in fact
“So YES, the PLANE is (technically) constantly pitching forward as it flies the curvature of the Earth”


Nonsense.

A plane measures the atmospheric pressure around it, during flight, and that's how it achieves level flight.

If a plane flew over curvature throughout a flight, every flight, how would you achieve level flight?

You claim it would not matter, if it was curved, or flat, in our flights??!! Are you serious??


We know how planes achieve level flight, it's proven fact.


Measurements of the atmospheric pressure - around the plane itself, in flight - are used to achieve level flight.


If a plane tried to follow curvature of Earth, it would have to be in a slow, constant descent, which would be MEASURED as a descent, in the atmosphere, obviously.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


If you think they have gone into space, you obviously think we'd 'float' in space.
Surely these astronauts have proven we 'float' in space, because it lacks gravity.


No. Gravity gives items weight down on earth. Payloads need a force like a rocket to push them into space.

You are the one that believes


If gravity offers resistance to a rocket, why would a bird, or insect, not face any resistance, when flying above Earth, as the rocket supposedly does, when flying up from the Earth?


And you again


That is what gravity is supposed to do, is it not?

How do all the scientists prove such a force exists? They don't.

If this force existed, it would offer RESISTANCE to opposing forces, no?

But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all.


Your own words betray you again.

There is gravity. But you stated, “But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all. ”. Then you tell me why we don’t float of into space?
edit on 4-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


A plane measures the atmospheric pressure around it, during flight, and that's how it achieves level flight.


Then name that instrument that uses atmosphere pressure to control pith and roll of the jet to keep it trim and leveled.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You



If a plane tried to follow curvature of Earth, it would have to be in a slow, constant descent, which would be MEASURED as a descent, in the atmosphere, obviously.


Ignoring what has been repeated provided for you



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

flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

So YES, the PLANE is (technically) constantly pitching forward as it flies the curvature of the Earth. But it doesn't feel like pitch because DOWN is changing at the same time and it's an incredibly slight rate of pitch overwhelmed by other dynamic forces acting on the aircraft.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

By the way,
Your growing list
Again

Here is your list....

How can Polaris being at the apex of the celestial filament drop below the horizon when traveling south across the equator.

A blatant falsehood by turbo



Polaris is far too distant from Australia to be seen from there. It has nothing to do with the Earth being a ball. A plane can't be seen when it's too far away, either, but the plane is obviously seen when it is near enough, as we all know.


Where do you look in the Australian night sky to see Polaris with the naked eye or with a telescope?

You cannot say what would cause a brick thrown straight up into the air in the flat earth no gravity model reverse its direction to fall back to the earth. Specially in the context of Newton’s first law and your assertions of:



If gravity offers resistance to a rocket, why would a bird, or insect, not face any resistance, when flying above Earth, as the rocket supposedly does, when flying up from the Earth?


And



That is what gravity is supposed to do, is it not?

How do all the scientists prove such a force exists? They don't.

If this force existed, it would offer RESISTANCE to opposing forces, no?

But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all.


With your own words, “But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all.” Why would a brick thrown straight up into the air “care” if it is falling up away from earth in a less dense atmosphere? With “But no resistance is offered at all”. How is that different than a brick falling to earth because the atmosphere is less dense. What makes a brick thrown straight up into the air reverse direction and fall back to earth in the flat earth model?

What is the flat earth model answer to the retrograde of the visible plants path across the night sky the ancients called wanders?

If the moon is only 6000 miles away in the earth’s atmosphere, why doesn’t the flat earth society fly a blimp to the moon to make their case? They have time to take cruises full of alcohol, gambling, and debauchery? I bet the amount of money spent on one flat earth society booze cruise on alcohol and condoms would pay for a blimp mission.

The summer solstice for the northern Hemisphere is the northern Hemisphere’s longest period of daylight hours. For the flat earth model, how is the same day the Southern Hemisphere’s shortest period of daylight hours?

You ignore the biological effect of gravity.

Please answer how a equatorial mount for a telescope would work on a flat earth model.

This ties in with the equatorial mount.
You do realize on a flat earth model, the sun would never set.

Foucault's pendulum

Coriolis Force



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You


Physics applies to all forces, there are no exceptions to that rule.


Density is not a force. Mass is not a force. So, if Newton’s first law is true. What force in the flat earth no gravity model causes a brick thrown straight into the air to switch direction and return to earth?

So? what is suppling the force to cause the brick to change direction and return to earth?

Density, mass, and weight are three very different items


www.encyclopedia.com...

Mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.


Density is not a force.
Mass is not a force.
Weight is the measure of the force of gravity.




They are not forces, obviously.


A force was used to throw the brick up into air, sure.

Why would a force be required, to have the brick simply fall down through air?

If you dropped the brick from a platform, instead of throwing it up into the air, then no force was used, yet it still fell to the ground, right?



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


They are not forces, obviously.


Really
You


Physics applies to all forces, there are no exceptions to that rule.


Look at that, another TurboLag contradiction.

So is Newton’s first law lie?


Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
ccrma.stanford.edu...



Now:
-what causes a brick thrown straight into the air in the no gravity model to switch direction and return to earth.

-There is gravity. But you stated, “But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all. ”. Then you tell me why we don’t float of into space?

-Then name that instrument that uses atmosphere pressure to control pith and roll of the jet to keep it trim and leveled.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



If you dropped the brick from a platform, instead of throwing it up into the air, then no force was used, yet it still fell to the ground, right?


In your no gravity model. Wouldn’t a brick dropped straight down slow down before hitting the ground like if it was thrown straight up? Air resistance and all.
edit on 4-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Made argument more specific.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Where were we topic changer. The last two questions you will not answer because you have no intellectual honesty


Before you do a Saturday morning blitz turboLag....

Please answer how a equatorial mount for a telescope would work on a flat earth model.



Equatorial Mounts - a huge problem for Flat Earth.

m.youtube.com...



This ties in with the equatorial mount.
You do realize on a flat earth model, the sun would never set.



How Do Flat-Earthers Explain the Equinox? We Investigated.

www.livescience.com...

This explanation has its problems. For starters, a sun circling 3,000 miles (5,000 km) above a flat Earth would never actually "set," even at the most southern latitudes. YouTube user Wolfie6020, a globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated this by building a scale model of the flat-Earth-style sun as it would be seen from Sydney on a vernal equinox. As shown in his video, the sun (actually a drone carrying a ping-pong ball) never dips below the horizon, even at its farthest point from the observer.




posted on May, 4 2019 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You



If a plane tried to follow curvature of Earth, it would have to be in a slow, constant descent, which would be MEASURED as a descent, in the atmosphere, obviously.


Ignoring what has been repeated provided for you



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

flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

So YES, the PLANE is (technically) constantly pitching forward as it flies the curvature of the Earth. But it doesn't feel like pitch because DOWN is changing at the same time and it's an incredibly slight rate of pitch overwhelmed by other dynamic forces acting on the aircraft.



A plane that is in a constant descent would measure the descent, because it IS a descent. All descents are measured, in flights. The surface of Earth is not relevant at all, to any descents. Why?

Because a descent can be done over ANY type of surface. A descent can be done over mountains, or oceans, or canyons, etc. The specific type of surface, below the plane, is not relevant to its descent.

How could slight curving of the surface matter, if a mountain range doesn't matter? That's utterly ridiculous.

So is your whole argument, as well.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 03:13 AM
link   
What is the external force stopping the brick from falling when it lands on a rooftop?

The rooftop is not a force, it is a mass.


No force stopped it's motion, a mass acted on it.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Where were we topic changer. The last two questions you will not answer because you have no intellectual honesty


Before you do a Saturday morning blitz turboLag....

Please answer how a equatorial mount for a telescope would work on a flat earth model.



Equatorial Mounts - a huge problem for Flat Earth.

m.youtube.com...



This ties in with the equatorial mount.
You do realize on a flat earth model, the sun would never set.



How Do Flat-Earthers Explain the Equinox? We Investigated.

www.livescience.com...

This explanation has its problems. For starters, a sun circling 3,000 miles (5,000 km) above a flat Earth would never actually "set," even at the most southern latitudes. YouTube user Wolfie6020, a globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated this by building a scale model of the flat-Earth-style sun as it would be seen from Sydney on a vernal equinox. As shown in his video, the sun (actually a drone carrying a ping-pong ball) never dips below the horizon, even at its farthest point from the observer.




That's absurd.

A plane surface has an unlimited view of anything above it, from any point on the surface below....is that what you're suggesting here? Are you that dense?



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Just the fact we can see details of stars with 125x magnification proves they are liars, obviously.


Doesn't anyone else here even care about that fact?

How sad, if their grotesque lies don't even matter to you.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



A plane that is in a constant descent would measure


It doesn’t matter if a jet is flying over flat earth or a globe. If a jet is set to fly at a constant altitude why would it descent?

Then name that instrument that uses atmosphere pressure to control pith and roll of the jet to keep it trim and leveled.

edit on 4-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


What is the external force stopping the brick from falling when it lands on a rooftop?

The rooftop is not a force, it is a mass.

No force stopped it's motion, a mass acted on it.



Did the mass of the rooftop really stop the brick. The brick is actually changing direction or trying to change direction when it hits the roof. Energy from the brick goes to damaging the roof, creating friction and heat, creating sound, and with enough energy the brick flys off in anther direction.





Collision

en.m.wikipedia.org...

According to the coefficient of restitution, there are two special cases of any collision as written below:

A perfectly elastic collision is defined as one in which there is no loss of kinetic energy in the collision. In reality, any macroscopic collision between objects will convert some kinetic energy to internal energy and other forms of energy, so no large-scale impacts are perfectly elastic. However, some problems are sufficiently close to perfectly elastic that they can be approximated as such. In this case, the coefficient of restitution equals one.
An inelastic collision is one in which part of the kinetic energy is changed to some other form of energy in the collision. Momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions (as it is for elastic collisions), but one cannot track the kinetic energy through the collision since some of it is converted to other forms of energy. In this case, coefficient of restitution does not equal one.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Now, for no gravity model.

What causes a brick thrown straight up into the air to change direction and return to escape.

For a no gravity model. Why does a brick dropped straight down not slow down like a brick thrown straight up?



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:21 AM
link   
No, a rooftop can stop a brick, and does stop it. But keep on denying reality, it's not my problem.....



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



Just the fact we can see details of stars with 125x magnification proves they are liars, obviously.


How does an actual occurrence you can do yourself make them liars?

And what star are you talking about? Please provide an example? What details?

It comes down to starts are very large.
edit on 4-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed quote



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
No, a rooftop can stop a brick, and does stop it. But keep on denying reality, it's not my problem.....


The brick collides with the rooftop. The forces of the collision stops the brick, or causes the brick to bounce off, or change direction. While the roof might be damaged, with energy converted to heat and sound.

Now.

Now, for no gravity model.

What causes a brick thrown straight up into the air to change direction and return to escape.

For a no gravity model. Why does a brick dropped straight down not slow down like a brick thrown straight up?




top topics



 
14
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join