The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: aston240 on April 01, 2014, 03:34:51 PM
-
Firstly I would like to say I love this website.
Its mental and the guys answering the posts are very funny.
So here is my attempt at debating. Apologies if this is already asked. I couldn't be bothered to trawl the forum to find it.
Please can you tell me why airliners who fly from Heathrow to Florida Fly so far north over the Atlantic and come down closer to the east coast of the USA as opposed to going in a straight line direct?
A straight line (on a flat earth) would take them very close to the azores for this route, but alas they don't.
Why are fuel conscious airlines burning so much needless fuel??? unless they aren't and in fact the earth is a sphere.
I look forward to your response
Tom
-
They avoid the westerly jet stream.
The reverse route, they could easily take advantage of the same.
-
aston240 has probably never even seen a flat Earth map.
-
Firstly I would like to say I love this website.
Its mental and the guys answering the posts are very funny.
So here is my attempt at debating. Apologies if this is already asked. I couldn't be bothered to trawl the forum to find it.
Please can you tell me why airliners who fly from Heathrow to Florida Fly so far north over the Atlantic and come down closer to the east coast of the USA as opposed to going in a straight line direct?
A straight line (on a flat earth) would take them very close to the azores for this route, but alas they don't.
Why are fuel conscious airlines burning so much needless fuel??? unless they aren't and in fact the earth is a sphere.
I look forward to your response
Tom
We've had a plague of newcomers lately quizzing us on this airline route or that. Are you all commercial pilots? How do you know what the route is? Chances are you only know what the hypothetical best route would be on a spherical earth, without allowing for atmospheric occurrences which would alter said route even if the earth were a sphere.
-
thanks for the replies,
As a matter of fact planes feature frequently in my day to day work.
No the North atlantic tracks cant always avoid the Jet stream. the Planners try their best to get the best track but its not always the case, Slots etc.
I know what the route is because there are a series of 5-7 pre-set north atlantic tracks all taking the planes way further north than a straight line would suggest they take.
in fact if we had a flat earth and the crews flew direct then it would avoid the jetstream altogether. So why are these planes all taking this more northerly route even though it sometimes clashes with the westerlies?
Jroa, has anyone seen a flat earth map??
Thanks and again cant wait for the reply.
T
-
Jroa, has anyone seen a flat earth map??
Here's a rudimentary map of the Flat Earth as we know it, with some basic FE elements thrown in (sun, wall, etc).
(http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8546/modelcopyjd0.jpg)
-
Jroa, has anyone seen a flat earth map??
Here's a rudimentary map of the Flat Earth as we know it, with some basic FE elements thrown in (sun, wall, etc).
(http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8546/modelcopyjd0.jpg)
There is no accurate FE map, so take any routes plotted on one with a generous helping of salt.
-
There is no accurate FE map, so take any routes plotted on one with a generous helping of salt.
This is about as accurate as you're going to get, unless you have a better one.
-
Excellent Map,
I will take it with a dumper truck of salt, however can I assume the countries are fundamentally in the correct position?
If so, Can you explain why the most southern commercial airline route operated by Aerolineas Argentinas from Auckland to Buenos Aires doesn't carry enough fuel to even make it half way across your map, yet, it makes the flight quite happily without breaking any international fuel policies? Or crashing.
The distance between the two airports (in my spherical world) is 6436 miles, great circle. Your map would make that same straight line roughly 20,000miles give or take 5000miles.
This would mean (you know what this would mean), that old Aerolineas Argentinas would be losing a few too many planes regularly.
And yes an Azimuthal equidistant map would be a better option than the one you have posted. Antarctica would be more believable for one. Still it doesn't help your cause.
T
-
There is no accurate FE map, so take any routes plotted on one with a generous helping of salt.
This is about as accurate as you're going to get, unless you have a better one.
Its an important caveat to point out. A lot of people come here expecting to base arguments off an accurate map, but that is a pointless line of thinking.
-
And yes an Azimuthal equidistant map would be a better option than the one you have posted.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png)
Satisfied?
-
Always satisfied,
Quite a long way their, NZ to south america? Where are all the planes crashing?
Are these debates boring when we don't say anything that's refutable?
Whats the distance from one side of the disk to the other?
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was 45,317km.
Bit shorter than your map suggests.
Arent you supposed to answer a question with a question? that way you lose less?
T
-
Always satisfied,
Quite a long way their, NZ to south america? Where are all the planes crashing?
Are these debates boring when we don't say anything that's refutable?
Whats the distance from one side of the disk to the other?
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was 45,317km.
Bit shorter than your map suggests.
Arent you supposed to answer a question with a question? that way you lose less?
T
It's worth noting that most of us acknowledge the spatial distortion in the southern hemidisc, myself included. I often refer to the admittedly inaccurate monopole map as assuming that the earth is flat in the same way that a sheet of paper is flat. It isn't. I suspect that the earth is infinite plane in a closed loop, which is difficult to render as a map.
These debates aren't boring, I'm always happy to see new interested faces.
-
Arent you supposed to answer a question with a question? that way you lose less?
We don't care about "winning" or "losing". What we care about is truth.
-
Ah yes, that well known half of the world, the southern hemidisc.......
Ok, so assuming no map can be accurately drawn of your world, as none of you are cartographers, and you don't care about winning or losing.
Could you explain to me how the Coriolis effect is supposed to work on a flat earth and please could you explain why the stars in the sky are so different from different parts of each hemidisc?
Aren't we all looking up at the same sky?
Also I'm off to bed, I will ponder long and hard on these replies and come back to you tomorrow with some more easily disproved questions for the flat earthests
Peace
T
-
The Coriolis effect, at least as far as wind currents are concerned, is most likely caused by celestial gears, the same mechanism that leads to stars rotating in opposite directions across the hemidiscs.
Small-scale liquid motion, which is what most people refer to when they think of the Coriolis effect (my toilet flushes in the opposite direction than it would in Australia!) is demonstrably false. I've flushed quite a few toilets in Australia and they don't look much different from those on the northern hemiplane, except they occasionally have spiders in them. The lovely people at Snopes have done a good job debunking that myth. (http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp)
Also: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html
As for the large-scale Coriolis effect affecting rivers, they are most likely gradually put in motion by the wind currents.
-
This would mean (you know what this would mean), that old Aerolineas Argentinas would be losing a few too many planes regularly.
Malaysia, Argentina, it's pretty much the same thing really.
-
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was 45,317km.
That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not? Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too?
-
Fuel is more efficient than people think. The Conspiracy control how efficient people think fuel is. So the planes are not needlessly wasting fuel.
-
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was 45,317km.
That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not? Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too?
Nice catch, jroa. Spherical earth's circumference is 40,075 km.
I thought perhaps this would be a matter of mixing up units, but according to this link (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/teacher_resources/resources/factsheets/factsheet_geostats_print.pdf) the 45k km figure seems to be the accepted value. Interesting.
Edit: yes, I'm sure that's with all the curvy bits straightened out. But it's still interesting.
-
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was 45,317km.
That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not? Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too?
Jroa did you know your intestines are about 40ft long?
-
Relevant: http://www.omg-facts.com/Science/The-human-small-intestines-have-the-surf/48275
-
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was 45,317km.
That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not? Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too?
Jroa did you know your intestines are about 40ft long?
That's more than the circumference of my stomach. It makes no sense. ;)
-
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was 45,317km.
That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not? Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too?
Jroa did you know your intestines are about 40ft long?
That's more than the circumference of my stomach. It makes no sense. ;)
Open your mind bro.
-
Morning,
No I don't for one second think that the Coriolis effect works on a small scale. Thats half your blurb wasted.
"Fuel is more efficient than people think" - Touche, didn't see that coming. The fuel flow figures for all aircraft are documented and you can actually watch the display in the cockpit and see fuel use per minute and the starting figure. So you can see what's burnt over what distance.
Heres more.
If the world is a disc, how thick is the disc? Even if its very thick it wont have the same mass as a spherical earth.
How do you explain the distortion values in space time around the world as observed by GP-B.
Also.
What causes the curvature of the earth as viewed from 52,000ft in a Gulfstream V or Challenger 605?
Also
Does God live on the back side of the disc?
Have a good day
T
-
Morning,
No I don't for one second think that the Coriolis effect works on a small scale. Thats half your blurb wasted.
"Fuel is more efficient than people think" - Touche, didn't see that coming. The fuel flow figures for all aircraft are documented and you can actually watch the display in the cockpit and see fuel use per minute and the starting figure. So you can see what's burnt over what distance.
Heres more.
If the world is a disc, how thick is the disc? Even if its very thick it wont have the same mass as a spherical earth.
How do you explain the distortion values in space time around the world as observed by GP-B.
Also.
What causes the curvature of the earth as viewed from 52,000ft in a Gulfstream V or Challenger 605?
Also
Does God live on the back side of the disc?
Have a good day
T
I'll let those who subscribe to the disc model to weigh in on its thickness, but I don't see how you can make the claim that a monopole disc earth (or cylindrical one, I suppose) could never have the same mass as a spherical one. Of course it could. I also don't see why it would matter. As I'm an infinite plane supporter, it matters even less to me how thick the earth is.
The curvature of the earth as seen from 52,000 feet and above is probably a combination of effects, but I blame perspective for at least part of it. Perspective and lensing through airline windows causes the apparent curve viewed on commercial flights at 30,000 feet or so. However, you raise an interesting point. You assert that spacetime above the earth is curved, and then you are surprised when the earth looks curved when viewed from the spacetime above the earth. Could the one not account for the other?
As to "Does god live on the back side of the disc?" I've no idea where you even got that. I'm atheistic, so no.
-
Good afternoon,
I didn't say the curvature of space-time I said the distortion. Who said its curved?
No lensing through the cockpit windows, especially the uncurved side cockpit windows.
I've had a look at the horizon through the one sat on my desk here and it doesn't cause any curvature and i can see a very long way today.
Perspective is not the cause.
Does the earth revolve around the sun still? your arguments suggest not. how do you explain the values garnered from stellar parallax?
T
-
No I don't for one second think that the Coriolis effect works on a small scale. Thats half your blurb wasted.
Oh, so your entire "blurb" had no point to it in the first place? Convenient.
-
hahaha,
Mine did.
OK interest lost for now. I'll be back another day. keep up the good work
T
-
hahaha,
Mine did.
You are welcome to substantiate your claim at your convenience. Until then, it will be disregarded.
-
Does the earth revolve around the sun still? your arguments suggest not. how do you explain the values garnered from stellar parallax?
A quarter of Americans and 30% of Europeans believe that the sun revolves around the Earth.
http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/
-
Does the earth revolve around the sun still? your arguments suggest not. how do you explain the values garnered from stellar parallax?
A quarter of Americans and 30% of Europeans believe that the sun revolves around the Earth.
http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/
So what?
-
"Fuel is more efficient than people think" - Touche, didn't see that coming. The fuel flow figures for all aircraft are documented
Who writes those documents? Was it peer reviewed? Where are the ships logs?
and you can actually watch the display in the cockpit and see fuel use per minute and the starting figure. So you can see what's burnt over what distance.
So you put a known quantity of fuel in a plane and then stayed in a cockpit and watched the fuel gauge for the length of the entire flight and then got out and recorded how much fuel was left in the tank?
-
Firstly I would like to say I love this website.
Its mental and the guys answering the posts are very funny.
So here is my attempt at debating. Apologies if this is already asked. I couldn't be bothered to trawl the forum to find it.
Please can you tell me why airliners who fly from Heathrow to Florida Fly so far north over the Atlantic and come down closer to the east coast of the USA as opposed to going in a straight line direct?
A straight line (on a flat earth) would take them very close to the azores for this route, but alas they don't.
Why are fuel conscious airlines burning so much needless fuel??? unless they aren't and in fact the earth is a sphere.
I look forward to your response
Tom
You'll appreciate that flying in the northern hemisphere, the distances on a flat earth are much shorter than on a globular monstrosity. So, if they flew you direct in a straight line, you'd get there so fast and then there would be questions. Not least, why the hell are you charging me so much for a flight that is only so far, when you advertised it was much further. So it stands to reason they are going to fly you in a nice big arc up north to make it further and so it fits with globular propaganda. Airlines are making a killing from having you believe the earth is round. They aren't about to blow that by getting you from London to New York in just 4 hours.
-
What a fantastic piece of propaganda.
-
Good afternoon,
I didn't say the curvature of space-time I said the distortion. Who said its curved?
No lensing through the cockpit windows, especially the uncurved side cockpit windows.
I've had a look at the horizon through the one sat on my desk here and it doesn't cause any curvature and i can see a very long way today.
Perspective is not the cause.
Does the earth revolve around the sun still? your arguments suggest not. how do you explain the values garnered from stellar parallax?
T
Lots of people say that spacetime is curved. Indeed, spherical earth physics rely pretty heavily on the idea that mass curves spacetime, and as you seem to be a round-earther it seemed a safe assumption that you were talking about curvature. If you were referring to something different then I misunderstood what you were referring to, but your snark is noted. What sort of distortion are you talking about, then? Educate me.
Re: aircraft windows. So lenses don't function if only one side is curved? Augustin-Jean Fresnel would like to have a word with you.
Thank you for your excellent efforts debunking the perspective argument by looking out your window by your desk. Unfortunately, unless your desk sits at such an elevation that you can see an uninterrupted horizon all around you, this explanation is worthless. It's the sense of being surrounded by the horizon that creates the illusion of curvature from perspective. I've had many round-earthers agree with me here, so I'm not sure why you're arguing.
Does the earth revolve around the sun? Certainly not. The sun circles above the earth, as does the moon. As for stellar parallax, the ancient Greeks surmised correctly that there isn't enough stellar parallax observed to show that the earth is moving. Some of the object in the heavens do exhibit cyclic motion, often with regular periods. Still others exhibit proper motion without a repeated cycle Presumably, some indicate terrestrial motion while others are explained away as astrometric binary systems or some such. All quite arbitrary. Any star who wobbles with a period of six months is evidence of terrestrial motion and labeled parallax, while others are simply objects that move on their own.
-
As for stellar parallax, the ancient Greeks surmised correctly that there isn't enough stellar parallax observed to show that the earth is moving.
Were these the same ancient Greeks who surmised that flies spontaneously emerge from rotten meat?
-
I've had many round-earthers agree with me here, so I'm not sure why you're arguing.
So when FEers have differences of opinion on FET it is a source of strength via intellectual diversity but when REers disagree with one another it is confusing. Got it.
-
Re: aircraft windows. So lenses don't function if only one side is curved? Augustin-Jean Fresnel would like to have a word with you.
I think you misunderstood his point. He is explaining that side (and actually even front) cockpit windows on commercial jets are -very often- flat, like this:
(http://photovalet.com/data/comps/TAF/TAFD01_276.jpg)
(http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TRA2424.jpg)
(http://static8.depositphotos.com/1035825/1020/i/450/depositphotos_10203573-Front-profile-and-cockpit-windows-of-wide-body-airplane.jpg)
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/airplane-front-view-21494342.jpg).
And, if curved, are designed to minimize optical distortions.
-
Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.
commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.
-
Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.
commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.
Exactly. If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing. This was my point.
-
As for stellar parallax, the ancient Greeks surmised correctly that there isn't enough stellar parallax observed to show that the earth is moving.
Were these the same ancient Greeks who surmised that flies spontaneously emerge from rotten meat?
Indeed, and also surmised the earth was a sphere, but they got a few things right.
-
Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.
commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.
Exactly. If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing. This was my point.
I love it when you guys cherry pick from that article. Did you even read the conclusions?
Summary and Conclusions
In view of the agreement between the visual obser-
vations, measurements of the photographs, and the
theoretical curvatures, it seems well established that
the curvature of the Earth is reasonably well under-
stood and can be measured from photographs. The
threshold elevation for detecting curvature would
seem to be somewhat less than 35;000ft but not as
low as 14;000 ft. Photographically, curvature may be
measurable as low as 20;000 ft.
-
Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.
commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.
Exactly. If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing. This was my point.
That's a bold assumption. Can you give the maths for this "perspective" phenomenon and some relevant data about airplane windows lensing ?
-
Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.
commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.
Exactly. If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing. This was my point.
That's a bold assumption. Can you give the maths for this "perspective" phenomenon and some relevant data about airplane windows lensing ?
Maths? It's just a trick of perception, darling. Look at this.
(http://www.stevefeasey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Skydive.jpg)
See the lovely, flat horizon behind them? Now imagine you are one of those skydivers. That horizon wraps all the way around you, 360 degrees. Look to your left, more horizon. Look to your right, still more horizon. It extends in a circle around your point of view, and that can cause the illusion of curvature.
-
It extends in a circle around your point of view, and that can cause the illusion of curvature.
I think this is what he is asking you to substantiate. Why would it not just appear to be a straight line that encircles you?
-
a straight line that encircles you?
a straight line that encircles you?
a straight line that encircles you?
Yes.
-
a straight line that encircles you?
a straight line that encircles you?
a straight line that encircles you?
Yes.
Are you alright? Maybe save the trolling for down below?
-
a straight line that encircles you?
a straight line that encircles you?
a straight line that encircles you?
Yes.
Are you alright? Maybe save the trolling for down below?
Apologies, that was snarky but you did illustrate my point rather well in your attempted rebuttal.
-
I did? I guess we have different interpretations of what I said. You can be encircled by a line that has no apparent curvature in any axis.
-
Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.
commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.
Exactly. If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing. This was my point.
That's a bold assumption. Can you give the maths for this "perspective" phenomenon and some relevant data about airplane windows lensing ?
Maths? It's just a trick of perception, darling. Look at this.
(...)
See the lovely, flat horizon behind them? Now imagine you are one of those skydivers. That horizon wraps all the way around you, 360 degrees. Look to your left, more horizon. Look to your right, still more horizon. It extends in a circle around your point of view, and that can cause the illusion of curvature.
Well, we were talking about vision through plane windows, barely 30-40° for a passenger and perhaps 180° for a pilot. We are far form this outdoor 360° situation. Other than this lovely picture, you didn't give any scientific explanation to you assertion (not to mention windows lensing).
BTW, from my little skydiving experience, I've never seen some horizon curvature when jumping at 10 000+ ft
-
Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.
commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.
Exactly. If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing. This was my point.
That's a bold assumption. Can you give the maths for this "perspective" phenomenon and some relevant data about airplane windows lensing ?
Maths? It's just a trick of perception, darling. Look at this.
(...)
See the lovely, flat horizon behind them? Now imagine you are one of those skydivers. That horizon wraps all the way around you, 360 degrees. Look to your left, more horizon. Look to your right, still more horizon. It extends in a circle around your point of view, and that can cause the illusion of curvature.
Well, we were talking about vision through plane windows, barely 30-40° for a passenger and perhaps 180° for a pilot. We are far form this outdoor 360° situation. Other than this lovely picture, you didn't give any scientific explanation to you assertion (not to mention windows lensing).
BTW, from my little skydiving experience, I've never seen some horizon curvature when jumping at 10 000+ ft
Pilots will tell you that no curvature is visible on a commercial flight, yet many airline passengers (and many visitors here) claim to have seen the curvature of the earth from a jet. They are wrong, and your own experience backs up my assertion, since you've never seen curvature while skydiving. My point is that some people fool themselves into believing they see curvature where there is none. It isn't a measurable effect, it's just people thinking they see something when they really don't. (See also: ghosts.)
You keep asking for math to back this point up, when all I need to back that up is to point at the many many people who claim to have seen curvature from commercial flights or skydiving experiences, when even round earthers assert that they are mistaken.
-
Maths here - http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf
-
Maths here - http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf
And your point is where?
-
At the end of the linked paper. It explicitly disagrees with your assertion that curvature is not measurable.
5. Summary and Conclusions
In view of the agreement between the visual obser- vations, measurements of the photographs, and the theoretical curvatures, it seems well established that the curvature of the Earth is reasonably well under- stood and can be measured from photographs. The threshold elevation for detecting curvature would seem to be somewhat less than 35;000ft but not as low as 14; 000 ft. Photographically, curvature may be measurable as low as 20; 000 ft.
-
Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.
commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.
Exactly. If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing. This was my point.
That's a bold assumption. Can you give the maths for this "perspective" phenomenon and some relevant data about airplane windows lensing ?
Maths? It's just a trick of perception, darling. Look at this.
(...)
See the lovely, flat horizon behind them? Now imagine you are one of those skydivers. That horizon wraps all the way around you, 360 degrees. Look to your left, more horizon. Look to your right, still more horizon. It extends in a circle around your point of view, and that can cause the illusion of curvature.
Well, we were talking about vision through plane windows, barely 30-40° for a passenger and perhaps 180° for a pilot. We are far form this outdoor 360° situation. Other than this lovely picture, you didn't give any scientific explanation to you assertion (not to mention windows lensing).
BTW, from my little skydiving experience, I've never seen some horizon curvature when jumping at 10 000+ ft
Pilots will tell you that no curvature is visible on a commercial flight, yet many airline passengers (and many visitors here) claim to have seen the curvature of the earth from a jet. They are wrong, and your own experience backs up my assertion, since you've never seen curvature while skydiving. My point is that some people fool themselves into believing they see curvature where there is none. It isn't a measurable effect, it's just people thinking they see something when they really don't. (See also: ghosts.)
You keep asking for math to back this point up, when all I need to back that up is to point at the many many people who claim to have seen curvature from commercial flights or skydiving experiences, when even round earthers assert that they are mistaken.
Sorry, but you started explaining that this observation can be explained by windows lensing - unsupported claim - , perspective issue, - still unsupported claim- or an illusion , directly contradicted by my own experience.
Unfortunately, even if I flew Concorde once during a small supersonic loop trip, I could'nt see myself a curvature as I was located at the aisle seat, (and because these windows were awfully small !)
A close relative was a former Concorde flight engineer. He claims he routinely saw earth curvature at cruise altitude. I tend to believe his experience, and the link provided seems to agree with him.
-
Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.
commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.
Exactly. If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing. This was my point.
That's a bold assumption. Can you give the maths for this "perspective" phenomenon and some relevant data about airplane windows lensing ?
Maths? It's just a trick of perception, darling. Look at this.
(...)
See the lovely, flat horizon behind them? Now imagine you are one of those skydivers. That horizon wraps all the way around you, 360 degrees. Look to your left, more horizon. Look to your right, still more horizon. It extends in a circle around your point of view, and that can cause the illusion of curvature.
Well, we were talking about vision through plane windows, barely 30-40° for a passenger and perhaps 180° for a pilot. We are far form this outdoor 360° situation. Other than this lovely picture, you didn't give any scientific explanation to you assertion (not to mention windows lensing).
BTW, from my little skydiving experience, I've never seen some horizon curvature when jumping at 10 000+ ft
Pilots will tell you that no curvature is visible on a commercial flight, yet many airline passengers (and many visitors here) claim to have seen the curvature of the earth from a jet. They are wrong, and your own experience backs up my assertion, since you've never seen curvature while skydiving. My point is that some people fool themselves into believing they see curvature where there is none. It isn't a measurable effect, it's just people thinking they see something when they really don't. (See also: ghosts.)
You keep asking for math to back this point up, when all I need to back that up is to point at the many many people who claim to have seen curvature from commercial flights or skydiving experiences, when even round earthers assert that they are mistaken.
Sorry, but you started explaining that this observation can be explained by windows lensing - unsupported claim - , perspective issue, - still unsupported claim- or an illusion , directly contradicted by my own experience.
Unfortunately, even if I flew Concorde once during a small supersonic loop trip, I could'nt see myself a curvature as I was located at the aisle seat, (and because these windows were awfully small !)
A close relative was a former Concorde flight engineer. He claims he routinely saw earth curvature at cruise altitude. I tend to believe his experience, and the link provided seems to agree with him.
So you're saying you've never seen curvature on a flight, even on a high-altitude flight on the Concorde. Thanks for your contribution.
Many people claim to have seen curvature on flights. I believe they have not. I'm not one to call anyone a liar, so I like to try to find alternative explanations. You seem to be villainizing me for that. I never made the definite claim that there is measurable curvature due to perspective, lensing, or illusion, but apparently because I'm ostensibly a "flat-earther" anything I say is a statement of irrefutable fact needs to be supported by maths and peer reviewed studies.
The appearance of curvature at higher altitudes, a la the concorde, is actually where I wanted this discussion to go, so thank you for bringing it up. Many sources cite measurable curvature at these altitudes, which I think is fascinating, really.
-
So are you just going to ignore the source that demonstrated the measurability of curvature?
-
Sorry, but you started explaining that this observation can be explained by windows lensing - unsupported claim - , perspective issue, - still unsupported claim- or an illusion , directly contradicted by my own experience.
Unfortunately, even if I flew Concorde once during a small supersonic loop trip, I could'nt see myself a curvature as I was located at the aisle seat, (and because these windows were awfully small !)
A close relative was a former Concorde flight engineer. He claims he routinely saw earth curvature at cruise altitude. I tend to believe his experience, and the link provided seems to agree with him.
So you're saying you've never seen curvature on a flight, even on a high-altitude flight on the Concorde. Thanks for your contribution.
Many people claim to have seen curvature on flights. I believe they have not. I'm not one to call anyone a liar, so I like to try to find alternative explanations. You seem to be villainizing me for that. I never made the definite claim that there is measurable curvature due to perspective, lensing, or illusion, but apparently because I'm ostensibly a "flat-earther" anything I say is a statement of irrefutable fact needs to be supported by maths and peer reviewed studies.
The appearance of curvature at higher altitudes, a la the concorde, is actually where I wanted this discussion to go, so thank you for bringing it up. Many sources cite measurable curvature at these altitudes, which I think is fascinating, really.
No I'm saying that during my single Concorde experience, I was not in a position allowing me to see curvature, nothing more, nothing less. From my perspective, it's inconclusive.
Your alternative explanations are always welcome, and I'm sorry if you feel villainised, but you should agree that this kind of statement :
Perspective and lensing through airline windows causes the apparent curve viewed on commercial flights at 30,000 feet or so
sounds quite like an irrefutable fact, whatever your favourite earth shape is.
Anyway, if we agree that some curvature is seen during 50 kft+ flights, let's dig a bit, why do you find it fascinating ?
-
Im Back,
I didn't say commercial airliners. I said corporate aircraft like the gulfstream V or Falcon900.
Both aircraft that fly higher than normal commercial aircraft. 51,000ft.
T
-
Sorry to interject, but was Rowbotham wrong when he said that if the earth is a globe 25,000 miles in circumference, a person should be able to see curvature with the naked eye at ground level?
-
Im Back,
I didn't say commercial airliners. I said corporate aircraft like the gulfstream V or Falcon900.
Both aircraft that fly higher than normal commercial aircraft. 51,000ft.
T
I am aware of the reported curvature on those flights. I've never experienced it myself so I can't speak to it. Have you? If so, do you believe it was curvature of earth that caused it? Could it have been curvature of light or curvature of space instead? Why or why not? If you haven't experienced it, can you really cite it as evidence?
-
Sorry to interject, but was Rowbotham wrong when he said that if the earth is a globe 25,000 miles in circumference, a person should be able to see curvature with the naked eye at ground level?
No, it's just that the Earth isn't a globe.
-
Sorry to interject, but was Rowbotham wrong when he said that if the earth is a globe 25,000 miles in circumference, a person should be able to see curvature with the naked eye at ground level?
No, it's just that the Earth isn't a globe.
Sorry, but it is. See pictures, use of satellites, sunrise and sunset around the world, measured distances.
Please show a scale map of the earth with verified distances between places.
-
Please show us the ships logs.
-
Sorry to interject, but was Rowbotham wrong when he said that if the earth is a globe 25,000 miles in circumference, a person should be able to see curvature with the naked eye at ground level?
No, it's just that the Earth isn't a globe.
Sorry, but it is. See pictures, use of satellites, sunrise and sunset around the world, measured distances.
Please show a scale map of the earth with verified distances between places.
All of these things are possible on a flat earth, and indeed happen on ours. Again, you are assuming the earth is flat in the same way that a sheet of paper is flat. It isn't.
-
Sorry to interject, but was Rowbotham wrong when he said that if the earth is a globe 25,000 miles in circumference, a person should be able to see curvature with the naked eye at ground level?
Define 'see'. Are you referring to sensation, or perception? We could absolutely see the curvature were the Earth round. We would not, however, be able to perceive it. That said there are various tricks which can be used to allow us to perceive the supposed curvature. The Bedford Level Experiment is one of them. All of these methods consistently demonstrate a lack of curvature.
-
Sorry to interject, but was Rowbotham wrong when he said that if the earth is a globe 25,000 miles in circumference, a person should be able to see curvature with the naked eye at ground level?
Define 'see'. Are you referring to sensation, or perception? We could absolutely see the curvature were the Earth round. We would not, however, be able to perceive it. That said there are various tricks which can be used to allow us to perceive the supposed curvature. The Bedford Level Experiment is one of them. All of these methods consistently demonstrate a lack of curvature.
Incorrect.
-
you know Alfred Wallace disproved the Bedford level experiment
-
Bendy light also disproves the Bedford Levels experiment.
-
you know Alfred Wallace disproved the Bedford level experiment
And was promptly found to have cheated by a court of law.
Bendy light also disproves the Bedford Levels experiment.
I see.
-
you know Alfred Wallace disproved the Bedford level experiment
And was promptly found to have cheated by a court of law.
That is totally false and you know it.
Bendy light also disproves the Bedford Levels experiment.
I see.
-
you know Alfred Wallace disproved the Bedford level experiment
And was promptly found to have cheated by a court of law.
Citation, please.
-
so how about all the fighter pilots, research planes, bombers, astronauts, cosmonauts and others that have gone above 50 000ft were they all lieing, how large is this conspiracy, has nobody ever found out about how efficient fuel is or airliners take long arc routes how can this stay secret for so long when theres evidence goverments just cant keep secrets
-
so how about all the fighter pilots, research planes, bombers, astronauts, cosmonauts and others that have gone above 50 000ft were they all lieing, how large is this conspiracy, has nobody ever found out about how efficient fuel is or airliners take long arc routes how can this stay secret for so long when theres evidence goverments just cant keep secrets
The Conspiracy makes billions by lying about the shape of the earth. Do you think a fighter pilot wouldn't want a slice of that cake?
-
so how about all the fighter pilots, research planes, bombers, astronauts, cosmonauts and others that have gone above 50 000ft were they all lieing, how large is this conspiracy, has nobody ever found out about how efficient fuel is or airliners take long arc routes how can this stay secret for so long when theres evidence goverments just cant keep secrets
The Conspiracy makes billions by lying about the shape of the earth. Do you think a fighter pilot wouldn't want a slice of that cake?
Billions? What's their margin like? Do they have audited financial statements? Or maybe you are just making that up?
-
They dont need to be audited because they are accountable to no one.
-
So you made up billions of dollars, got it.
-
Incorrect.
-
Incorrect.
Fascinating. Well your arguments are persuasive. I have no reason to doubt the conspiracy's multi-billion dollar revenue stream.
-
Welcome to TFES.
-
so how about all the fighter pilots, research planes, bombers, astronauts, cosmonauts and others that have gone above 50 000ft were they all lieing, how large is this conspiracy, has nobody ever found out about how efficient fuel is or airliners take long arc routes how can this stay secret for so long when theres evidence goverments just cant keep secrets
The Conspiracy makes billions by lying about the shape of the earth. Do you think a fighter pilot wouldn't want a slice of that cake?
every single fighter pilot ever, every single research pilot and high altitude pilot ever, every single person in any job which involves the shape of the earth lies, that requires an incredible stretch of the imagination to think that millions of people could keep a secret when well look at snowden and wikileaks so much for government security what do you think stops a person fnding all these billions of dollars going missing
-
snowden
will never be seen again. He is now breaking rocks in a Siberian gulag. That's what happens when you cross The Conspiracy.
-
Billions? What's their margin like? Do they have audited financial statements? Or maybe you are just making that up?
Why would employees of the shadow government be audited? You're just being ridiculous, Rama Set.
-
So you made up billions of dollars, got it.
All US dollars are made up since 1933.
-
It's true. All of the gold that used to back the dollar has been given to China to pay our debts.
-
So you made up billions of dollars, got it.
All US dollars are made up since 1933.
Incorrect.
-
how about wikileaks and other leaks that happened from the government how come those can happen but apparently the conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people keeping quiet hasn't had a single leak yet you know that most of wikileaks people are still alive because news would be all over it reporting on how they are all dieing
-
because news
The News is just another name for The Conspiracy.
-
how about wikileaks and other leaks that happened from the government how come those can happen but apparently the conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people keeping quiet hasn't had a single leak yet you know that most of wikileaks people are still alive because news would be all over it reporting on how they are all dieing
You suggest that just because it's possible for a government cover-up to be revealed, all government cover-ups in history have already been revealed. I hope you realise how incredulous that claim is.
-
how about wikileaks and other leaks that happened from the government how come those can happen but apparently the conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people keeping quiet hasn't had a single leak yet you know that most of wikileaks people are still alive because news would be all over it reporting on how they are all dieing
You suggest that just because it's possible for a government cover-up to be revealed, all government cover-ups in history have already been revealed. I hope you realise how incredulous that claim is.
I certainly realize how incredulous it sounds.
I'd go as far to say that the government didn't care about the wikileaks incident and actually let it happen. The main benefit for them doing this is the fact that it takes people's mind off how bogus the Round Earth theory is and redirects the public's attention elsewhere.
-
why...why fake it whats the motive how did they fake all the thousands of satellite launches around the world. and don't say the places they launched from don't exist we can all go on a road trip to woomera and see the launch pads there for ourselves if you want or we could go to cape carnival (autocorrect makes it this) and see that site or we can look at the many independent tests on the few hundred kilos of space rocks that are around and see for ourselves how they aren't earth made
-
its sounds nice and pretty to just say conspiracy whenever any evidence for a round earth is given but it isn't really fair to say it how can we present an argument when all you are gonna do is just dismiss it as nup they want you to think it but you haven't got a shred of any real experiments to give
-
its sounds nice and pretty to just say conspiracy whenever any evidence for a round earth is given but it isn't really fair to say it how can we present an argument when all you are gonna do is just dismiss it as nup they want you to think it but you haven't got a shred of any real experiments to give
"Evidence?" I haven't seen you present any evidence of the earth's shape. Claiming the earth is round because you saw a photo, or read it on wikipedia, or heard it in school isn't evidence of anything except a lack of curiosity on your part.
-
its sounds nice and pretty to just say conspiracy whenever any evidence for a round earth is given but it isn't really fair to say it how can we present an argument when all you are gonna do is just dismiss it as nup they want you to think it but you haven't got a shred of any real experiments to give
"Evidence?" I haven't seen you present any evidence of the earth's shape. Claiming the earth is round because you saw a photo, or read it on wikipedia, or heard it in school isn't evidence of anything except a lack of curiosity on your part.
I haven't seen any evidence for a flat earth other than well when you look outside it seems flat. I have photos you have pictures of what it may look like depending on which flat earth it is. and its not just a few pictures its reading up on the gps system telecommunication how the Nazis planned to bounce a jet filled with radioactive sand to bomb new York its how icbms work, Saturn 5 rockets titan II missle all that other planets its not just a few pictures
-
its sounds nice and pretty to just say conspiracy whenever any evidence for a round earth is given but it isn't really fair to say it how can we present an argument when all you are gonna do is just dismiss it as nup they want you to think it but you haven't got a shred of any real experiments to give
"Evidence?" I haven't seen you present any evidence of the earth's shape. Claiming the earth is round because you saw a photo, or read it on wikipedia, or heard it in school isn't evidence of anything except a lack of curiosity on your part.
I haven't seen any evidence for a flat earth other than well when you look outside it seems flat. I have photos you have pictures of what it may look like depending on which flat earth it is. and its not just a few pictures its reading up on the gps system telecommunication how the Nazis planned to bounce a jet filled with radioactive sand to bomb new York its how icbms work, Saturn 5 rockets titan II missle all that other planets its not just a few pictures
So you're choosing third party information over things you can see with your own eyes. This is exactly why the Flat Earth Society exists, to refute this kind of thinking.
-
how about wikileaks and other leaks that happened from the government how come those can happen but apparently the conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people keeping quiet hasn't had a single leak yet you know that most of wikileaks people are still alive because news would be all over it reporting on how they are all dieing
Why do you think that whistle blowers do not exist in NASA?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbdH7a2IZw
-
So you're choosing third party information over things you can see with your own eyes. This is exactly why the Flat Earth Society exists, to refute this kind of thinking.
This type of behavior is prevaleny among FEers as well.
-
This type of behavior is prevaleny among FEers as well.
According to the FAQ the latest test of the Bedford Level Experiment was carried out in 1904.
-
So you're choosing third party information over things you can see with your own eyes. This is exactly why the Flat Earth Society exists, to refute this kind of thinking.
This type of behavior is prevaleny among FEers as well.
For example, FEer claim that the unvarying size of the disc of the Sun in the sky is just an optical illusion. EnaG claims that it's just the projection of the Sun unto the atmosphere, which is so laughable modern FEers don't mention that original claim.
-
So you're choosing third party information over things you can see with your own eyes. This is exactly why the Flat Earth Society exists, to refute this kind of thinking.
This type of behavior is prevaleny among FEers as well.
For example, FEer claim that the unvarying size of the disc of the Sun in the sky is just an optical illusion. EnaG claims that it's just the projection of the Sun unto the atmosphere, which is so laughable modern FEers don't mention that original claim.
Do Round Earther's still claim the earth is a few hundred million years old?
http://www.livescience.com/32326-how-old-is-earth.html
Our theories are every bit as dynamic, only based on true zetetic observation.
-
Our theories are every bit as dynamic, only based on true zetetic observation.
Please provide evidence for your outlandish claim. Also clearly define dynamic. the Zetetic process develops theories that cannot be contradicted. See: "Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
-
Our theories are every bit as dynamic, only based on true zetetic observation.
What "true zetetic observations" were used to develop Universal Accleration and Electromagnetic Acceleration and how do those observations place those theories "beyond the reach or power of contradiction"?
-
The only issue is defining what is truly a zetetic approach. If the approach is in some way tainted, not truly zetetic, errors are made. At FES we are constantly finding new ways to improve on our scientific observations. And this makes our model stronger and more irrefutable than before.
-
The only issue is defining what is truly a zetetic approach. If the approach is in some way tainted, not truly zetetic, errors are made. At FES we are constantly finding new ways to improve on our scientific observations. And this makes our model stronger and more irrefutable than before.
So you admit at least that you're trying to make your theories less dynamic.
-
The only issue is defining what is truly a zetetic approach. If the approach is in some way tainted, not truly zetetic, errors are made. At FES we are constantly finding new ways to improve on our scientific observations. And this makes our model stronger and more irrefutable than before.
So you admit at least that you're trying to make your theories less dynamic.
We are trying to find out the truth. :-B
-
The only issue is defining what is truly a zetetic approach. If the approach is in some way tainted, not truly zetetic, errors are made. At FES we are constantly finding new ways to improve on our scientific observations. And this makes our model stronger and more irrefutable than before.
So you admit at least that you're trying to make your theories less dynamic.
We are trying to find out the truth. :-B
Would you provide a detail example of recent improvements in your scientific observations, please? Please include the date, time, variables, and observed values of the improved scientific observation. Thanks!
-
Our theories are every bit as dynamic, only based on true zetetic observation.
What "true zetetic observations" were used to develop Universal Accleration and Electromagnetic Acceleration and how do those observations place those theories "beyond the reach or power of contradiction"?
Those theories were discredited a long time ago. The only observations you need to make are looking into a Bible.
-
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was 45,317km.
That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not? Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too?
It is actually 17k kilometers, I think he was getting mixed up. Anyways, according to the FE model, Antarctica is 123k km, which is waaayyyyy off. Is this 17k km measurement a hoax by the government? hmmmm..... Also, If you are traveling by to the ice wall, please send me some proof it is 123k km. Also, if there were infinite ice, then why would people not take from it and use it to stop world thirst? Surely infinite ice is enough. Or it could be a ploy that ice melts into water.........
-
This thread was last active and a half YEARS ago. Couldn’t you find anything recent to comment on?