1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come there has been no other example of 'spotlight sun' found in our galaxy?

« on: October 11, 2019, 05:57:57 PM »

Angular velocity requires a constant force

Yes, and it's called gravity.

Escape velocity according to Newtons laws is 11km/s . Anything less and your pulled back to earth . Anything more and your free of earth and off to wander in "space"

Not quite.  You are free to orbit the sun, but unless you accelerate to 42km/s, you will remain trapped in the solar system.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?

« on: October 11, 2019, 05:35:07 PM »

I'm sure we don't need to call into question what causes night and day. That is something that is well known and I'm not going to enter into any petty arguments about that.

One thing to bear in mind in discussions with these people, is that they use the words evidence and proof interchangably, as if they mean the same thing.  When you cite evidence, they read that as a claim of proof.   Night and day is indeed evidence of earth's rotation, but it is not proof.  Thus, the LOL.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debate

« on: September 20, 2019, 08:26:34 PM »

I am an airline pilot  and a few years ago a passenger, while disembarking, asked for permission to enter the cockpit. He told me that he belived that the Earth was flat and asked me why airplanes don’t go to outer space while flying if the Earth is curved. I didnt understand his question at first and I tought he was joking (altought he looked very kind and serious) but I explained how airplanes maintain altitude and how a barometer works. This guy made me curious about the Flath Earth movement and since then I have watched a lot of videos on Youtube and read some forums online.

My wife is an airline pilot (and I am a retired military pilot), and she had someone recently ask her the same thing.  This was when she was eating in the food court at ORD.  And that encounter brought me here as well.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How could a compass work?

« on: September 01, 2019, 12:40:53 AM »

I would imagine that how the compass works is that it points toward the north pole which is at the center of the flat disk. If you travel to anywhere on the circle it will always point to the center of the circle which is the north pole.

But the key question is "Why would it point there?"  What mechanism on a flat earth would cause a magnetic field to be centered somewhere near the center of the disk?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 27, 2019, 01:01:53 PM »

If earth were a smooth (no elevation differences to speak of), homogeneous (same density throughout), perfect sphere, there would be no variations in g.  That fact that it is not, and there are (very small) variations in g is evidence that our current theory of gravity is more or less correct, not the other way around.  I am aware of no FE theory of gravity (or gravitational affect if you like) that fits observation.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.

« on: August 25, 2019, 06:04:08 PM »

They had already cut most of their easy expenditure by the point you're considering. Firing staff en masse is not as simple.

You know what would be simple?  Not hiring new people to replace those who retire , quit, or get fired.  But they're not doing that either.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 25, 2019, 04:38:40 PM »

See my final paragraph, beginning ‘Does FE actually have to deny Newtonian gravitational attraction …’.

It does.  Newtonian gravitational attraction requires objects to be attracted  their common center of mass.  No matter what one's  earth model looks like,  if it is not a sphere, the gravitational vector will vary depending on where one is on the surface.  This phenomenon has never been observed.  Observed gravity acts the same* whether one is on the North Pole, the equator, or on the "ice wall". That cannot happen on a flat earth with Newtonian gravitational attraction. 

*Yes, the magnitude varies slightly but the vector does not.  The vector will point towards the center of mass, and on a flat earth, it is impossible for the center of mass to be directly below the surface at all every place.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Which is right?

« on: August 25, 2019, 03:42:14 PM »

The three body problem is either impossible or virtually impossible. The problem with the round earth model is that there are more than three bodies in our solar system. There are hundreds. With the laws of gravity being unable to explain 3 of these bodies let alone 300 it's evidence that maybe the solar system functions in a different w

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, so what?  We can still observe it happening.  A child knows nothing about chemical combustion.  Would it therefore be reasonable for him to declare that fire does not exist, that it is an illusion?  Before humans knew anything about aerodynamics did birds not fly? 

We are not at the end times of scientific discovery, and it is the height of arrogance to claim that because we may not yet have the scientific tools to explain what we observe, that  our observations must be an illusion.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 15, 2019, 04:45:33 PM »

Actually, what I presented is Occam's Razor.

Actually, from what I've seen here, most FE arguments present the exact opposite of Occam's razor.  Occam's razor says that the millions of people who have been to space, have been to the South Pole,  have flown military or commercial aircraft above 35,000, and all the people who support those missions,  are telling the truth, or at least the overwhelming majority are.  FE argument depends on all of those people lying about and being part of the conspiracy to over up the truth.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter

« on: August 15, 2019, 04:35:09 PM »

Now, either I am part of the conspiracy, or the manufacturers of the altimeters and the air traffic controllers are, or the theory is hokum.

Or you are telling lies. There is always that option. You'd hardly be the first 'astronaut', 'fighter pilot', 'Antarctic explorer' or 'deity' to visit this site. But for every fighter pilot we have about 500 liars. I'm not inclined to believe your fantastical claims, purely on a statistical basis you understand.

Then every pilot on the planet, private, commercial, military, are liars.  Not one truth teller among them.  This makes sense to you?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter

« on: August 14, 2019, 04:37:26 AM »

None of you could explain the angular momentum paradox and the IR anomalous radiation of Jupiter.

You haven't done your homework on commercial/military flights. None fly above some 9 km; commercial flights only reach 6-8 km in altitude.

As a former military pilot, I can assure you I have flown at 45,000 feet , which is
~ 13.5 KM.  Now, either I am part of the conspiracy, or the manufacturers of the altimeters and the air traffic controllers are, or the theory is hokum.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 'Spotlight' effect

« on: August 05, 2019, 08:32:14 PM »

Only the limits of the transparency of the air would limit the visibility of the aircraft.

That of course seems to be their argument.  But it doesn't pass the small test.  They will claim that the observer on the ground can see only 3 miles is because that's as far as the light can travel parallel to the ground, and one can see tall objects, or those in the sky much further away because they are higher.  A light beam traveling 230 miles from 35,000 feet to the ground describes an angle of 1.6 degrees.  At 3 miles from the observer, that light beam is a mere 454 feet above the ground.  The transparency gradient of the atmosphere cannot be so steep as to totally block a light beam at the surface at 3 miles distant while allowing it to travel 230 miles if it is 450 feet above the ground at the same distance.  Especially given that those numbers hold no matter what elevation the ground is. 

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 03, 2019, 02:35:51 AM »

And the higher up, the further I can see.  That's not a small set.  It happens every single time. 

Every single time you go to higher altitude you are experience the earth from a very different atmosphere than the one you experience at sea level. Very different atmospheric composition, different density, different temperature etc.

I've already provided evidence which suggests something as simple as temperature layers can make our brains think a ship is flying in the air. We are talking about temperature layers now and atmosphere layers, and whole plethora of chaotic variables that you simply REFUSE to acknowledge could possibly have an impact on the observations you make.

 Atmospheric refraction is real. You should at least make an attempt to factor it into your observations before you become so adamant about believing what you see. You are outright ignoring it. Just like, when I make a flying ship observation, I (and the rest of the scientific community) try to understand what's really going on before standing up and saying "LOOK!!! A FLYING SHIP!!!"

I don't think anyone is saying atmospheric effects account for nothing. Sometimes they are massively in play, sometimes not at all and everywhere inbetween. But to make the sun disappear, literally like clockwork, every day for everyone on earth, for 12 hours or so, can't be chalked up to the same atmospheric effects. To do so would be to say at every sunset, ""LOOK!!! A FLYING SHIP!!!"

The time of the sunset is predictable, every day, without fail.  It does not depend on atmospheric effects.  Even if there is cloud cover, the position of the sun can be inferred with exact  precision. It never varies. 

I have  no idea what the temperature, humidity, pollen count, etc, will be for Chicago next Friday.  But I know the sun will set at 8:09 PM.  And it will.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 03, 2019, 02:17:08 AM »

To me it make no sense that warm air above cold air makes ships fly in the air but that's what science and our modern understanding of optics says happens.

No. That makes perfect sense.  One that can be explained by science.  Light that travels parallel to the ground is blocked at about 7 miles or less every time, but light with a 1.5 degree angle of incidence can travel for hundreds of miles unimpeded cannot. 

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 02, 2019, 11:45:46 PM »

The math that I saw was a triangle and you made no attempt whatsoever to even ATTEMPT to account for chaotic atmospheric viewing conditions.

Because it doesn't matter.  It makes no logical sense that a light ray parallel to the surface gets blocked by chaotic atmospheric viewing conditions at ~ 7 miles, but one with a degree or 2 rise can be viewed from hundreds of miles away.  If it were a little further, I could concede your point.  But we are talking more than an order of magnitude further.  And not just once in a while, every single time there is not cloud interference, which is to say, most of the time. 

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 02, 2019, 11:02:14 PM »

Every single time you go to higher altitude you are experience the earth from a very different atmosphere than the one you experience at sea level. Very different atmospheric composition, different density, different temperature etc.

Yes.  We have been through this.  And the math doesn't work to support your assertions.  It simply doesn't. I shown the calculations earlier in this thread.  I'm not going to do them again.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 02, 2019, 10:28:40 PM »

I've already explained this to you. I'm saying don't 100% form an opinion based entirely on a small set of visual observations.

I see the sun set below the horizon every day.  that's not a small set.  I have thousands of hours of flight time.  Unless I'm in the clouds, I can always see further than I can on the ground.  And the higher up, the further I can see.  That's not a small set.  It happens every single time.  Take off in an airplane shortly after sunset heading west.  Soon the sun will rise above the horizon, and keep rising until you level off.  If you go fast enough, it will set very slowly even though it is completely dark below.  Every time.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 02, 2019, 10:18:00 PM »

what is #19?

Post #19

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 02, 2019, 10:06:31 PM »

No, I have not and I will not

Forming an opinion without doing any research whatsoever.  I hope that works out for you.

Atmospheric conditions, particulate count, humidity, whatever, cannot make buildings shorter.  The gradient from ground up cannot be so steep so as to totally obscure one floor while the one above is perfectly clear.  To say that it can is a ridiculous argument and you know it.

Hmm if atmospheric conditions can't do those things then this video is just showing a magical floating ship? I don't think so.




According to this something as simple as temperature can trick you brain into making an image of a floating ship! So Atmospheric conditions can make ships fly but not possibly stretch something? Unlike you I present evidence.

https://www.metabunk.org/simulating-atmospheric-refraction.t7881/

Here's a video in which someone has attempted to simulate refraction and I notice that things do appear to be stretching, warping, and reflecting


This is a very basic simulator which I don't believe counts for the dozens, if not hundreds, of variables which can be present and affect the path light takes when traveling through the atmosphere.

Well now you've lost me.  Are you saying that weird atmospheric conditions are responsible for those images in #19?  Because that's what several of us have been arguing all along.  Of course it's a false image.  But if you are saying that it is a real actual image and it's only distorted by atmospherics, then no sale.    Picking and choosing  facts based on the argument is not a good look.  "Don't trust your eyes, they can play tricks on you" one moment, "Of course you can see Chicago from across the lake.  This image proves it."  the next.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance/Size of Earth and Moon

« on: August 02, 2019, 05:36:32 PM »

and assuming that the sun moves in the sky at around a constant pace

How can the sun move at a constant pace if it moves between the 2 tropics ( to explain the change in seasons), and FE model requires that the Tropic of Capricorn be a significantly larger circle?  Doesn't that require the sun to constantly be changing speed?