Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

a reply to: ErosA433

No freakin joke right!?

You do not go into science and engineering to get rich, matter of fact I'm pretty sure if someone did a study they would find that you are far more likely to hit it big in Hollywood or as a professional athlete than as a scientist or engineer by a massive margin.

Stuff like this always aggravates me too, because actually knowing some professional science types, the sheer frustration they express about having to spend 8 months trying to get the funding to do 4 months worth of science every year is astounding.

"I miss grad school... I got to do real science at least 3 days a week, and it was amazing!"

"I wish someone would have told me to enjoy every second of living on ramen and 3 hours of sleep, but doing science almost every day, in grad school!"

I hear this so much from people in the sciences, it's almost like the flerfers are completely mischaracterizing entire segments of the population or something...

And that's really the problem right there, it's one more place where in order to be a flerfer you have to categorically refuse to acknowledge reality.

The science and engineering as a path to wealth and fame thing being particularly egregious though because of the way science and engineering presentations at career fairs and presentations where people from various fields come in and talk to students universally go!

The first thing the presenters do is ask who in the group wants to be independently wealthy or a household name... And then proceeds to tell the people with their hands raised that they're in the wrong place! Often going as far as to ask them to leave or at least give them a chance to do so. And finally closing this part of their introduction with a very firm affirmation that this WILL NOT HAPPEN if you choose to go into science etc!

I know that pretty much every flerfer has at some point sat in on a presentation where this has been brought up.

It's ridiculous

Ineilio, very well put. Your philosophy is interesting, and I enjoyed reading your post.

Some of us are particularly technical-minded, and problem solvers by nature. So much so that when a “problem” resists being fixed (only the human variety does this, because inanimate objects get with the program), it tends to mystify us. In this way it’s a struggle to comprehend flatEarthism in the 21st Century, and as hard to shrug off as grinding gear or a malfunctioning circuit—both of which are like cries for help to someone like me. So in frustration when the solutions of science and facts don’t land on the flatEarther, we often react by swinging hard to the kind of clumsy psychological troubleshooting that we’re not so well equipped for. Like I’m doing now, for instance.

Yours is a more even strain to pull with, and one I try for too, with some success. In truth, while I’m hardly impassive about the topic itself of the Earth’s shape-it’s fascinating!--I care much less about flatEarther conversion rates than most others who voice opinions on it. I see my role as having a little expertise and trying to help some well-intentioned folks who are severely misguided, but if I fail at it, it doesn’t matter much. It doesn’t ding my own confidence, nor keep me up at night, and I worry only for flatEarther children whose educational paces are likely to be stunted for as long as this silly fad surges. I recognize that adult flatEarthers can survive just fine in the retrogressive fringe, some even happy and fulfilled, even as the rest of society move forward.

Well, this pondering of human nature has given me a headache. I'm out of aspirin, so I think I’ll go to the garage and fix that old slide projector that’s been acting up...

originally posted by: Ineilio

So nose up or nose down, I don’t care. When the flat earth folks can use their theory to provide an accurate estimate of the next solar eclipse or use their theory to accurately place a GPS satellite into orbit in a verifiable, reproducible way, then I will be convinced. Until that time, it’s just a thought experiment about the conscious world - no different than me saying Elvis rides shotgun in a Ford Fiesta with Jesus on the moon because it feels right to me.

That's great writing.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: roguetechie

Once again read this www.abovetopsecret.com... and calculate again and while you are at it, read this post www.abovetopsecret.com... again and again till you understand

So according to you, what would happen if the airplane pilot didn't tilt the nose down, are you saying he'd end up in outer space from going in a straight line, with the surface of the earth 4000 miles below him?

That notion is just as ridiculous as your claim that pendulums disprove relativity which nobody ever figured out before, except of course for you. At least on the plane needing to tilt its nose down, you have some flat-earthers on your side...oh wait, that's more of a negative than a positive.

Yes just read the op again carefully.
And work on the pendulum thingy will ya. Lot of ignorance is bliss is apparent

So you still maintain that time stops at lagrangian points, quite interesting, also quite wrong.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Nope, wrong, because this is not what happens. All a plane has to do us trim its wings to be at a certain height, at any point along its journey, measure the distance to the ground. Even on a curved surfaces, this will still be the same distance wherever it is along the journey.


No, only you are saying that. Everyone else is saying that it is just following the laws of physics.

I'm explaining the physics to you.

Show me a source that supports your claim, if you can.

I've yet to see it.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Read. Learn. Stop pretending you don't understand.

www.explainthatstuff.com...

www.faa.gov...

if that's too difficult for you, watching the moving pictures as they speak to you.

Thanks for supporting my argument, even though you have no clue as to why...

The source you posted states that 'level flight' is when the plane is neither in ascent, not descent, while in flight.

As I said, over and over again, in fact.

The surface below has nothing to do with level flight, in fact.

'Curvature' is not ever mentioned by the source, afaik.


Maybe that's why you didn't cite anything, from YOUR OWN SOURCE!!

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Look, you can sh*t all over the flat earth all you want.

But, Dont EVER take my hollow earth from me!

This!

All planes would have to fly in a constant descent, to follow a spherical surface.

Trim cannot account for it.

I've asked you to find any SOURCE to support your argument - and you've failed, miserably.

Juvenile insults won't change these facts.

Excuses from a 'pilot' mean nothing, either.

What source supports the pilot, beyond the very same pilot, who just keeps on spewing about it, over and over again?

originally posted by: turbonium1


The surface below has nothing to do with level flight, in fact.

Uh-huh.

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

a reply to: turbonium1

Yeah pilots, what do they know about flying planes...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1


The surface below has nothing to do with level flight, in fact.

Uh-huh.

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

It depends on what those 'lines of latitude are actually being measured as, measured against, and so forth...

Measuring lines of latitude over a sphere isn't the same as measuring it over a flat surface.

The planes fly level over the surface, at altitude, which shows Earth is, indeed, a flat surface.

What is the reason for having only TWO LINES measure...on a supposedly THREE dimensional surface?

A sphere cannot be properly, accurately, measured, in a two dimensional form.

Spheres are not two-dimensional surfaces, obviously.


The trick is plotting the circle 'above' Earth, while virtually ignoring the circle 'below' Earth.

There is an 'arctic circle', but no 'antarctic circle'. How neat.

The north pole is flown over, but we've never flown over the south pole. Move right along now, folks.


That explains how all these ships had problems - they tried to navigate with half-wrong, half-correct, maps.


North was known by the Northern star, above the ships. It was the base of all other exploration. Not a map of half-crap.


A sphere is not measured in only 2 dimensions.

That is how we measure a flat surface.


A compass is a 2-dimensional instrument, which is supposedly measuring for a 3-dimensional surface. Right, of course it does! It CAN measure for a 2-dimensional surface, but it's sure great for measuring 3-d surfaces, too!!


How do all our instruments measure for a spherical surface, when they all are measuring for a flat surface??

It's obviously because of an all powerful, magical force, called 'gravity'!

a reply to: turbonium1

The north pole is flown over, but we've never flown over the south pole.

Cute.

Have you ever flown over the north pole? No? Well you covered that point by saying it "is flown over." But then you say "we've never flown over the south pole."

What do you mean by "we?" Have you, personally, ever flown over the north pole? I haven't.

Why do you claim that "we've never flown over the south pole?" Are you certain that no one has ever flown over the south pole?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Yeah pilots, what do they know about flying planes...

A total moron can learn how to fly a plane....so what?

a reply to: turbonium1

A total moron can learn how to fly a plane

So? You have a license?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1


The surface below has nothing to do with level flight, in fact.

Uh-huh.

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

It depends on what those 'lines of latitude are actually being measured as, measured against, and so forth...

The entire planet knows what a line of latitude is. Except you, apparently.

Measuring lines of latitude over a sphere isn't the same as measuring it over a flat surface.

Exactly. A line of latitude on sphere has to be represented as a curve on a 2D flat-earth stupid map. Following a line of latitude on a flat earth stupid map means following a curve. Why doesn't a plane bank when it does that?

The planes fly level over the surface, at altitude, which shows Earth is, indeed, a flat surface.

What is the reason for having only TWO LINES measure...on a supposedly THREE dimensional surface?

A sphere cannot be properly, accurately, measured, in a two dimensional form.

Spheres are not two-dimensional surfaces, obviously.


The trick is plotting the circle 'above' Earth, while virtually ignoring the circle 'below' Earth.

Gibberish.

There is an 'arctic circle', but no 'antarctic circle'. How neat.

Uh-huh

c.tadst.com...

The north pole is flown over, but we've never flown over the south pole. Move right along now, folks.

False.

www.history.com...

antarctic-logistics.com...

That explains how all these ships had problems - they tried to navigate with half-wrong, half-correct, maps.

'All these ships'? Which ships?

North was known by the Northern star, above the ships. It was the base of all other exploration. Not a map of half-crap.


A sphere is not measured in only 2 dimensions.

That is how we measure a flat surface.


A compass is a 2-dimensional instrument, which is supposedly measuring for a 3-dimensional surface. Right, of course it does! It CAN measure for a 2-dimensional surface, but it's sure great for measuring 3-d surfaces, too!!


How do all our instruments measure for a spherical surface, when they all are measuring for a flat surface??

It's obviously because of an all powerful, magical force, called 'gravity'!

You're just throwing random words at a wall here and hoping they stick.

Figured out where magnetic north is yet?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

The north pole is flown over, but we've never flown over the south pole.

Cute.

Have you ever flown over the north pole? No? Well you covered that point by saying it "is flown over." But then you say "we've never flown over the south pole."

What do you mean by "we?" Have you, personally, ever flown over the north pole? I haven't.

Why do you claim that "we've never flown over the south pole?" Are you certain that no one has ever flown over the south pole?

No proof exists of an actual flight directly over the south pole.

It is simply not possible, that's why it hasn't ever been done.


If you believe it is off-limits because they have any sort of 'ecological concerns', you're a hopeless case.


Some regular commercial flights would benefit immensely, by flying directly over the south pole....

But they choose not to fly over the south pole, which is the first time in history that a business has deliberately chosen to LOSE profits!

I guess they're concerned about it's 'ecology', too!

Planes fly in a straight path, or close to it, not along a curved path.

A single, specific line of latitude isn't taken as the flight path of commercial planes.

Look at the flight data, if you think I'm wrong about that.

The points vary, over any flight - both in latitude, and in longitude.


Yikes.

a reply to: turbonium1

It is simply not possible, that's why it hasn't ever been done.

False. Two times.

a reply to: turbonium1

So you're saying that a plane can't fly along a line of latitude as shown on the flat earth stupid maps without banking.

Care to test that out on one of those dumb pilots?

originally posted by: ErosA433
So you still maintain that time stops at lagrangian points, quite interesting, also quite wrong.

why should time stop at lagrangian points? you are still orbiting the sun and the centre of the galaxy