The Flat Earth "conspiracy" and a glaring error by those who suppport it...

a reply to: turbonium1

Touched a nerve did I? No need to constantly use all caps when debating. That's shouting in internet speak, and normally I've found people turn to shouting when they know they're wrong about something but don't want to admit it.

Let's go back over what I said:

Average distance for the arc of the Earth, if it were a perfect sphere at sea level is just under 8 inches per mile square.

Let's look at it another way:

Earth's radius is 3,963 miles.

2*Pi*r = circumference (Pi is 3.14, and r is the radius).

So: 2 * 3.14 * 3963 = 24887.64 or 24,887.64 miles, the Earth's circumference.

Now, a circle has 360 degrees in it's circumference. How many degrees of arc does the Earth's circumference have?

Again, easy math: 360 / 24887.64 = 0.014465 degree per mile.

Let's do that math again, only adding 5 miles of altitude to the radius: 3968 miles for our flying aircraft:

2 * 3.14 * 3968 = 24,919.04 miles.

360 / 24919.04 = 0.0144467 degree per mile .... even more miniscule

Hmmm...wonder what happens if we make the sphere a lot smaller. Let's say an object like Ceres ? It's radius is only 294 miles. Let's do the math again:

2 * 3.14 * 294 = 1846.32 miles.

360 / 1846.32 = 0.1949 degrees of arc per mile. Yikes, that's pretty big jump, almost but not quite a quarter of a degree.

So it seems the smaller the object, the greater the degree of arc (curve), where as the larger the object, the smaller the degree of arc (curve).

So a curve of 0.0144467 degrees is not something you're going to feel, or see with just your eyes. Can it be measured? Sure, with a very sensitive level.....which a bubble level is not that sensitive.

Aircraft flying stay level via the horizon indicator. The pilot or auto pilot keeps the plane on that level, which will change very slightly every mile the plane travels during it's level cruise part of it's flight. However, the change is so miniscule (0.0144467 degrees, remember?), that you will not notice it at all, nor really see it.

You know you, or anyone can test this quite easily: Go to a large dry lake bed, like some of the ones that they have in Nevada.
At night, have a friend with a flash light be 1 mile away from you. Lay on the ground facing their direction and look. If they are holding the flashlight higher than their kneecaps, you should be able to see it. Then have them lay the flashlight on the ground. It should seem to disappear.....because it's dropped below that 8 inches of arc per mile.

As you can see, I'm not yelling. I'm also not rambling on going off point, trying to avoid debating the point.

In fact: I've just offered people a very simple experiment to do that can prove or disprove the curve of the Earth, that doesn't require flying, or going into space. Doesn't really cost that much to do it either. Just some gas money, a flashlight and some way to communicate with each other, like radios.

a reply to: turbonium1

I have no time for PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL NONSENSE.

and here you are debating on a flat earth thread.

just

GRAVITY is not proven to even exist.

yes,


go up to the second floor of a building and jump of the balcony head first then.




Maybe you actually have and this is why you post what you do.

What is so very important to understand is that planes cannot fly level over 1000 miles, at the same altitude, over a spherical surface, because thousands of feet curvature cannot be accounted for. We can easily demonstrate this with models.

OK, I will help since your brain doesn't work from the fall.


Yes, an easy demonstration you can do with with a pen and paper.


Draw a straight line, draw a curved line to make a circle.


These lines represents the ground, be it flat or curved.


Draw another line above the line and another circle around the circle and these represent the path of the plane.

It flies level on both demonstrations.

Why is that so hard to grasp.

A curved 3d surface will have a curved path when viewed in 2d, the plane if flying level to the curved ground.

You must realize that a spherical surface is, in fact, the complete opposite of a flat surface?

NO its not is, in fact, the answer to your question.

A sphere, no matter how large, is NEVER flat. It cannot be a sphere if it was flat. A ball is round, everywhere.

I would get that head injury checked out, you are talking a nonsense that hurts ones head trying to understand.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soulece
We got to really figure out a way to get people who believe the earth is flat to be banned from reproducing. We got enough stupidity in this world as it is.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and the human stupidity." - Albert Einstein

We got to. Flat earth people so dumb. We so smart. I go with club to smash all skulls...me so angry now

What even is this trying to mock?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

Draw a straight line, draw a curved line to make a circle.


These lines represents the ground, be it flat or curved.


Draw another line above the line and another circle around the circle and these represent the path of the plane.

It flies level on both demonstrations.

Why is that so hard to grasp.

A curved 3d surface will have a curved path when viewed in 2d, the plane if flying level to the curved ground.

You really can't be serious.

Read this carefully....

Parallel lines do not exist in spherical geometry. Any straight line through a point P on a sphere is by definition a great circle. Two great circles will intersect at two points at a Euclidean segment, which is the diameter of the sphere. The endpoints of this line segment lie both on the surface of the sphere and on the two great circles. Thus the great circles intersect at the endpoints of the diameter.

Since these two lines intersect twice, the distance between the two lines from one point on one line to a corresponding point on the other line is never constant. Lastly, if a third straight transversal line cuts the other two lines, the resulting corresponding angles would not be congruent. Therefore, the three criteria for parallel lines as defined by Euclide’s parallel postulate are not met. There are no parallel lines in spherical geometry.

spherelandma508.wordpress.com...

As I told you, a plane cannot fly level to a sphere below it. In level flight, the plane is flying level within air. No matter what the ground below is - a mountain range, ocean, or canyon - the plane is flying level within air. A horizontal trajectory. It has NOTHING to do with being level to the ground.

And as mentioned by the above source, parallels do not exist in spherical geometry. A plane cannot fly 'level' above a sphere, because there is nothing level along a spherical surface. Planes could only fly around it, as an arc. A circle within another circle.

Do you understand this yet?

EDIT: NVM. Not worth the time. I know some of you liked this post, but its hard to argue against somebody who thinks the world is flat. Logic does not apply to them.]

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
Aircraft flying stay level via the horizon indicator. The pilot or auto pilot keeps the plane on that level, which will change very slightly every mile the plane travels during it's level cruise part of it's flight. However, the change is so miniscule (0.0144467 degrees, remember?), that you will not notice it at all, nor really see it.

A plane cannot fly level above a sphere, which is explained in my last post.

Both the attitude indicator and the VSI measure whether or not the plane is flying level, and straight, within air. The horizon is always level, so the attitude indicates when the plane is level to the horizon.

Horizon means horizontal. Straight across, a line.

A plane can only descend, ascend, or fly level. A sphere is not a level surface. You cannot fly level above a surface that is never level. You can only fly in an arc, in relation to the arc below.

deleted

a reply to: turbonium1

Never said it was flying level to a sphere.

YOU said that.

I said that it's follow a curve who's arc is so gradual that it feels and looks like it's flying level.

Do you dispute the math? Can you, or can you not understand basic geometry or trigonometry?

If you can not wrap your head around the fact that a very large sphere will have such a gentle and small arc of curve, then I'm afraid you need to step back and learn math again.

Not my problem.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

Draw a straight line, draw a curved line to make a circle.


These lines represents the ground, be it flat or curved.


Draw another line above the line and another circle around the circle and these represent the path of the plane.

It flies level on both demonstrations.

Why is that so hard to grasp.

A curved 3d surface will have a curved path when viewed in 2d, the plane if flying level to the curved ground.

You really can't be serious.

Read this carefully....

Parallel lines do not exist in spherical geometry. Any straight line through a point P on a sphere is by definition a great circle. Two great circles will intersect at two points at a Euclidean segment, which is the diameter of the sphere. The endpoints of this line segment lie both on the surface of the sphere and on the two great circles. Thus the great circles intersect at the endpoints of the diameter.

Since these two lines intersect twice, the distance between the two lines from one point on one line to a corresponding point on the other line is never constant. Lastly, if a third straight transversal line cuts the other two lines, the resulting corresponding angles would not be congruent. Therefore, the three criteria for parallel lines as defined by Euclide’s parallel postulate are not met. There are no parallel lines in spherical geometry.

spherelandma508.wordpress.com...

As I told you, a plane cannot fly level to a sphere below it. In level flight, the plane is flying level within air. No matter what the ground below is - a mountain range, ocean, or canyon - the plane is flying level within air. A horizontal trajectory. It has NOTHING to do with being level to the ground.

And as mentioned by the above source, parallels do not exist in spherical geometry. A plane cannot fly 'level' above a sphere, because there is nothing level along a spherical surface. Planes could only fly around it, as an arc. A circle within another circle.

Do you understand this yet?

Let me explain something very, very, basic to you. The plane has an altimeter. The altimeter is set to sea level. The altimeter tells the pilot how high the plane is, from sea level. The pilot reaches the height allocated to the plane by whichever ground control station they are covered by and then stays at that level. As it flies the plane's altimeter keeps a constant reading on its height. In other words the plane is flying in an arc whilst giving the illusion of level flight.
I cannot stress enough how simple this is.
You either cannot understand this simple fact or you are trolling us all.

quick question... do the flat earth believers look up to the sky every night and think that all those stars and planets and the moon are flat too?

originally posted by: bronco73
quick question... do the flat earth believers look up to the sky every night and think that all those stars and planets and the moon are flat too?

I want to know what flat earthers think about the fact that the stars 'revolve' around us and why the Earth has seasons, because if we aren't on a spherical planet then a) stars should remain fixed in the sky and b) there would never be any seasons.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Don't. You'll only get a headache trying to fathom the sheer idiocy of their "explanations".

Much like the folks who have, for years, argued--unsuccessfully, I might add--that the space station doesn't actually orbit a spherical Earth.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Flat earthers don't believe in stars brother...

they consider them "lights" in the sky...

originally posted by: turbonium1
The question I have is that our oceans cover half the surface, and are perfectly flat, throughout.

Water seeks to be level, and flat, so what's different here?

So where does mountains and volcanoes fit into your narrative?

Also this is the first time I've seen someone use the ocean for being flat, meaning that the Earth must be flat as well.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Let me explain something very, very, basic to you. The plane has an altimeter. The altimeter is set to sea level. The altimeter tells the pilot how high the plane is, from sea level. The pilot reaches the height allocated to the plane by whichever ground control station they are covered by and then stays at that level. As it flies the plane's altimeter keeps a constant reading on its height. In other words the plane is flying in an arc whilst giving the illusion of level flight.
I cannot stress enough how simple this is.

Planes fly in an arc, "whilst giving the illusion of level flight"??!!

Seriously??

Attitude indicators show whether or not a plane is in level flight. And so does the vertical speed indicator.

There are actually instruments on planes that measure whether you are level, or in an arc, or whatever.

If you are so desperate to claim it is all an "illusion" of level flight, it's probably time to give up. Because it would only get more ridiculous.


Instruments measure actual level flight. Not an illusion of it

originally posted by: trailblazzr420

originally posted by: turbonium1
The question I have is that our oceans cover half the surface, and are perfectly flat, throughout.

Water seeks to be level, and flat, so what's different here?

So where does mountains and volcanoes fit into your narrative?

Also this is the first time I've seen someone use the ocean for being flat, meaning that the Earth must be flat as well.

Mountains and volcanoes are on the flat Earth.

Why would mountains and volcanoes be curving around a sphere, instead of laying directly on a flat surface?


The oceans cover most of the Earth's surface, so if the oceans are flat, Earth cannot be a sphere.

a reply to: turbonium1

I wouldn't call you dumb at all just ignorant with a side dash of stubbornness seeing people are explaining things to you but you just don't get it.

I see nothing wrong with calling flat earth minded people dumb.

a reply to: Soulece

I find moron is a more appropriate word...

Personal attacks are emotional responses of anger, and fear, and insecurities.

I'm not wasting my time dealing with people who can't defend their argument, so they start acting like little babies that just s*&^ in their diapers.