Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

I know that instruments all measure level flights correctly.... unlike you, it seems.

originally posted by: turbonium1
I know that instruments all measure level flights correctly.... unlike you, it seems.

your obsession with level flight has nothing to do with the shape of the planet

considering you don't understand aerodynamics in the least

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1
I know that instruments all measure level flights correctly.... unlike you, it seems.

your obsession with level flight has nothing to do with the shape of the planet

considering you don't understand aerodynamics in the least

Level flight - at altitude - has EVERYTHING to do with the planet's shape, that's blatantly obvious !

You really believe instruments on planes would not even measure for curvature, while flying past 1800 feet of curvature?

Are you serious?

The plane's altitude is 38,000 feet, for a 6 hour flight, staying level throughout the time. So nobody knows around 1800 feet of curvature weren't measured, by any of their instruments.

How can your magical 'gravity' force save our 'hopelessly adrift among thick clouds' pilot?

How would it matter to you. if the Earth WAS flat, instead of round?

I once thought it was round, as well.

A flat Earth is what I now believe. While a round Earth is total nonsense.

I've based it on all the evidence, on both sides. Nothing else.


I'm not a Bible-thumper, or close to it.

I believe Earth was created, no doubt, but that's about all I know, for sure.

Better than a huge pile of chemical crap stew, amazingly ridiculous odds, over billions of years, no?


I'd say so.

Anger often stems from what you've always believed, as opposed to the realization of your long-held belief, as completely false, faked. It can even feel somewhat foolish as well, to know it.

I was fooled, too. But I really don't care about being fooled. It's no big deal.

The entire scientific community has never agreed on anything, without any disputes, or doubts, or reservations, on any issue.

Except for a non-existent, non-proven theory, that explains everything in the universe, and walking on the moon could be done back in the 60's, yet found not close to being possible, some 50 years later.....


All would seem to have a 'universal agreement' with only these two issues... but, hey, nothing seems fishy about that, right??

a reply to: turbonium1

Science agrees on stuff all the time...

They agree that gravity exists (or at least that certain effects we're pretty sure are connected are definitely real, and we currently identify them as gravity) but there's actually not anything like consensus on what gravity is and there's even some talk that gravity as we describe it now may not be a thing. (But not in the way you think it's not a thing)

That's really the issue here is that you're pretty much wrong about every single thing you think you know and have brought up in this thread. So in that sense it's probably really good that you don't really mind being wrong because you do it constantly.

a reply to: turbonium1

It would matter in that absolutely everything we think we know would be wrong and we'd still be stuck in the stone age even though we had really pretty equations and explanations!

THAT

is why it would matter!

The fact that you don't understand this says absolutely everything about your total inability to actually understand the real world around you.

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: turbonium1

Science agrees on stuff all the time...

They agree that gravity exists (or at least that certain effects we're pretty sure are connected are definitely real, and we currently identify them as gravity) but there's actually not anything like consensus on what gravity is and there's even some talk that gravity as we describe it now may not be a thing. (But not in the way you think it's not a thing)

They almost NEVER agree on an issue, especially not universal agreement. I'm not referring to a 'general consensus', here.
Even proven, well-accepted physical laws have been disputed, questioned, and doubted, on certain levels, over the years. They are challenged as to their veracity, their consistency, their evidence, and whether they are able to stand up to current standards, current technology, and precise measurements.

THAT is what science is based on - constantly challenging the facts, evidence, on what has long been 'accepted' as true. The reason for constant validation is that not all scientific 'evidence', and 'proof', of something.....can stand up to further scrutiny, advanced technological methods, and so on.

So when I say a few issues have 'universal agreement', this means that NOBODY ever questions the official account.

ANY issue should be open to scrutiny, to query, to doubts, without fear of repercussions.

Why would nobody raise a single doubt, in scientific circles, on matters like the Apollo moon landings, or 9/11, or the theory of gravity, actually BEING a theory, instead of treating it as if it were a well-proven fact?

Consider Apollo - how would it NEVER HAVE been doubted, or questioned - not even to the slightest degree? When the scientific community is asked about what the battery capacities were on Apollo, for example, they never have a clue about it. They all point to NASA for further details on Apollo.

In a nutshell, the reply goes....

'I really don't know the specific batteries used on Apollo missions, in detail. I know that the batteries managed to work perfectly, over several days straight....and I also know that Apollo was real, and I saw, with my parents, on our TV, LIVE, when we first landed man on the moon!!'

I'm sure you're old enough to know what that means. An issue that nobody questions, on ANY level, over many years, has also been demonized, scorned, mocked, and laughed at, whenever it has been doubted in public. As flat Earth, 9/11, and Apollo have been, and continue to be, the subject of derision, and insults, and mockery, for even QUESTIONING the evidence of a spherical Earth, compared to a flat Earth.

Something you don't question is one thing. But insulting someone who DOES question it, is an entirely different matter.

originally posted by: roguetechie
That's really the issue here is that you're pretty much wrong about every single thing you think you know and have brought up in this thread. So in that sense it's probably really good that you don't really mind being wrong because you do it constantly.

Here's my reply to your post...

You're wrong on everything you said here. And before now. And you'll always be wrong in the future, I'm very sure.

That is an appropriate reply to your post, yes?

If you have any idea what I'm referring to, then you'll know why posts like yours don't contribute to our thread, to the issue itself, and it's a waste of everyone's time, as well.


If I'm wrong, make your case for it. Don't say it's been explained to me over and over again, because that's always your way out of it.


It seems like none of you understand what level flight means in aviation terminology.

Aviation is not about accepting the claims of any pilots, or whoever, because they are 'experts'.

To insist, on and on, that level flight is somehow based on things like 'surface curvature', and/or 'gravitational forces', with 'atmospheric curved layers', and/or 'minor adjustments commonly done', you are making excuses that don't wash.

Level flight is explained by many sources, but you've never once referred to a single source.

Level flight is usually referred to as 'steady, level flight', or 'straight and level flight'.

Would you like me to post some sources for you, explaining what it means, how to achieve it, in detail?

As for gravity, the most remarkable theory of all-time, it's mentioned by these same sources, as well....

Sadly, gravity is not mentioned in terms of a flight being level, or not level, to Earth, or to a curved surface, or any surface below.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Something you don't question is one thing. But insulting someone who DOES question it, is an entirely different matter.

Asking the questions isn't worthy of derision, but ignoring the answers is an entirely different matter, like your dismissing the the definition of the word "descent" which has been explained repeatedly where you choose to apply some bizarre meaning to the word other than the way it's commonly used in aviation, where if you keep descending it means you'll impact the ground eventually (regardless of the shape of the earth).

Your insistence the word means something else like maintaining altitude is not asking a question, it's a completely false assertion worthy of first explanation, then when you refuse to accept the explanation, derision for such refusal.

a reply to: turbonium1

They almost NEVER agree on an issue, especially not universal agreement. I'm not referring to a 'general consensus', here.

Alright which is it, general consensus or "universal agreement"?

General consensus means, "for the most part" its accepted... aside from a few

Universal would mean everyone agrees... and as you've been showing to the class...

Theres always that one...

I mean... you actually argue against gravity

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: turbonium1

It would matter in that absolutely everything we think we know would be wrong and we'd still be stuck in the stone age even though we had really pretty equations and explanations!

THAT

is why it would matter!

The fact that you don't understand this says absolutely everything about your total inability to actually understand the real world around you.

A real world will have measured it's real surface, a fake world avoids measuring its real surfaces.

Science should always have been based on truth, reality, evidence, proof,facts, knowledge.

Science has been compromised, poisoned, over the centuries. Advancements in science has been used for good, and for evil. Science invents bombs, weapons, diseases, etc. Countless millions have died, thanks to science.

We'd still be living, in a stone-age society, although we wouldn't be.


A fake world is not based on real science.

What matters is that all truth is known, to us.

Science is not one thing, that falls apart, entirely, if some is found to be faked. Science will survive all their lies, whether big or small.

a reply to: turbonium1

Then we await your theory about the true nature of gravity with bated breath and also a bingo sheet with ridiculous phrases to tick off.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: turbonium1
Something you don't question is one thing. But insulting someone who DOES question it, is an entirely different matter.

Asking the questions isn't worthy of derision, but ignoring the answers is an entirely different matter, like your dismissing the the definition of the word "descent" which has been explained repeatedly where you choose to apply some bizarre meaning to the word other than the way it's commonly used in aviation, where if you keep descending it means you'll impact the ground eventually (regardless of the shape of the earth).

Your insistence the word means something else like maintaining altitude is not asking a question, it's a completely false assertion worthy of first explanation, then when you refuse to accept the explanation, derision for such refusal.

Your side posted the definition of 'descent'. I agreed with that definition.

Then, it was your side that suddenly dismissed it - when it was your very own definition, all along!!


Your solution was to suggest another definition of 'descent' is used in aviation - 'descent' means a lowering of altitude during a flight.

That does not change the definition of 'descent', because a plane DOES lower its altitude in a descent, as I said.

This really confirms my whole argument. A descent will always lower the altitude of a plane, when the surface below is flat, at takeoff, to landing. Over a flat Earth, every plane will lower its altitude in a descent. The two terms mean the same thing, always, flying over a flat Earth. Aviators know a descent will lower the altitude on a plane, because the surface is flat.

Where do you see a 'bizarre' definition I've given for 'descent', exactly?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

Then we await your theory about the true nature of gravity with bated breath and also a bingo sheet with ridiculous phrases to tick off.

There is no true nature, being it is a non-existent phenomenon.


First off, you assume there must be a 'force' of some sort, entirely unknown to us, which 'holds' everything to the surface. Except for birds, and insects, having absolutely no opposing force to counter the force which should be holding birds and insects to the surface, like everything else!!

No force exists on Earth, 'pulling' us down to the surface. A bird flies freely above Earth. Opposing any sort of pulling force, a bird COULD NEVER be able to fly away from the surface, which is forcing every object downward.

A force cannot be overcome by no force opposing it. Simple as that.

a reply to: turbonium1
Forget the word level, this is your bizarre misunderstanding of descent:

originally posted by: turbonium1

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..

Your video claims that a descent will not get planes any closer to the CENTER of the sphere! Truly a revelation!

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

The principle features of a spherical surface apply to ANY sphere, of ANY size.

That's what you don't understand.

A tiny model plane over a basketball easily illustrates the basic principles REQUIRED in following along a path above ANY sphere. The model plane must point it's nose downward, in order to follow above the giant beach ball. It cannot be pointed level over the ball at any point, nor is it even possible to be level to a curved surface. A ball has no flat surfaces to be level with.

When you say "The CENTER of a sphere has nothing to do with it.", we are not talking about a basketball, we are taking about Earth and the term descent in aviation, where descent means getting closer to the center. So this is not questioning on your part, it's just you being WRONG in saying the center of the Earth has nothing to do with descent in aviation, it has everything to do with it because the pressure gradient is relative to Earth's center, not the surface.

Then you contradict yourself talking about how the surface isn't relevant, and then say the plane must follow the curved surface which you just said wasn't relevant. It's the center of the Earth that's relevant because the atmospheric pressure gradient is relative to that, and when you say it's not, you are not questioning, you're in denial of facts and just saying wrong things and making false claims.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

When you say "The CENTER of a sphere has nothing to do with it.", we are not talking about a basketball, we are taking about Earth and the term descent in aviation, where descent means getting closer to the center. So this is not questioning on your part, it's just you being WRONG in saying the center of the Earth has nothing to do with descent in aviation, it has everything to do with it because the pressure gradient is relative to Earth's center, not the surface.

Then you contradict yourself talking about how the surface isn't relevant, and then say the plane must follow the curved surface which you just said wasn't relevant. It's the center of the Earth that's relevant because the atmospheric pressure gradient is relative to that, and when you say it's not, you are not questioning, you're in denial of facts and just saying wrong things and making false claims.

'Descent' is a lowering of altitude in a plane. The altitude is based on the SURFACE. Not the 'center' of your ball-shaped Earth. Obviously, planes do not descend below the surface of Earth.

Pressure gradients are not holding planes to a supposed 'curvature' of Earth. If curvature existed, it would require a plane to FOLLOW that same curvature, which would require a constant descent. Which is never done, and never will be done, in flights.


How can curvature exist if a plane never has to account for it during flights?

Instruments measure level flight on a plane. A specific altitude.

No curvature exists.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

Then we await your theory about the true nature of gravity with bated breath and also a bingo sheet with ridiculous phrases to tick off.

There is no true nature, being it is a non-existent phenomenon.


First off, you assume there must be a 'force' of some sort, entirely unknown to us, which 'holds' everything to the surface. Except for birds, and insects, having absolutely no opposing force to counter the force which should be holding birds and insects to the surface, like everything else!!

No force exists on Earth, 'pulling' us down to the surface. A bird flies freely above Earth. Opposing any sort of pulling force, a bird COULD NEVER be able to fly away from the surface, which is forcing every object downward.

A force cannot be overcome by no force opposing it. Simple as that.

Please keep regaling us, you are very entertaining. Completely wrong as well, as you know. Troll.

originally posted by: mytquin
I'm not convinced one was or the other. Both sides have very good points. Here's one on the Flat Earth side that I can't explain...
Why 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

By the way, pilots have been asked if they occasionally have to dip the nose down to account for flying over a curved earth and they are on record as stating that they in fact don't ever have to do this.

"Nose down" wouldn't that mean they go back down to earth? I don't understand, do you mean nose up? isn't this controlled by gravity? There is a moment when your place won't be able to go up anymore because of gravity. What you said doesn't make any sense.