Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

originally posted by: turbonium1

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!

Oh dear. Please stop talking. You're just embarrassing yourself.
Oh, wait, you're a troll. Never mind!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
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?

Planes do not follow lines of latitude, so it's irrelevant to the issue, anyway.

But in theory, a plane would have to bank in order to follow the line of latitude, since it is a curved line, a circle.

However, a plane would NOT bank in order to follow a line of latitude on your round Earth, right?

But, as always, the plane would have to descent constantly, to follow around the sphere, since it is a curved surface. A curved path is required to follow a curved surface, so the plane must descend, in order to follow the curved path.


And that doesn't ever happen, obviously.

a reply to: turbonium1

It doesn't happen because you have no understanding of how planes measure and maintain altitude, neither can you grasp the fairly simple concept that at any point immediately below, in front of or behind the plane the surface curvature is almost immeasurable. It's only over long distances that it becomes relevant.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Hell he can't even work out that down is always down and you want him to grasp a concept like MSL?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

It doesn't happen because you have no understanding of how planes measure and maintain altitude, neither can you grasp the fairly simple concept that at any point immediately below, in front of or behind the plane the surface curvature is almost immeasurable. It's only over long distances that it becomes relevant.

The claim of Earth's curvature is YOUR claim. It is YOUR calculation of curvature.

It may be "almost immeasurable' , to you, but it IS measurable, and that's the reality.

Over long distances, it IS indeed relevant, since planes fly over long distances, each and every day.



We know that a plane at 533 mph cruising speed, with a 8 inch per/mile curvature, is (533 x 8 = 4264 in.) of curvature, each and every hour, during flight. Or, about 355 feet of curvature per hour, every hour in flight. Over a 6 hour flight, that would mean about 2,132 feet of curvature has to be accounted for, and is NEVER, EVER, ONCE, been accounted for in a single flight, ever.

Do you see the problem now?

Ever since I looked into this issue, I've only wanted to see all the actual evidence, from both sides.

The curvature of Earth has an actual measurement value, calculated to be about 8 in. per mile squared. That's all we need to prove curvature is true, or is false. Nothing else matters.

Planes measure ascent, descent, or level flight, by two instruments - the altimeter, and the vertical speed indicator (VSI).

This is the crux of the issue. A plane cannot fly over 2000 miles of curvature without constantly descending during flight, or if not, then it must have several, periodic, larger descents. The second case cannot be true, since planes are at constant altitude, in general, over the period. So it must have a constant descent, in order to remain at altitude, over the curvature path.


That is where the VSI would measure the constant descent of every plane - in feet per minute.

The plane flying 533 mph at 8 in.per mile curvature, which is 355 feet per hour of curvature, (355 + 60 min.), for....

around 6 feet per minute in descent, measured by the VSI


THAT IS A REAL MEASUREMENT. NO EXCUSES.


No planes are in a constant descent of 6 feet per minute, which is what ALL planes would have to do, if curvature really existed. A descent has to be flown, it is not flown, because curvature does not exist. It is a lie. And not even a good lie, either. Anyone can shred it to pieces in no time, if they ever tried to.



SO - the instruments on planes are proof that curvature does not exist. A descent, which has a measurement value of about 6 fpm, is NOT measured on the VSI, which is impossible, if it followed any real curvature.

This is not about 'constant minor adjustments'. And if some 'pilot' says he doesn't need to account for over 2000 feet of curvature on a 6 hour flight.....well, he's either lying, or he's an idiot, or he's in complete denial of reality.


It's sad to say that, but it's true.

a reply to: turbonium1

So, according to you every single pilot in the entire world is either an idiot or lying? And there are no flights at all to the South Pole, every navigator on every ship is an idiot or lying and every geologist, physicist, astronomer, cartographer and hell, schoolteacher is a liar?
Get back under your bridge and stop trolling us please.

a reply to: turbonium1

Not sure why I am replying

I guess one must be charitable and feed the needy.

The claim of Earth's curvature is YOUR claim. It is YOUR calculation of curvature. It may be "almost immeasurable' , to you, but it IS measurable, and that's the reality. Over long distances, it IS indeed relevant, since planes fly over long distances, each and every day.

Yes planes fly over long distance they are not physically 1000s km long.

You are trying to compare a plane surface area and how much it needs to adjust in flight to a surface area the circumference of the globe.

At any point in the sky if you want compare how much a plane will adjust its leveling position then you can only compare to the distance on the ground and only use the same length as the plane not where the plane is flying to.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

It doesn't happen because you have no understanding of how planes measure and maintain altitude, neither can you grasp the fairly simple concept that at any point immediately below, in front of or behind the plane the surface curvature is almost immeasurable. It's only over long distances that it becomes relevant.

The claim of Earth's curvature is YOUR claim. It is YOUR calculation of curvature.

Nope, not my claim at all. Science's claim. Measured and verified for centuries.

It may be "almost immeasurable' , to you, but it IS measurable, and that's the reality.

"almost immeasurable" is not the same as "not measurable". It means it is a very small amount.

Over long distances, it IS indeed relevant, since planes fly over long distances, each and every day.

Yes, using navigational techniques entirely reliant on the Earth being a sphere.

We know that a plane at 533 mph cruising speed, with a 8 inch per/mile curvature, is (533 x 8 = 4264 in.) of curvature, each and every hour, during flight. Or, about 355 feet of curvature per hour, every hour in flight. Over a 6 hour flight, that would mean about 2,132 feet of curvature has to be accounted for, and is NEVER, EVER, ONCE, been accounted for in a single flight, ever.

Do you see the problem now?

Ever since I looked into this issue, I've only wanted to see all the actual evidence, from both sides.

Then why are you only accepting one half of it?

The curvature of Earth has an actual measurement value, calculated to be about 8 in. per mile squared. That's all we need to prove curvature is true, or is false. Nothing else matters.

Planes measure ascent, descent, or level flight, by two instruments - the altimeter, and the vertical speed indicator (VSI).

This is the crux of the issue. A plane cannot fly over 2000 miles of curvature without constantly descending during flight, or if not, then it must have several, periodic, larger descents. The second case cannot be true, since planes are at constant altitude, in general, over the period. So it must have a constant descent, in order to remain at altitude, over the curvature path.


That is where the VSI would measure the constant descent of every plane - in feet per minute.

The plane flying 533 mph at 8 in.per mile curvature, which is 355 feet per hour of curvature, (355 + 60 min.), for....

around 6 feet per minute in descent, measured by the VSI


THAT IS A REAL MEASUREMENT. NO EXCUSES.


No planes are in a constant descent of 6 feet per minute, which is what ALL planes would have to do, if curvature really existed. A descent has to be flown, it is not flown, because curvature does not exist. It is a lie. And not even a good lie, either. Anyone can shred it to pieces in no time, if they ever tried to.



SO - the instruments on planes are proof that curvature does not exist. A descent, which has a measurement value of about 6 fpm, is NOT measured on the VSI, which is impossible, if it followed any real curvature.

This is not about 'constant minor adjustments'. And if some 'pilot' says he doesn't need to account for over 2000 feet of curvature on a 6 hour flight.....well, he's either lying, or he's an idiot, or he's in complete denial of reality.


It's sad to say that, but it's true.

Stop pretending you have any understanding whatsoever of those numbers.

So you, someone who gives the impression of never going outside, know more than pilots who fly planes using navigational techniques based on the Earth being a sphere.

Riiiiight...

originally posted by: Hyperboles
And work on the pendulum thingy will ya. Lot of ignorance is bliss is apparent

Could you do me a solid and either link back to the pendulum thingy or explain what this is? I'm super curious but I feel like I only see glimpses of it in the posts. Something, something the swing of a pendulum. Something, something general relativity.

What does a pendulum prove??

a reply to: turbonium1

See you act like you're saying something profound here and have found some sort of gotcha moment, but here's the thing...

OUR MODEL ALSO INCLUDES GRAVITY!!

So no, you haven't found anything resembling a gotcha moment!

Instead you are building a stupid straw man that has nothing to do with anything.

It's just like your 8 inches per mile squared formula BS.... if you actually knew what that formula was for and about you wouldn't bring it up at all in this context!

So congratulations... You have very thoroughly proven that if you use scientific and mathematical models incorrectly they don't comport with reality!

Duh

That's literally all you have done.

You come into this thread demanding that we give you the performance specs of a 1997 dodge viper engine's torque to displacement ratio in teaspoons per foot pound but only doing the calculations in metric and using ludicrously incorrect conversion factors you provide!

At which point you crow about Dodge lying about the viper's real performance because you have just shown that their claims are impossible!

If you incorrectly use science and math you will get trash for answers... That's it...

You're wasting your own and everyone else's time by continuing to post your nonsense. If you want to be a moron you are free to do so, but no one else is under any obligation to pretend that you're anything else but a moron.

a reply to: turbonium1

How do you know an object is moving? The answer is you don't - there is nothing like a "fixed absolute coordinate in space". Speed is measured by referencing another object. In the case of a plane it's in reference to the ground. Since the only thing we can use to determine motion is the curved earth. You can't magically remove your plane from the system like you attempt to do.

You chose your frame of reference as an arbitrary point in space, which is why it leads to incorrect conclusions. The only one that would see the plane as flying an ellipse is someone outside of earth watching our plane. Within the system it will seem to be a perfectly straight line.

Sorry Verbsy! I can no longer resist the urge! Judging by how seriously those involved in the topic take themselves, this is clearly very important, very critical stuff. The Truth must be known!

Debunkers are clearly very important, very brilliant people who in no way would ever stoop to the level of defining reality by Google searches and internet debate rules. They have done the actual experiments themselves, without fail, and even if the conclusions are wrong.. respect must be given to anyone who actually involves themselves in the journey of science directly.

They have risen above basic Google-Fu to attain true master status.



a reply to: turbonium1

So, in your hypothesis here.. how is gravity accounted for? Its a factor, and honestly, a rather interesting one. Relativity in general is pretty darn fascinating, even if it has become rote in our Cultural Story.

Do keep in mind that in this little adventure of mine, I'm agreeing with the Flat Earth proposal. In a sense, at least.

The 3D information that we perceive as an oblate spheroid is actually contained on a 2D surface.

In this, for all intents and purposes, and coherency in calculations, it can be seen as this spheroid. However, it is indeed a Flat Earth and no one can ever argue against that without being completely wrong, ignorant silly billies.

originally posted by: Ineilio

originally posted by: Hyperboles
And work on the pendulum thingy will ya. Lot of ignorance is bliss is apparent

Could you do me a solid and either link back to the pendulum thingy or explain what this is? I'm super curious but I feel like I only see glimpses of it in the posts. Something, something the swing of a pendulum. Something, something general relativity.

What does a pendulum prove??

Relativity says an atomic clock should run faster as it moves up from the Earth's surface, and lab experiments prove this is what happens.

When you move a pendulum up from the Earth's surface, it runs slower instead of faster, and hyperboles thinks this proves relativity wrong, but in fact it's because the pendulum in the case of varying gravity is in some sense measuring gravity and not time. In the extreme example, when you move it up to a Lagrangian point, the pendulum will stop completely but of course time does not stop at such a point, so that should be adequate proof the pendulum is not measuring time but hyperboles doesn't get that. If time did stop at Lagrangians, then satellites like SOHO at the L1 sun-Earth Lagrangian wouldn't be able to transmit data, because you need time for electromagnetic transmission frequencies to be created.

It may be a little off topic but since it speaks to the credibility of hyperboles claims supporting the flat earthers, I think it's relevant in demonstrating a rather substantial lack of cognitive ability which should be considered when evaluating his false claims about a plane needing to point its nose down to maintain altitude, etc.

originally posted by: Ineilio

originally posted by: Hyperboles
And work on the pendulum thingy will ya. Lot of ignorance is bliss is apparent

Could you do me a solid and either link back to the pendulum thingy or explain what this is? I'm super curious but I feel like I only see glimpses of it in the posts. Something, something the swing of a pendulum. Something, something general relativity.

What does a pendulum prove??

Simply put, a pendulum slows down at the equator compared to what it does on the poles, which is opposite to what is postulated by general relativity. Pity einstein never imagined this

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Did you not read this www.abovetopsecret.com... ?
Know ye not that, gravity and time are intrinsically linked?

If the Earth was "round", then tell me..... why are the soles of my shoes Flat, shouldn't they be curved?

a reply to: Serdgiam

So, in your hypothesis here.. how is gravity accounted for?

They don't believe in Gravity

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Simply put, a pendulum slows down at the equator compared to what it does on the poles, which is opposite to what is postulated by general relativity. Pity einstein never imagined this

No, that doesn't contradict general relativity. Pendulums are affected much more by variations in gravity than by the small variations in time, which is why they stop at lagrangians. Atomic clocks are used to measure time because they don't have this problem, and they don't stop at lagrangians.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Did you not read this www.abovetopsecret.com... ?
Know ye not that, gravity and time are intrinsically linked?

Experiments show they are linked in a manner consistent with the theory of general relativity, which you say is wrong.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
why should time stop at lagrangian points? you are still orbiting the sun and the centre of the galaxy

The pendulum would effectively stop at a lagrangian, do you deny this? Time doesn't stop at lagrangians. So if you realize that pendulums stop at lagrangians but time doesn't, do you also realize this debunks your "pendulums are measuring time" idea when you say pendulums disprove general relativity?

originally posted by: Akragon
They don't believe in Gravity

I couldn't make any sense out of turbonium's objections to gravity theory, like the fact that birds fly and rocks don't. How that shows a problem with gravity is completely incomprehensible (but I can make a rock "fly" if I throw it).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Pendulum will not stop at lagrangian but will stop at the event horizon of a black hole

a reply to: Village Idiot

If your foot from heel to toe was 69 miles long you would still only be dealing with a 1 degree total shift between heel and toe.So no, you don't need curved shoe soles.

Scale is very important in these discussions for this reason. (And really in all technical discussions)

Another very good example of this is the house fly which people say shouldn't be able to fly according to standard aerodynamic calculations. But at the scale the fly operates at it is basically swimming not flying which it has more than enough power to do.

(Rollie or one of you guys please help me out here, I'm pretty sure I'm butchering this explanation but I'm hip shooting this post in the star bucks drive thru with my girlfriend singing along to the radio next to me, so I'm not going to google it)

scale, proportion, spatial reasoning, and et cetera are all very important to these questions and topics but they aren't really taught well at all even in college unless you're on a STEM track or in certain trade school pipelines.

But when it comes to teaching these things anything like effectively you need small class sizes and very good instructors because they're areas where can't teach people WHAT TO THINK rather you absolutely have to teach them HOW TO THINK!

It's a real problem that extends far beyond people thinking the earth is flat honestly, the fact that we don't even attempt to give the overwhelming majority of students a basic grounding in any of this is very much a mistake in my opinion.