Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Your comparison is invalid. Gravity is not the same as magnetism.

They are both forces which pull, or attract, objects towards them. One force is valid, and consistent, the other force is not valid, and clearly not consistent.

Magnetic, or any other valid, proven force, is always consistent in its actions. Gravity is not consistent, and is not a valid force, therefore, unlike all of our VALID, PROVEN forces.

There are many types of comparisons that are made between two, or more, different forces. Countless articles, scientific papers, and other sources, have compared one specific force to another specific force. To compare the similarities, and differences, between them.

As I've compared gravitational force to magnetic force, which (should) both attract objects towards them.

Your argument of an invalid comparison is nonsense.

Don't be afraid of truth.

a reply to: turbonium1

Gravity is entirely consistent. And pervasive.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: mytquinWhy doesn't a pilot ever have to tip the nose of the plane down to keep from gaining altitude...if said pilot never dipped the nose of the plane down while flying over a globe, logic dictates that as the plane kept flying level he would fly right out into space... wouldn't it

You might of the Earth was 100 miles around. Otherwise you don't have to because the "curve" is very slight. And yes, I'm a pilot. And no, I do not understand how otherwise intelligent people can take this idea seriously. Look at the Moon. Look at the Sun. Get a telescope and look at Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. I'd like to think this is just a tongue-in-cheek joke with people, but I fear it is not. Apparently a lot of people still live in the Dark Ages. Please refrain from reproducing.

Insulting people over and over again, for doubting Earth might not be a gigantic ball?!?

I've asked for your side to stop that crap, because it serves no purpose, it's a waste of everyone's time, since most of us only want to discuss the actual issues. Pilots are expected to behave like responsible, mature adults. No childish insults, at least.

I've also replied once more to your claim about pressure gradients, and once more, you ignored it.

It seems like you believe(d) a pressure gradient would solve the problem of flying level over curvature. The problem with your argument is that any given pressure gradient encompasses several hundred feet of altitude, while a curvature would be 8 inches per mile squared. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for pressure gradients to correct planes for curvature in any way.

There is no way a plane can fly level over a sphere. Because - as we all know - a sphere has no level surfaces. A curve is not level, flying along, above the same curve, is not flying level, either.

A plane cannot fly a curved path without dipping its nose. It must be in a descent, to follow the curve.

Saying the curve is so slight that a plane doesn't have to dip its nose..... is utter nonsense.

No matter how 'slight' the curve is, a plane must still dip its nose, however slightly, to follow the curve.


Do you know how much curvature you have (supposedly) been flying over, at normal cruising speeds? You should know, because you'd always have to fly over curvature, since day one.

A 757 would fly over several feet of curvature, each and every minute, on each and every flight, at a cruising speed of 533 mph. 533 miles of curvature at 8 inches per mile (not even squared) is about 355 feet of curvature flown each hour, every hour.

Why don't you explain how a plane flies level over 355 miles of curvature every hour?

It is impossible for a plane to fly level over a curve, let alone a 355 mile long curve. As a child knows, curves are not level. You cannot fly level to a non-level surface, as curves are not level surfaces. Spherical geometry has no parallels. Because a sphere cannot be parallel to anything...not even to your magical planes.

A plane has to PHYSICALLY match to a curved path, by dipping its nose. It is a fact.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Gravity is entirely consistent. And pervasive.

That's why it's a theory, which is constantly revised!!

a reply to: turbonium1

Give it up with the plane flight... this has been explained to you like 10 times

the adjustments needed would be minimal... not to mention the fact that the plane is rather high up in the air

DO you understand "Lift" at all?

Or anything for that matter?

Gesus cryst

a reply to: turbonium1

Does a plane following a line of latitude constantly have to bank?

Yes or no. You seem to keep missing this question.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

Give it up with the plane flight... this has been explained to you like 10 times

the adjustments needed would be minimal... not to mention the fact that the plane is rather high up in the air

DO you understand "Lift" at all?

Or anything for that matter?

Gesus cryst

I understand what level flight is, and it is not flying in a curved path. Do you understand that?

It is pretty simple, but I've yet to find any of you grasp that...

No matter how much you'd like a level flight to fly over a curve, it doesn't happen.


'Minimal' adjustment of about 355 miles descent per hour, each and every hour....it just 'happens' all the time!!


All planes follow around the big ball, which is 'level' flight, of course, and never dipping their nose, it's so 'slightly' curved, no dip needed!

You go right ahead with all that, if it makes you happy.

It makes me laugh.

a reply to: turbonium1

Thats ok you seem to make everyone laugh...

why would it matter if a plane fles perfectly level when its 30000 feet in the air?

apparently you don't understand what level flight is... or anything about aerodynamics or flight in general

Even though, again... its been explained to you multiple times

All planes follow around the big ball, which is 'level' flight, of course, and never dipping their nose, it's so 'slightly' curved, no dip needed!

You go right ahead with all that, if it makes you happy.

Sounds like something a 3rd grader would say...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

Thats ok you seem to make everyone laugh...

why would it matter if a plane fles perfectly level when its 30000 feet in the air?

apparently you don't understand what level flight is... or anything about aerodynamics or flight in general

Even though, again... its been explained to you multiple times

All planes follow around the big ball, which is 'level' flight, of course, and never dipping their nose, it's so 'slightly' curved, no dip needed!

You go right ahead with all that, if it makes you happy.

Sounds like something a 3rd grader would say...

Level flight is a flight neither in a descent, nor ascent, within air.

Do you think level flight is a plane flying over a curve? Seems you do. Curve is the new Level!

a reply to: turbonium1


who cares when you're flying 30,000 feet above sea level...

You're talking simple adjustments any pilot could make, but unnecessary due to these things we call computers

a reply to: turbonium1

Flight along lines of latitude. Continual banking, yes or no?

Your avoidance of the question is telling.

Can we all please stop feeding the gentleman who lives under a bridge and is being a pain in the rear?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Again, this proves gravity does not exist at all. A force has to be consistent, and gravity fails, once again.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that gravity isn't consistent in its actions. Please cite examples of gravity being inconsistent.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Gravity is entirely consistent. And pervasive.

That's why it's a theory, which is constantly revised!!

When exactly has it been constantly revised? ill give you a clue

Newton -> Solid frame work
GR -> 1st/2nd order corrections to Newton in some extreme circumstances... for 99% of gravitational calculations, Newton's theory of gravitation works perfectly fine.

Thats 1 revision... since 1687 and its not even a 'out with the old, in with the new' revision... you appear not to understand the meaning of the word constantly.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Insulting people over and over again, for doubting Earth might not be a gigantic ball?!?

Yes. People who believe the Earth is flat, or even question if it is spherical, in the 21st Century is borderline retardation and SHOULD be mocked, because they obviously did not attend basic high school.

There is NOTHING constructive, new or insightful to be gained by discussing if the Earth is a globe. You can argue it's your opinion all you want, but it's a wrong opinion and a very, very stupid opinion. If that is your opinion, of course.

a reply to: ErosA433

I think he's confusing the idea of knowing how gravity works with understand what the effect of gravity does. It's true that we don't exactly know where gravity comes from or WHY it does what it does. However, we DO have a very good understanding of how the effects of gravity manifests itself.

We can consistently predict measurements of gravity almost perfectly, because we have an excellent understanding of what values the effect of gravity would have in a given situation -- and we can do this even if we don't know what exactly why gravity happens.

I mean it doesn't take a full understanding of neuroscience of the human body to know that hitting my thumb with a hammer will hurt. We know the effect of gravity well enough to understand what gravity do even without a complete understanding of the inner workings of that effect.

Would we have a greater understand of the effects of gravity if we fully understood gravity? Of course we would. However, it's not a requirement for predicting how gravity works on a sphere-like Earth (or even on a disc-Earth, for that matter).

Turbo

If you start exactly at the north pole and keep flying exactly parallel to the radius of the earth. what will happen when you have flown 4000 miles?

a reply to: Hyperboles

DON'T ANSWER TURBO IT'S A TARP!

just kidding...

But seriously what are you actually trying to ask here?

Because parallel to the radius of the earth is so nonsensically malformed on every level that you might as well be asking if space tastes like chicken.

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: Hyperboles

...you might as well be asking if space tastes like chicken.

No. It tastes like raspberries and smells like rum (at least some parts of it does).

Astronomers have detected ethyl formate in some cosmic gas clouds. Ethyl formate is the chemical compound that gives raspberries much of their flavor and gives rum much of its scent.

Discovery of Methyl Acetate and Gauche Ethyl Formate in Orion

The Center Of Our Galaxy Smells Like Raspberries And Tastes Like Rum

I got it.

Let's handle the flat earth and hallow earth debate like we do climate change.

Scientists have amassed so much data proving the earth is actually round and not hallow that..."F scientists! Their all on George Soros payroll and are lying to us!" "Al Gore is just in it for the money...look how big his house is!"

LOL