Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: turbonium1

A plane must follow above the SURFACE of a sphere. And must descend to follow the 'descending' surface, which ALL spheres have..

Yes, however the planes length is too short compared to the circumference of the earth to make it matter.


such a simple reason shouldn't be so hard to understated.

Much of the world would probably look at it the same way, as you. Up to a year or so back, I would have seen it that way, too.

If Earth is really shaped like a sphere, it does not matter how massive it is, or how small, in comparison, the airplane flying above it is.....

A plane MUST fly a constant descent over a sphere. Only the rate of descent will vary.

You were told that a plane does not need to point its nose down in any flights, and that a plane is always making little adjustments in a flight, which accounts for curvature on flights.

And you were told that it was such a small rate of curvature, that it didn't matter.

I'm going to explain why it DOES matter, once again...for it IS very simple concept..

Everyone knows Earth is massive, in comparison to virtually any object - on, above, or below, the surface.

A small object has to descend, if flying above a sphere.It doesn't matter if the sphere is a 10 million times larger than any other sphere, it is a sphere, and to fly around it, requires a constant descent, no matter how slight the rate of descent.


As for Earth, the curvature you believe is so slight, it doesn't matter?

If you were on a plane for a 6 hour flight, nothing would ever matter more to you, than knowing if curvature really exists!

Because you would either be flying in a plane 1800 feet higher than the altimeter indicates, or in a plane that is measuring the correct altitude.

Slightly important, yes?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Yes, yes, you know all and are smarter than all of us, and haven proven it over and over in every topic. Like I said before, done this ride before. You have fun patting yourself on the back again at how you proved you're smarter than everyone again.

It's not about being smarter, it's about learning the issue at hand, without any agenda, or insecurities, or fear of what it means, to prior beliefs, to prior views, or to what people might think about you speaking about it, afterwards.

I'm not afraid of what people think of my views on any issue.

All of the personal attacks are based on their own insecurities and fears, when they should only be debating about all of the evidence, or the lack of evidence, presented from each side.

Truth is all I'm after here. It's up to each of us to face the truth, without fear, or bias, or agendas.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

For a troll you are dementedly determined. That or you are trying to prove a point.
I think the other posters need to stop rising to the bait you keep leaving out in the form of idiocy.

At least you live up to your forum nickname!

Why would you even care about what I believe? Why bother posting on what I think?

Are you upset when people have a different view than yours, on what the shape of Earth is?

Or are you upset about something else?

If you want to discuss the issue, go ahead. It's hardly worth going off in some sort of maniacal rage over, is it?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

It is nonsense.

A plane must follow above the SURFACE of a sphere. And must descend to follow the 'descending' surface, which ALL spheres have..

originally posted by: turbonium1
Ascent or descent is measured by pressure differential, within the VSI's diaphragm.

It is measured within air, uses air pressure to measure ascent, descent, and level flight of a plane.

Once again, this has NOTHING to do with the surface, far below the plane. Your endlessly claiming it.... is total nonsense.

You say it has nothing to do with the surface, but then you say it has everything to do with the surface. You are the biggest debunker of yourself with your own contradictions.

The CENTER of a sphere has nothing to do with it. A plane is flying over the surface of a sphere, not the center!

Again all this emphasis on the surface now, when before you were going out of your way you say it has nothing to do with the surface. You are contradicting yourself. By the way the surface of a sphere is above the center of a sphere so if a plane flies over the surface it's also flying over the center. If you deny that you must be trolling.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You do realise you're contradicting everything you said before right?

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

I don't have any contradictions, it's your own confusion.

When I talk about the surface not being relevant, I'm referring to measurements in flight. Tthe VSI measures ascent, descent, and level flight. The surface has nothing to do with those measurements. The VSI measures ascent, descent, and level flight, based solely on what the plane is doing, at the specific time, within air. A plane in a descent will show pressure differentials, indicating the plane is in descent, and it's rate is indicated in feet per minute (fpm).

After setting 0 feet as a base point (ie: sea level), the altimete measures the specific atmospheric pressure to gauge the specific altitude of the plane, during its flight. The surface below the plane during flight does not matter to measure its altitude, it measures the atmospheric pressure to gauge altitude along the flight.


All this should have been very clear to you, because I've said it over and over already.


I never said the surface does not matter to a plane, because it certainly does. I said the surface is not used to measure ascent, descent, level flight, or altitude during flight.


I brought up a completely different point about the surface, as well.

To follow a curved surface, and maintain the same altitude a plane would have to descend. That does not mean the altitude is measured by the ground below, because it isn't. Simply, that a plane would have to descend in order to maintain the same altitude. It would not MEASURE the same altitude, however, and that's the problem. A descent would measure a lower altitude than before. Over a flat surface, this works. Because it IS at a lower altitude. Over a curved surface, it CANNOT work, because the altitude should not be lower, it should be the same as before.


Think about why level flight is so important to measure on a plane, after it leaves the ground, until it lands...

Think about what level flight actually means, and how level flight is actually measured within the air...


And think about why a plane does not have to measure anything on the surface, for level flight, for a correct altitude...


And think about why a 6 hour flight doesn't have to account for 1800 feet of 'missing curvature', which never existed to begin with.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: turbonium1

A plane must follow above the SURFACE of a sphere. And must descend to follow the 'descending' surface, which ALL spheres have..

Yes, however the planes length is too short compared to the circumference of the earth to make it matter.




such a simple reason shouldn't be so hard to understated.

Much of the world would probably look at it the same way, as you. Up to a year or so back, I would have seen it that way, too.

If Earth is really shaped like a sphere, it does not matter how massive it is, or how small, in comparison, the airplane flying above it is.....

A plane MUST fly a constant descent over a sphere. Only the rate of descent will vary.

You were told that a plane does not need to point its nose down in any flights, and that a plane is always making little adjustments in a flight, which accounts for curvature on flights.

And you were told that it was such a small rate of curvature, that it didn't matter.

I'm going to explain why it DOES matter, once again...for it IS very simple concept..

Everyone knows Earth is massive, in comparison to virtually any object - on, above, or below, the surface.

A small object has to descend, if flying above a sphere.It doesn't matter if the sphere is a 10 million times larger than any other sphere, it is a sphere, and to fly around it, requires a constant descent, no matter how slight the rate of descent.


As for Earth, the curvature you believe is so slight, it doesn't matter?

If you were on a plane for a 6 hour flight, nothing would ever matter more to you, than knowing if curvature really exists!

Because you would either be flying in a plane 1800 feet higher than the altimeter indicates, or in a plane that is measuring the correct altitude.

Slightly important, yes?

consider....it doesn't do that noticibly piloting a plane....we correct if flying with the altitude hold turned off......correct every two seconds.....same a bulldozer blade control or the submarine drivers.....

however i posted about gyros yesterday.......gyros should hold reference in space.....then inertia landing a pane on a spinning globe landing north south....vs landing east west.......then the inertia from a sun haulin azz towards the star Vega....opposite Serius, the dog star however ya spell Serios....Serious...oh Sirus

a reply to: turbonium1

If Earth is really shaped like a sphere, it does not matter how massive it is, or how small, in comparison, the airplane flying above it is.....

with what you are trying to compare, YES, the size of both objects matters a whole lot, its one of the most important factors when making the comparisons to work out what you are talking about.

A plane MUST fly a constant descent over a sphere. Only the rate of descent will vary.

The rate of decent will vary.


Lets leave the size of the plane at what the size of plane is.


The earth needs to have a much smaller circumference (much much smaller) for pilots to have to compensate.


Because the earth is the size it is and because a plane is not flying on the surface but way above this makes the circumference of where the plane around the planet even larger.

You were told that a plane does not need to point its nose down in any flights, and that a plane is always making little adjustments in a flight, which accounts for curvature on flights. And you were told that it was such a small rate of curvature, that it didn't matter.

No, I wasn't told that.

A small object has to descend, if flying above a sphere.It doesn't matter if the sphere is a 10 million times larger than any other sphere, it is a sphere, and to fly around it, requires a constant descent, no matter how slight the rate of descent.

How long is a plane?


250feet?


How much curvature on the surface of the planet is there over 250 feet?


add 10km or 30,000 feet of more space to increase the circumference and how much curvature is over 250 feet?



Seriously, How much?


Its so minimal that it doesn't matter at the speeds planes travel.

As for Earth, the curvature you believe is so slight, it doesn't matter? If you were on a plane for a 6 hour flight, nothing would ever matter more to you, than knowing if curvature really exists! Because you would either be flying in a plane 1800 feet higher than the altimeter indicates, or in a plane that is measuring the correct altitude. Slightly important, yes?

Now that is one epic


Fail.


How much curvature is over 250 feet just on the surface (just the surface not at 30,000 feet) of the planet?


If you cannot understand why I ask even after attempting to explain with my limited intellect then good luck to you.

In this flat Earth situation, does gravity effect objects or is it just air resistance. If a ball is thrown, it falls to the earth at some point. Either or both are a factor?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

For a troll you are dementedly determined. That or you are trying to prove a point.
I think the other posters need to stop rising to the bait you keep leaving out in the form of idiocy.

At least you live up to your forum nickname!

Why would you even care about what I believe? Why bother posting on what I think?

Are you upset when people have a different view than yours, on what the shape of Earth is?

Or are you upset about something else?

If you want to discuss the issue, go ahead. It's hardly worth going off in some sort of maniacal rage over, is it?

Oh, I'm not ranting about anything. I'm just pointing out that you have lied, obfuscated, changed direction, wilfully misunderstood facts and generally trolled for page after page after page.
You're giggling about getting people so upset with how stupid you appear to be aren't you?
Meh. I have better things to do.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Am a Pilot and an Engineer. Just ponder on all my posts and you will understand about the curvature and why the earth isn't flat

Savvy probably might be certified to fly, (not sure how), but most definitely holds nothing greater than a bachelors in marine engineering (if we want to believe a badly constructed word document about an anti-gravity machine)... thus is not a certified engineer... He also doesn't understand how algebra works (see previously discussed documet), thermal expansion (previously discussed threads about the anti-gravity machine), basic physics, advanced physics, and in some instances geometry.

The Earth however, isn't flat as he says... which is odd really since its the kind of thing Savvy is likely to disagree with given how much he doesn't feel he needs to understand about science and engineering.

a reply to: ErosA433

Can you link me to the antigravity machine thread please?

I could totally use a good laugh, and if it's a tenth as good as the .edu thing it'll totally be more than sufficient!

a reply to: roguetechie

Lol you are well advised to get a degree in aeronautical engineering and then come and talk to me

a reply to: mytquin

Pilots dont have to tip the nose down , because a plane is constantly fighting the effect of gravity and is essentially controlled falling!

A plane wouldnt fly into space as it requires Air molecules to work the jet engines and so can only fly to specific altitudes before there isnt enough air to keep it aloft!

a reply to: roguetechie

There's this one from some weirdo who thinks heat expansion is anti gravity because "candles" lol.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Oh, and the Earth isn’t flat.

a reply to: Hyperboles

I have half a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering mostly held up by being way behind in math, and I'm already well aware of how fulla crap you are!

I have no compunction about admitting I've been one of the less intelligent people in a majority of my classes. (if you have a hard time with the math you're one of the dumb kids period, so I'm one of the dumb kids)

I'm not claiming to be like Eros and arb who both definitely do grok the math!

But at the same time that I might be a bit slow in that, I still pulled a 98 on the asvab (test version from the 1999-2000 era) and absolutely buried the needle on stuff like spatial reasoning and spatial orientation etc. At the time there were 99 points possible on the test.

What I'm really trying to say here is that I'm just as far from stupid as I am far away from being as well educated as other posters here. And I am very comfortable with acknowledging when and where things move beyond my ability to follow them.

You don't have to be the smartest person in the room to be seen as interesting or worthwhile to talk to on ATS, just being willing and able to honestly differentiate between when you are speculating and when you are for sure certain of your assertions is plenty!

We all have blind spots and that's perfectly ok.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Dude thank you for that!

I have fallen down a rabbit hole of pure comedy gold

a reply to: roguetechie

Feel as though I owe an apology in reference to my rather long rant much earlier in the thread, while it is no real excuse it could have been that I associated your username with someone else during that rant. As I admit, thats not really an excuse, so, sorry!

People here do have a wide range of experience, life difficulties etc, I think that I am a little bit sensitive to the ever so often told tall tale, since anecdotes are far too often used as evidence. Ironically here, academic credentials are often observed as a burden or a negative, unless it of-course supports one suppositions. The classic 'All of science is wrong and all scientists are liars... except this guy/gal, because they say what i want to believe' Bias. After the few years of membership of ATS, i'll admit it, it annoys me more than It should. haha, not because "haha, im upset that im wrong" but because i find it hard to accept people can live with such lack of logical reasoning that they can contradict themselves within the same sentence, keep a straight face and bullishly believe that no contradiction is present.

I think for me, I respect logical reasoning, I don't always achieve it myself admittedly, but im the first to admit it when i make a weird argument that doesn't quite make sense. So your post there Roguetechie, I find to be quite humble.

While I do have a PhD in physics, I am now admittedly, 10 years into a post-doctoral career and I find that Iv spent more time working on hardware than I have behind my computer doing maths. Thus my strong point is more the hands on, what happens to equipment etc more than theory. As you say, honesty is an all too forgotten component on ATS where it seems that people feel like they have to make the tales taller and the language harsher just to be listened too.

It is such when it comes to respect and logical conversation that i offer you an appoligy in regard to my earlier rant, and secondly to redouble... Savvy, stop telling people they need an education when clearly you cannot backup your credentials with any form of logical and demonstrable knowledge.

a reply to: ErosA433

Thank you

I wrote a big long post that mostly repeated my last one so I'm editing it to just simply say thank you and leave it at that.

originally posted by: roguetechie

I have no compunction about admitting I've been one of the less intelligent people in a majority of my classes. (if you have a hard time with the math you're one of the dumb kids period, so I'm one of the dumb kids)

* * *

What I'm really trying to say here is that I'm just as far from stupid as I am far away from being as well educated as other posters here. And I am very comfortable with acknowledging when and where things move beyond my ability to follow them.

* * *

We all have blind spots and that's perfectly ok.

Roguetechie, I think a key to rational analysis is to have awareness of what we don’t know. And that actually takes some education. Too much ignorance denies a person a sense of her/his own ignorance. Don’t sell yourself short because you have a blind spot or two, or a comparative shortcoming in education (math!), because I don’t know anyone who doesn’t, and I’ll put myself at the head of that line. It happens that I have a Mathematics degree, but I get teased because I’ll never, ever understand musical time signatures. But I surely know enough to defer to experts—musicians--in the matter.

As rational and/or educated people, we often perceive the fuzzy shape of knowledge which we haven’t mastered personally, and we have the acumen to find experts and other sources to help us learn more, if we’re interested to do so. In contrast, flatEarthers and other like-minded, well-intentioned folks typically aren’t aware of what they don’t know, not even as fuzzy shapes. They don’t know how to select among claimed-experts, they use terms and concepts without actually knowing their conventional meanings, and they bank on intuition over evidence every time. They don’t realize that real-world facts are often completely counter-intuitive, and so anything that merely “makes sense” to them is accepted as correct, and scientific discovery to the contrary be damned.

a reply to: Rollie83
What kills me is the logical inconsistency of how the flat earth arguments are presented. For example, flat earthers cite NASA as a source in saying NASA admits their photos of the earth since 1972 are composites and thus not "real" photos of a round earth. So apparently they must be assigning some credibility to NASA to use what NASA says in support of their argument. But then what about this 1972 photo, NASA never said this was a composite, or photoshopped:

The Earth seen from Apollo 17


Then they say you can't believe anything NASA says. But wait, a minute ago they wanted me to believe NASA when they said their other photos were composited, or if not why were they citing what NASA said. I don't think they even realize the cognitive dissonance in how their information is filtered.

I present the story that way because that's how I've heard flat earthers describe it, but actually that 1972 photo isn't the last photo of Earth that isn't a composite. There are other, more recent photos of the earth that aren't composites from NASA and other space agencies. I never hear flat earthers talk about JAXA but they have more recent non-composite photos like this one:

jda.jaxa.jp...


So if Flat Earthers were consistent they would just say every space agency lies about everything, instead of this argument about NASA admitting some images are composites, without addressing the images that aren't composites.

They don't even need NASA or JAXA imagery to repeat the measurement of the round Earth Erastothenes made thousands of years ago; why do no Flat Earthers just repeat that experiment? I suppose because it would be too logical and would debunk their conspiracy theory?

a reply to: roguetechie

So you think, Im fulla crap, eh? Brilliant