Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

Inventing a force called gravity is nonsense.


Gravity spins planets 2000 mph. It grasps hold of a moon, but cannot seem to pull it any further in.

And the planet's atmosphere is rotating with Earth, at the same time.

We are held to Earth by gravity, of course!


The problem is that such a force doesn't exist.

a reply to: turbonium1

Turbonium1, you struggle because you don’t understand aeronautical terminology and principles of flight, while at the same time you believe that you do. For example, you continue to confuse level with flat, when they are not the same in the language of aviation, which you clearly don’t comprehend. Your own definition of “level”, or your favorite one plucked from a dictionary, simply don’t apply here, no matter how desperately you want them to. I and others have explained facts to you, exhaustively, and so I see no point in repeating myself now. Still, I’m an optimist, so I’ll leave you with a last attempt to help you.

Take aviation ground school, of even flight instruction if you have the time, the funds, and aren’t afraid of heights. Failing that, spend some in-person time with a pilot, or someone expert in aeronautics and who’s actually flown aircraft. Do so in a setting with a chalkboard, visual aids and enough time to really flesh out the topics, as opposed to short bursts in an online forum. Read a text on basic flight. Something. Friend, if you release your grip on flatEarth dogma, if you leave the world of armchair pilots and physicists and make contact with real experts, it could be worth the effort. Good luck.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Inventing a force called gravity is nonsense.


Gravity spins planets 2000 mph. It grasps hold of a moon, but cannot seem to pull it any further in.

And the planet's atmosphere is rotating with Earth, at the same time.

We are held to Earth by gravity, of course!


The problem is that such a force doesn't exist.

Okay, I'm curious: What DOES hold the moon to the earth?

If it isn' t the equilibrium between gravity and centrifugal force?

Because if you can give a better formula which also explains the movements of all the other planets, galaxies and other bodies in the sky, science might be listening.. That's what science is for, too.

a reply to: turbonium1

You are very clearly not a pilot, nor have you ever been in a cockpit beyond 3000 feet in the air. Why don't you become a pilot and tell us of your first-hand experience?

Right now, this is a story you are spinning based on ideas in your head only.

Earth is supposedly a sphere.

A sphere has no level surfaces.

A constant descent is required to fly over a sphere.


Whether or not a great 'force' holds a flight to follow a sphere, the plane must still fly over the sphere in a constant descent.

The excuses are complete nonsense.

A sphere is not level. A plane can't fly level over a sphere. No magical 'force' can make a plane fly 'level' over a sphere, either.

This all comes down to the actual measurements. Altitude is based on water being level. Not curved, like your 'water'.

A curved Earth should be measured against a curved sea, right?

Only a flat Earth is being measured against their flat, level sea.


Same as a horizon is measuring for only a flat, level surface.

A sphere would not measure a horizontal plane. The horizon is essentially a straight, level, line.


Planes fly level, within air.

Level flight is not possible over a sphere, only over a flat surface.

a reply to: turbonium1

A constant descent is required to fly over a sphere.

this is why we laugh at flat tards

up - the " constant descent "

this is the " constant descent " that somehow starts at 10ooo m ASL and ends 8 hours and 6000 kmm away - still at 10ooo m ASL

your VSI delusion - is so moronic - it should be painful - do you take medication ???????????

for a VSI to register " descent " - local air pressure MUST increase

yet - altitude ASL stays constant

go figure

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: turbonium1

You are very clearly not a pilot, nor have you ever been in a cockpit beyond 3000 feet in the air. Why don't you become a pilot and tell us of your first-hand experience?

Right now, this is a story you are spinning based on ideas in your head only.

Nobody has to be a pilot to understand the issue here.

Planes will ascend, or descend, or fly level.


And our pilot said planes fly level over a non-level surface, all the time.

The pilot is wrong, of course, as a flight cannot be level above a sphere, to begin with. A flight over a sphere would be continually in descent.

ALL PILOTS WOULD KNOW THAT ALL PLANES MUST FLY IN A CONSTANT DESCENT.

A descent which would be required on all flights, because they are all flying over a sphere.


I've heard some of you claim that planes fly curvature all the time, but since it's so very subtle, and so gradual, that nobody even notices it!

I've heard a pilot say continual adjustments are done, so it's no big deal, anyway. The plane curves, which is actually 'level' based on curvature!

Good try, anyway

The term "level" in sea level is not referring to the surface of the ocean as being level.

It's along the idea of floor 1 in a building is level 1 and floor 2 is level 2.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

A constant descent is required to fly over a sphere.

this is why we laugh at flat tards

up - the " constant descent "

this is the " constant descent " that somehow starts at 10ooo m ASL and ends 8 hours and 6000 kmm away - still at 10ooo m ASL

your VSI delusion - is so moronic - it should be painful - do you take medication ???????????

for a VSI to register " descent " - local air pressure MUST increase

yet - altitude ASL stays constant

go figure

The VSI measures descent or ascent by an unequal pressure over the entire plane - both above, and below it.

Ascent or descent can happen at virtually any altitude. It works the same way, no matter what the altitude is at the time.

A sphere cannot be flown at level flight. Altitude can remain constant, but cannot be level. A sphere is not level. A flight over a sphere cannot be level. It must be in a constant descent, to follow around the sphere.

originally posted by: roadgravel
The term "level" in sea level is not referring to the surface of the ocean as being level.

It's along the idea of floor 1 in a building is level 1 and floor 2 is level 2.

Definition of level..

a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point

And the definition of curve...

a line or outline that gradually deviates from being straight for some or all of its length.


It is the exact opposite of level, not similar in any way.


They didn't call it 'sea curvature'.

Sea is indeed a level surface, and that's why they call it 'sea level'.

They call them horizons, because they are horizontal.


No curve, here.

a reply to: turbonium1

You really should learn the terms as they relate to the subject. Sometimes words have been assigned multiple meanings due to use in different context.

Some of humanity is headed back to the dark ages.

A look at the def

Horizon

1. the line or circle that forms the apparent boundary between earth and sky.

2. Astronomy. the small circle of the celestial sphere whose plane is tangent to the earth at the position of a given observer, or the plane of such a circle (sensible horizon)

Also called rational horizon. the great circle of the celestial sphere whose plane passes through the center of the earth and is parallel to the sensible horizon of a given position, or the plane of such a circle (celestial horizon)

3. the limit or range of perception, knowledge, or the like.

4. Usually, horizons. the scope of a person's interest, education, understanding, etc.:
His horizons were narrow.

5. Geology. a thin, distinctive stratum useful for stratigraphic correlation.

6. Also called soil horizon. any of the series of distinctive layers found in a vertical cross section of any well-developed soil.

Origin of horizon

Latin Greek

Latin horizōn < Greek horízōn (kýklos) bounding (circle), equivalent to horíz(ein) to bound, limit + -ōn present participle suffix

www.dictionary.com...

From bounding or limit.

The boundary between earth and sky.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: turbonium1
Inventing a force called gravity is nonsense.


Gravity spins planets 2000 mph. It grasps hold of a moon, but cannot seem to pull it any further in.

And the planet's atmosphere is rotating with Earth, at the same time.

We are held to Earth by gravity, of course!


The problem is that such a force doesn't exist.

Okay, I'm curious: What DOES hold the moon to the earth?

If it isn' t the equilibrium between gravity and centrifugal force?

Because if you can give a better formula which also explains the movements of all the other planets, galaxies and other bodies in the sky, science might be listening.. That's what science is for, too.

Why do you assume the moon is being 'held' by Earth?

If Earth had gravity, and 'grabbed the moon, 250,000 miles away, it would keep pulling the moon in, ever more, until it reached to the Earth's surface. Since that's where Earth's gravity is supposedly most powerful. Not so.

Gravity is the ultimate force that never was.

Legitimate forces are absolutely consistent in their specific features. A magnetic force works with magnetic materials, nothing else. Stronger magnets have more magnetic force than weaker magnets do.

All valid forces are proven, and can be duplicated in other ways.


Gravity is nonsensical.

A force so powerful, yet so utterly impotent, is purely bs.

If a force was holding all objects to Earth, and held the entire atmosphere to Earth, spinning both of them at 2000 mph, in perfect sync...

The force could never be defeated, by anything Earth-bound.

Birds fly at will, in the same atmosphere pinned to Earth, and rotates at 2000 mph, with Earth.

Either atmosphere is pinned to Earth, and all objects on Earth are also pinned to Earth, or it fails as a valid force.


A bird that can fly anywhere in air, opposite to a rotational force which spins a planet, and atmosphere, together, at 2000 mph....has no effect on a bird flying opposite to these powerful rotational forces?!!??!


How stupid can anyone be to buy such crap?

originally posted by: roadgravel
A look at the def

Horizon

1. the line or circle that forms the apparent boundary between earth and sky.

2. Astronomy. the small circle of the celestial sphere whose plane is tangent to the earth at the position of a given observer, or the plane of such a circle (sensible horizon)

Also called rational horizon. the great circle of the celestial sphere whose plane passes through the center of the earth and is parallel to the sensible horizon of a given position, or the plane of such a circle (celestial horizon)

3. the limit or range of perception, knowledge, or the like.

4. Usually, horizons. the scope of a person's interest, education, understanding, etc.:
His horizons were narrow.

5. Geology. a thin, distinctive stratum useful for stratigraphic correlation.

6. Also called soil horizon. any of the series of distinctive layers found in a vertical cross section of any well-developed soil.

Origin of horizon

Latin Greek

Latin horizōn < Greek horízōn (kýklos) bounding (circle), equivalent to horíz(ein) to bound, limit + -ōn present participle suffix

www.dictionary.com...

From bounding or limit.

The boundary between earth and sky.

Both horizon or horizontal mean a plane, a straight line, etc.

A circle is not horizontal, and circles are rarely used to describe a horizon.

Horizontal or horizon describes a plane, normally.

Earth's horizon is also horizontal, too!

They use the horizon, or a simulated horizon, in planes.

A straight, level plane, being used to help fly straight, and level, in planes.


Not in a curve??


Any reason?

The pilot claimed air is not level to anything, so therefore, a plane cannot fly level within air. Only to ground.


Level in air is not the same thing as saying air is 'level'.

Level in air means aerodynamically stable, level, smooth in flight.

The opposite is an ascent, or descent, which are both unstable, and not smooth, and NOT LEVEL.

LEVEL FLIGHT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GROUND.

Read the definition, the source of the term. You are looking at it backwards. Horizontal came from horizon. The source of the term horizon is circle or bound.

You keep reassigning terms to fit your claim.

As for as gravity and the moon, research the physics. It orbits due to the interaction of Earth's/Moon attraction due to gravity and the motion of the moon.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Read the definition, the source of the term. You are looking at it backwards. Horizontal came from horizon. The source of the term horizon is circle or bound.

You keep reassigning terms to fit your claim.

As for as gravity and the moon, research the physics. It orbits due to the interaction of Earth's/Moon attraction due to gravity and the motion of the moon.

Horizontal isn't a circular line, it's only a straight line.

As our horizon is a straight line, too.

Used in planes to help fly a straight, level path.

Not curved.

Why would that be?

a reply to: swanne

As long as you have used "tidal forces" as proof of a spinning globe, can you tell me why tidal forces do not effect all bodies of water? Is gravity selective? I really do want an answer that makes sense.

While gravity pulls the moon, and the moon pulls back, everyone in between the massive forces of gravity simply floats around in 0 gravity!!


Indeed.

Nothing stops gravity, sometimes.