Airplane pilots don’t adjust course for the curve
If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into outer space.
This is a mistake, it is not a proof the earth is flat. Airline pilots have an altimeter which they use to keep the plane at a fixed altitude [distance from the earth] and also they aim at the horizon. So if the earth is a globe and you keep your airplane at a fixed distance from the earth then automatically you are correcting your course to remain at a fixed distance from the earth, in other words you are going around the curve of the earth. Also by aiming at the horizon that will cause you to constantly follow the curve of the earth.
So airline pilots already have two perfectly good systems in place that ensure they will follow the curve of the earth if it is a globe and these systems will work equally well to enable them to stay a fixed distance from a flat plane if the earth is flat.
The conclusion is airline pilots do adjust for the curve, if it exists, so this does not prove or disprove the flat earth or the globe earth.
142 Replies to “Airplane pilots don’t adjust course for the curve”
I wrote this to Dubay about his 2777ft drop per minute claim.
The problem is that you’re not doing the correct math equation.You’re taking the drop in 500 miles, 166,667ft and dividing by 60 minutes, or total flight time, to get the correct but ridiculous number of 2,777ft per minute drop.
To simplify, use 600 miles per hour, divide by 60 minutes means you’re flying 10 miles per minute, 10x10x8/12=67ft roughly. So, which is it? Is the plane dropping 2,777ft per minute or 67ft per minute? Neither.
If the plane is flying 10 miles per minute that means it’s going 1 mile in 6 seconds. Is an 8 inch drop in 6 seconds the correct answer? That’s really not much of a drop but that’s still not correct.
A 747 is about 250ft in length. 250ft/5280=.0473 of a mile. The plane is .0473 of a mile long.
.0473x.0473×8=.017 of an inch. In the planes length the earth drops .017 of an inch. That’s just a little over 1/64th of an inch.
Theoretically an airplane could maintain a flight altitude just a little over 1/64th of an inch out of level and circumnavigate the entire globe.
I say theoretically because there are so many forces involved the plane’s computer or the pilot are always making corrections.
Hopefully facts will prevail in this silly flat earth craze!
Yes. This whole idea that if the earth was a globe planes would fly off into space because they are not putting their nose down is ridiculous.
In the olden days the pilot was always aiming at the horizon, that would automatically correct for the globe, and he was keeping at a fixed height above the earth with his altimeter. So he was constantly correcting for the globe by constantly aiming at the horizon and keeping the plane at a constant height above the ground. So now the computers are doing the same thing. Constantly correcting.
So it is just a crazy idea. There’s no need to do the maths actually. Because either of these things would automatically correct for the globe. If you stay at a constant height above the surface of the earth then no matter what shape the earth is you will follow that shape. And if you point at the horizon also that will keep you following the contour of the earth below you. No matter what shape it is…
WOW. Both of you are in dire need of schooling. Please show us the scientific proof of curvature. You can’t because there is none. This is out to universities all over.
A CHALLENGE TO PROFESSORS, SCIENTISTS, PHYSICIST’S and generally delusional globe believers…
Photograph and photoshop are 2 different things.
The 1st is real, the 2nd is Computer generated.
NASA utilizes 100% CGI for ALL of their published images as do ALL other space agencies so please don’t waste time with using this as proof or ANY other military or deceptively claimed to be private agency as follows…
China National Space Administration (CNSA)
European Space Agency (ESA)
Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos)
Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Italian Space Agency (ASI)
National Centre for Space Studies (France)
Canadian Space Agency
Further, Images taken with a fisheye lens ARE NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING AND WON’T BE CONSIDERED.
I will gladly debate AFTER scientific proof of a spinning ball earth. My qualifications, (or lack thereof)…
I’ve worked briefly as a college professor and have over 2 years of research on the topic of Cosmology. I work as an advanced robotic systems programmer/analyst with a background in computer science with emphasis on automotive assembly line controls engineering and throughput enhancement. I’ve installed entire assembly lines for G.M., Ford, Diamler-Chrysler, NIssan, Toyota, and Auto-Alliance/Mazda and have worked under employ of G.M Cadillac and Diamler as Systems Analyst
1st, I require prior to debate 100% scientific proof of the following…
1. Curvature of the earth at 8 inches per mile SQUARED as specified in the Pythagoras Theorem, (To date has NEVER been done.)
2. Proof of the earths motion as proven to be false in the advanced Michelson-Morley experiment.
3. (optional) Proof of Einsteins theory of E=Mc2 which was originally designed to prove the Heliocentric model.
If you truly believe in your education and can backup your cosmology/physics and astronomy I’m Here for you to completely humiliate! Just the think of the fun you’ll have making me look like a total IMBECILE??, AND HOW COOL YOU’LL LOOK TO YOUR PEERS????
Lee, maybe you can prove through scientific facts how the earth is flat?
As far as an answer to your question, the reason we know the earth is round is:
At a very basic level, we can see the Earth’s curvature through satellites that have been launched into space. Additionally, through the use of high-powered telescopes, it is possible to examine planets both in our solar system and beyond, and all of them are spherical in shape.
There is a very deep, fundamental reason why the Earth is round: the force of gravity depends upon the distance between two interacting objects, and the only three-dimensional object you can make with a single distance is a sphere. We can measure the behavior of gravity in the laboratory with a variety of highly sensitive experiments. Each of these experiments shows that the force of gravity depends only on the mass of the two objects and the distance between them. If, on the other hand, you wanted to form a flattened object using gravity alone, the force of gravity would have to depend upon two, perpendicular distances in two perpendicular directions.
Yes. You have given two of the basic ‘proofs’ that the earth is a globe.
That is good if you believe in the photos from space. I must note that from a couple of hundred miles up [low earth orbit satellites, space station, etc, you can not see the curve of the earth.] If you take a ball and scale it to the 8,000 mile diameter of the earth and come up a couple of hundred miles you will see that is not sufficient to tell if the earth is flat or a globe. But you could see the whole globe from satellites in geosynchronous orbit, if you believe there are satellites in geosynchronous orbit.
And your other point, because the moon is a globe, the sun is a globe, Mars is a globe, etc, then Earth must be a globe also. That is not proof, it is a deduction. Still possible that Earth may be different from the globes we see above our heads.
As far as your claim that there are scientific experiments demonstrating gravity, the attraction between two objects. I have never heard of any such successful experiment. The scientific opinion is that no such experiment is possible on earth because any small gravitational pull that may be generated by your ‘heavy objects’ will be completely overwhelmed by the huge gravitational pull of the earth we stand on. So there is no experiment showing the working of gravity possible on the earth, at least not as far as I am aware.
Hey Rob. You say we can’t prove earth is flat. Yet the BEDFORD EXPERIMENT anyone can do go to Salt flats. Ocean lake where ever a large flat surface is. Look across Here in So Cal Huntington Beach Pier I can look towards Catalina island. Look at Harbor the city there. It’s 21 miles away at 5ft above water it’s a 296’ft drop behind curvature. You people say we never can prove it yet it has. Utah lake 21 miles laser across water. Sorry light refraction cannot give this much gain. It’s amazing you keep saying FE is crazy when numerous people have proven this experiment over and over. Where is the Round earth proof? NASA fake pictures. What proof have LAND SURVEYORS came out and said we don’t take the curvature into consideration. We have NASA DOCUMENTS SR71 flight dynamics for a external payload page 8 I believe or 10. So many documents that mention a FLAT EARTH NON ROTATING. so explain why they would use such terminology. Please Einstein. Ohh wait. Einstein tried to prove the rotation of the earth and couldn’t. To this day no one has been able to prove any rotation of the earth. The Air Force has tried. So if your done bad mouthing everyone. Show us any proof of a globe that we can go out a test. Cause I bought a telescope and looked for myself it’s the inly way people will believe.
100% and no one can explane how an altimeter works on a round earth???
Brilliant. The theory of relativity was thrown at the Michelson-Morley Experiment because they didn’t detect the aether. But they did in the Michelson-Gale, The Sagnac, and Airy’s Failure Experiments. No other experiments have been done since to calculate the velocity at which the Earth spins because science is funded by the government? I’m sure many indoctrinated-driven people would like to debate Lee. But it’s impossible to produce proof of a curvature, that Earth moves, gravity (density and buoyancy are a natural law) or ‘E=mc2’ which was not discovered by Einstein and has since been proven wrong. Lee won’t be debated. I urge everyone reading this to grasp on to the concept that all the oceans on Earth wrap around a ball 25,000 miles in circumference with a gravitational pull from a molten magnetic core.
Science has proven that a magnet heated into liquid form has no magnetic properties. Now try and rationalize that the level of water bends which it does not and is a law violation in Fluid Dynamics.
Here is a link explaining the facts.
Thank you for your intelligent reply.
WOW. You are in dire need of schooling. Please show us the scientific proof of flatness. You can’t because there is none. This is out to flat earthers all over.
A CHALLENGE TO CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, PEOPLE WHO DO “RESEARCH” BY WATCHING CRACKPOT YOUTUBE VIDEOS and generally delusional flat Earth believers…
Photograph and photoshop are 2 different things.
The 1st is real, the 2nd is Computer generated.
Show us the photograph, not cgi, of the flat Earth with both Africa and North America visible in the same *photograph*. Flat earthers have lots of paintings and CGI, but where are the photographs?
There are lots of photographs of the round earth taken from space, with unproven accusations that they are CGI, but where are the flat Earth photos? Why are they all just obvious illustrations?
There is a serious shortage of believable full globe images from space. There is no live feed. Which certainly there would be if they have all these things in space with a full view of the globe earth from so many perspectives.
Such realtime images of the globe would not just be nice to see, but would be tremendously helpful in many scientific fields. But we don’t have them at all.
And realistically most of the photos of earth from space are admittedly not. But are compositions made in Photoshop.
So there really is a very serious lack of photographic evidence of the globe earth from space.
We certainly have got very detailed satellite imagery of most of the surface of the earth from low-earth satellites. But virtually nothing in the realm of high resolution actual imagery of the globe spinning in space.
There is some weather satellite imagery, but there is a very good chance it is computer generated based on all the data they have from their low-earth sattelites.
So I do not find much convincing evidence at all for our ability to take photos of the earth from space. Because we only have a handful of photos of earth from space.
So this is really a very valid argument from the flat earth people.
“There is a serious shortage of believable full globe images from space”
There appear to be absolutely no believable full flat Earth photos.
While you can argue whether many of the photos of the round Earth were made with CGI or otherwise faked, there are no photos of the full flat Earth to make that argument about.
If the Earth is really flat, why can’t we see a photo of it? We can see all kinds of photos of the round Earth that people argue about. Where are the flat Earth photos?
Tim. You have a problem thinking logically. The reason we don’t have believable globe photos is because they are unable to take the globe photos from a sufficient distance away from the earth to provide them for us.
If they could take believable globe earth photos we would have millions of them, we would have super high-definition views of the globe from every angle, constant imagery.
So the point is the imagery is missing. So we don’t have the globe imagery. So how would we have the flat imagery? That is the whole point. We don’t have the imagery. So we don’t know if it is a globe or what it is.
That is the point. So there is no point saying we don’t have flat imagery. The point is we don’t have believable globe imagery. If you can present the conclusive believable globe imagery, then the problem is solved.
All you have to do is go up high enough and look down. But it does not seem we are able to do that?
No man has ever left low-earth orbit, except for the fake Apollo missions, which also did not leave low-earth orbit.
And we don’t know how to send men out of low-earth orbit yet either…
So this is the problem. Lack of globe proof. That means globe is a theory. And I admit it is a good one. But if you can provide actual proof then the discussion is over, however, at least so far, they are not providing conclusive proof. It is a good model. But it remains a model, a theory.
“Yes David, but you forgot that there is no explanation how this can happen from science?’ Oh yes there is, a very basic and simple one.
“What is the force that is holding every atom in the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere and pulling it around in exact synchronization with the rotation …”
The atmosphere is not in exact synchronization with the rotation of anything. That is why we have weather patterns, TRS etc. all resulting basically from temperature gradients and rotation, as anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows.
The force you are looking for is called friction, as anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows.
Rubbish David. Friction is not a force. Friction does not hold anything. Friction is what happens when two moving things are rubbing together. Like for example when you put the brakes on in your car. There brake pads come in touch with the brake disks and there is friction between the two. That friction generates heat. You have no idea about science or anything and you write all these crazy posts. That is why I delete them.
You don’t even understand, of course if the earth is actually rotating, which honestly it does not appear to be, then every atom in the atmosphere has to move in exact synchronization with the rotating earth below it. Because as we observe it, everything behaves as if the earth was stationary. Now you have to get your head around the weather patterns, yes, they are moving, but their movements are in relation to the stationary earth. So if the earth is rotating the you have to also rotate the weather patterns with the rotating earth. So yes the wind is blowing in different directions but that whole weather system has to move with the rotation of the earth. And this science can not explain.
What is the point of saying rubbish things like “friction…” What do you think people will think if you just write rubbish like this?
I am not sure why I can’t reply to replies to this question, so In reply at one level higher.
I read that replies are being deleted. That is a sad thing.
Friction is force that will tend to reduce the relative speeds and when all relative motion has gone, no more heat is being generated.
A break works with friction, and so does a clutch. The rotation of the engine’s main axle is gradually transferred to the driving shaft. With a slipping clutch, heat is generated, but when fully engaged, no longer so, although everything keeps rotating.
Friction will also occur between layers of air in the atmosphere, just as well as between two solid bodies. The strength of this friction, which occurs throughout the gas, depends on the viscosity of the gas.
Hi, I think you do not have a sufficient idea of friction that is taught in physics.
There are two types of friction, static friction and dynamic friction. When you’re talking about friction generating heat you are talking about dynamic friction, which is when two surfaces rub past each other. Static friction is what prevents an object to start moving even if you push or pull it, and there is no heat generated there. But in both cases, friction is definitely a “force” that opposes the movement of the object on which it is acting on. It is unlike other forces because it’s existence depends on the presence of another active force, but it is still a force.
Suppose there is a box on top of a table and we are trying to move that box. It will not move initially if we give it only a small push/pull (another name for force). So there is an opposing force, equal and opposite to what we are providing, which prevents it from moving. That is static friction. Beyond a certain level of force applied, it starts moving, at which time there is dynamic friction between the two services.
Now suppose you replace that box by another bigger box which is much more heavier. Now you would require more force to make it start moving. Hence, there is more friction between the box in the table which makes it difficult for us to move it. Hence, friction is proportional to the weight of the object that is being attempted to move.
Also, when we move the table that holds the box, the box also moves. What causes the box to move, even when there is no direct force applied on the box, but on the table? The force which moves the box is therefore friction between the box and the table that accelerates it when the table is pulled or pushed.
The same analogy is provided for the globe earth model. Since the atmosphere is pulled by the Earth’s gravity, and it is a massive object, there is large friction. Hence, when the earth rotates, the atmosphere also rotates along with it, just as when you would move the table, the heavy box on top of the table would move along with it.
I am not saying that this proves that the earth is rotating, and we do not have observations of that and there are other problems to it, but this part of the globe earth model does sound reasonable to me, based on the laws of physics.
You Forgot to add the speed of the rotation of the Earth. Lol 1,037.5646 miles per hour at the equator. It Changes depending on you are according to globe model. Makes A Huge difference.
LOL, you forgot, lo, that the atmosphere rotates with the Earth, LOL.
LOL. That is why we have TRS due to coriolis and similarly all weather patterns
Yes David, but you forgot that there is no explanation how this can happen from science? What is the force that is holding every atom in the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere and pulling it around in exact synchronization with the rotation of the earth as if the whole thing was one connected frame of reference. The atoms, the air, the butterflies, the birds, the airplanes, they are all locked and being moved in exact synchronization with the rotation of the earth? But how is this possible David? They are not physically connected and they have the freedom to move in their own independent directions. But at the same time they are all being pulled around in exact synchronization with the rotation of the earth?
Science has never explained how this is working. They have not provided us with any force capable of doing this?
On the face of it there is no way the rotating earth can pull the whole atmosphere and everything in it around in exact synchronization with its rotation?
If you know how this is happening please explain it?
Here you go…
“Since the Earth is, as we’re TOLD, a Sphere 25,000 miles in circumference… radius 3959 miles, then Pilots traveling for 1 Hour @ a typical cruising speed of 500 mph — to simply MAINTAIN ALTITUDE, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards, (to Compensate for the Curvature) and descend on AVERAGE 2,789 Feet EVERY MINUTE !!”
NO. Because pilots, and these days auto pilots, fly with an altimeter. Which means they aim at the horizon, which means they are automatically constantly adjusting their angle to point towards the horizon, which will automatically cause them to follow the curve of the earth.
“Rubbish David. Friction is not a force.” Really?
Aircraft builders and F1 aerodynamicists disagree with you.
“Friction does not hold anything. ” I donlt say it did. Read my comment
“You have no idea about science or anything and you write all these crazy posts.” See above.
“That is why I delete them.” No it isn’t, you allow crazy posts that you can mock. As you tried here. And failed.
OK David, I give you this point, there is a reasonable explanation based on friction as to how the heavy atmosphere could be spun around the earth because it sticks to the spinning earth.
So that would give you air spinning around with the rotation of the earth. A wind of 1000 mph at the equator going down to zero at the poles.
So not that you are actually synchronized with the rotation of the earth, you are blowing in the wind.
So yes, I guess it is possible, spinning earth with spinning atmosphere stuck to it with everything in the atmosphere being blown around by the wind.
It does sound somewhat unlikely, but yes. It is a good idea.
OK, so this crazy idea of science to explain that whole atmosphere and everything in it moves with the earth because of friction.
This is a crazy idea. Because it holds that everything in the atmosphere is being tightly held by friction strong enough to pull everything around with the rotation of the earth while every particle and atom in the atmosphere remains free to effortlessly move in any direction it may desire or may be propelled in by the weather patterns, etc.
So this friction can not simultaneously act and not act on the same particles, objects, atoms, etc, in the atmosphere and at the same time leave everything in the atmosphere to move freely.
The example to describe this effect is ants walking on a potter’s wheel. Wheel is the spinning field of reference and is moving the ants around. At the same time the ants are free to walk around on the potters wheel. But for this to work there has to be something separate, like the potters wheel, that is physically connected to the earth, and that physical connected thing is rotating with the earth and the atoms, the particles, the weather systems, etc, they are all standing on this spinning thing, and they are able to move independently on this spinning thing.
You can’t have everything spinning by friction, you only have the thing that everything is standing on locked to the earth and spinning because everything else has to be able to move freely in relation to this spinning thing. Because the ants are connected to the spinning potters wheel they are spinning and that spinning is irrelevant to them and they can go about their business moving around the spinning potters wheel. The ants are not locked to the potters wheel. They are standing on it and have freedom to move on it. But because potters wheel is spinning they are spinning with it, but still they have their freedom of movement on the spinning frame of reference.
You can’t have everything solidly locked to and moving in exact synchronization with the earth, and at the same time have these exact same particles, atoms and objects absolutely free to move in any direct they choose.
If all these objects are tightly locked to the rotation of the earth they can not simultaneously have free and effortless movement in any direction they desire.
They have not thought this one through. This is another example of “Science is stupid…”
In response to Flat Earth Fact’s second response, I think there are three forces acting on air particles relevant here: gravity, forces due to pressure gradients and friction.
Forces, however, do cause acceleration, not necessarily forcing trajectories to be tightened.
A this moment, the atmosphere has attained angular momentum, consistent with the angular speed of the earth and friction is marginal. There is no energy required to keep it going with the earth. In stead, it would require energy to stop it doing so.
You have not understood the problem. The particles are not just spinning with the earth, they are parts of weather systems who have their own completely different movements. Winds blowing in all sorts of different directions. So you can not have the same particle spinning in exact synchronization with the earth and being part of a storm system going in a completely different direction. There are so many forces acting so you can not say that there is no energy required to keep it spinning with the earth. Try it. Put some water on a tennis ball and spin it with your drill. Just see the water stick to and spin with the earth. No there is centrifugal force, you forget. Everything tends to go in a straight line, if it was going in a straight line then you could say, like Einstein did, that unless something is stopping it a thing will just keep on going at the same speed. But that will only work in a straight line.
Problem is the whole atmosphere and everything in it must move in EXACT synchronization with the rotation of the earth. It must be part of the same contiguous connected frame of reference spinning exactly like the earth. And at the same time you have to allow every particle and everything in the atmosphere complete freedom of movement within that spinning frame of reference.
So it can not be friction. Friction can not seamlessly connect the earth, the air, the particles, the birds, the airplanes into one contiguous spinning frame of reference and at the same time allow complete freedom of movement.
So this is not friction. You need two separate things. You need a spinning frame of reference which everything is connected to, like the potter’s wheel, and you need everything to be able to move freely on that spinning frame of reference.
So this remains a mystery. First you have to understand the problem. You need to physically connect the spinning earth to everything, and then allow everything to move independently on this frame of reference physically connected to the spin of the earth.
Alternatively you can simply accept the earth as stationary, in that case everything works perfectly as we observe it. Everything behaves as if the earth was stationary. So that is also another possibility.
You need to talk to a professional pilot. An altimeter calculates air pressure. The gyro keeps the plane flying perfectly level. Level as in not following a ball/ sphere, a spheriod, an oblate sphere or ellipsoid
Level is following the ground below. Even a globe of 10,000 miles diameter, it is very close to level. So these are all silly points from the flat earth side. Point is they are flying the plane and keeping it at a certain altitude, height from the ground. How they measure it, it is irrelevant. But by keeping the plane at a fixed altitude it is going to follow the shape of the ground below it, so this is not a proof the earth is flat or a globe. Either case the pilot will fly at a certain hight, automatically following the shape below.
“to simply MAINTAIN ALTITUDE, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards”
No, to MAITNAIN altitude, a pilot has to constantly control their aircraft to keep the altitude (distance between the plane and the ground) the same.
If a pilot adjusted their altitude downwards, they would be DESCENDING, and getting closer to the ground, not MAINTAINing altitude.
Yes, of course you are correct Tim. They are adjusting for altitude so that will automatically cause them to follow the curve if it is a globe. This is one of the many invalid flat earth arguments.
That would be true if it were a magical spinning waterfall.
Just show us measurable curvature and axial rotation☺ Since this has NEVER been done your argument is absurd.
I am not on the globe earth side and I am not on the flat earth side, I am an impartial observer. So all I am doing is stating that the globe earth model is logical, it does provide a framework where, using the globe earth model, we can make quite accurate predictions which match our observations as to how this Earth-Moon-Sun system is working.
Yes. It is not perfect. But flat earthers have no model, they do not have any accepted idea of how anything could work and produce the thing we observe happening in the sky and around us, presuming the earth is flat.
So the globe earth people, they have got a real valid scientific predictive model, not perfect, and in my opinion most likely not correct in at least some very substantial ways, still their model is valid and makes valid predictions. But flat earth people have no model, and have no idea at all how anything could actually work on a flat plane.
So that is the only point I am making, globe earth is a valid scientific model, flat earth, it is just an idea, but an idea which no one has been able to explain how it could possibly be true. So flat earth is the belief in something that no one can explain how it works or how it could be possible, globe earth is only a belief also, but the globe earthers have a very clear, reasonable and logical idea of how it could work. So globe earth is a theory, but it has a solid scientific model that proves the validity of that concept at least, they have no way of knowing if the reality matches their theory, but the globe earth theory is a logical and consistent explanation as to how things might be working. Flat earth, on the other hand, is just a sentimental belief with no one having the slightest idea of how it could work, how it could be possible.
So there is a big difference. Globe earth is science, logic, flat earth is sentiment, believing in something that we can not come up with any logical explanation as to how it could be so…
So you can say both are theories but globe earth theory is a theory that has a very solid scientific basis, it is a theory that could be true, and a theory which is fully understood and a theory that enables a thoughtful person to comprehend how it works and he can validate the theory through so many different observations.
But no one can comprehend how the earth could be flat and provide the display we see in the sky and the actual experiences we have of traveling around the planet. Not to say it is impossible. But at least at the moment flat earths have no idea how it could be possible. So it is simply a blind belief in something that we have no way of even comprehending how it could be true. So flat earth is illogical, unscientific, blind faith. I do not eliminate the possibility that the earth could be flat but if anyone is going to seriously consider it them someone has to come up with a working valid flat earth theory that actually predicts what we see happening in the sky and around us and a working practical flat earth map that allows us to travel around the earth in the ways we are currently actually traveling around the earth.
But now flat earthers can’t provide us with a working map, and can’t provide us with any explanation at all as to how what we see in the sky is produced from a flat plane.
So there is no logic, no science, nothing of substance at all, provided by the flat earthers, whereas globe earthers give us a real working scientific predictive model…
As far as measurable curvature and axial rotation, that is very easy to measure. Start at the North Pole. Polaris will be directly above your head in the center of the sky and you will see all the stars rotating around it once every 24 hours, there’s your axial rotation. You can see it, you can’t deny it. Something is rotating, either the earth is rotating or all those stars are rotating, but in any case there is most certainly axial rotation. And now start traveling South. As you travel one degree south the polestar will drop one degree in the sky. This shows you are moving around a curve on a globe. Once you have traveled 90 degrees around the globe you will be at the equator. Then look up in the sky. Polestar is now at the horizon. That proves you have moved 90 degrees around the globe and you are looking out in the sky in a totally different direction.
Now if the earth was flat, you would still be looking in the same direction in the sky and you would still be able to see polaris.
But because you have gone around the curve you are now looking out into the sky rotated 90 degrees from your starting point. So you must have gone around the curve.
So it is very easy to measure both axial rotation and curvature and this is consistent with the globe earth model and not the flat earth model…
Don’t forget to use ballons as example, unless the wind blows those things never go anywhere!
whichever course a pilot sets is called a “great circle” which if stayed on will bring them back to the same point.
if a pilot tries to follow a line of latitude a course correction would be required.
a flight from any two points on the globe can always be great circles, not necessarily be lines of latitude unless it happens to be the equator.
It’s good that you guys can converse about this and try to sort it out but don’t forget: People LIE. And they do it many times every day. Research is FULL of lies because it comes from humans. I had no reason beyond basic math to believe anything my teachers told me because they were taught by liars and believed or continued the lie they wanted to believe. (People are animals etc.) Scientific research agrees: The average person tells a lie about 27 times per day. Will you ever get to the “truth?” If Einstein could not, it is highly unlikely. The “truth” is something only God knows. It’s not for people to figure it out because mankind is quickly going down the toilet. Mankind has reached the point where it is far to evil to ever succeed at anything long term. I hope you enjoyed the arguments. It’s not the question of flat or round. The question is who made it and why.
Hi Chris. Yes. You are correct. People lie. It is very nicely described in the Vedic texts. Not only lie, all people have four defects:
So all the “science” is made by people who all lie, make mistakes, have imperfect senses and are illusioned [believe things that are not true].
Our conclusion is you can only get perfect knowledge from a perfect person, that perfect person is God, the Supreme Person. And we have the Vedas, that knowledge is coming directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So we have a description of the universe in the Vedas, that is not made by people, it is made by God.
So the universe is created by God. Therefore, it makes sense, that He is the person who best understands how it works. So the Vedas provides us with God’s description of how the universe works, so that is correct. The “scientific” ideas are all faulty, because, like everyone else, scientists lie, make mistakes, have imperfect senses and are illusioned…
If the above is true, then either the pilot or a computer must continually make the adjustments. Which is it?
Pilots aim at the horizon, so by doing this, if the earth is curved, they are automatically adjusting for the curve, similarly computers they use the gyroscope and the altimeter, to keep the plane at a fixed height above the earth, which will automatically adjust for the curve if there is one.
A gyro is a, simple device that always stays level. There is no magic here. No curvature.
Lee, obviously the above globe believers have not spoken to a pilot that uses these instruments every day. A gyro is exactly what you described. An altimeter measures air pressure to measure height above sea level. To say either of these instruments aims at the horizon and adjusts for or they are computer calculated to adjust for the Earth’s curvature is just rediculousness.
TJ. Think for a few seconds. If the altimeter measures the height above sea level and the pilot uses the altimeter to remain at a certain height above sea level then he is automatically adjusting for the curve of the earth. He is adjusting to keep the plane at 30,000 feet, for example, then as the earth curves below him he adjusts to remain 30,000 feet above it automatically following the curve of the earth, if it is curved, or, if it is flat, remaining 30,000 feet above it.
pilots fly great circles which lines of longitude are not concentric like the lines of latitude. the roads across the prairies do indeed require correction periodically
but doesn’t gravity keep the plane from going into space???
Yes, as a result of the constructional limitations of air planes, they cannot reach the required escape velocity to shoot into space.
Also, lack of oxygen would prevent them from keeping the engines running at higher altitudes, so they cannot continue to gradually climb higher and higher.
But, in principle, there is no reason why an aircraft couldn’t escape earth’s gravity, we only call them rockets if they are designed to do so.
The Title is correct, the article is wrong. Pilots don’t input “for correction” before take off. Period.
Tesla said that gravity does not exist and I believe him. So If I am standing facing the rising sun and I jump towards the sun, Why can’t I jump further towards the sun than I could away from the sun
You are weighed down by a “blanket” of particles above your head. While it is easy to jump and break through some of those particles (like diving into water), it takes great force to go up or down further. Blanket Theory.
First of all, the gravitational pull of the sun, here on surface of the earth, is very small. Newton’s law of gravity applied to the mass of the sun and the distance from the earth to the sun, gives an acceleration of 0.06% of that of the earth itself.
More importantly, we are approximately in a free-fall trajectory around the sun. From the frame of reference moving with the earth, there is no net acceleration due to the sun’s gravitation.
A small correction is needed, because only the center of mass of the earth follows the ideal free-fall trajectory.
If you are somewhere on the earth closer to the sun, a net pull is exerted. If you are further away from the sun, a net push away is exerted. This is consistent with the tides we observe.
Gravity is a thing…
Centuries of scientists and researchers developing and proving the theory of gravity yet in the 21st century, people think all this hard evidence is false. 21st century, I’m gonna lose it with flat-ass earthers and people who think they’re suddenly Icarus and can jump towards the sun.
Define gravity! Oh, that’s right, it’s used to describe everything that can’t be explained on the imaginary spinning waterball. Magnetism, buoyancy and density account for the things that imaginary gravity make claim to.
Scientists cannot explain gravity, it is a natural law that consists of density and buoyancy. Since when did any type of scientist prove that it’s a force pulling objects to a center of a ball by a molten magnetic core? That’s utter lunacy just like the ball… Navy gunners can sight targets with lasers from 100 miles away and there are hundreds of photos of Chicago from the shoreline and bottom of the buildings up from 50+- 60+ miles away. I’d like to know how a baller like yourself explains these phenomena?
I don’t know where or how you do your research but I can tell you that you are absolutely 100% dead wrong… if you google “Is gravity a theory?” This following search results is what you will get:
Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.
Gravity: It’s Only a Theory | National Center for Science Education
I will say I was surprised to have read those results from Google myself since they censor anything related to this subject matter, turn it around and deliberately push disinformation lies about it.
As it is said in the statement it is a ‘natural law’. Density and buoyancy sort all it out but if you want to keep believing that you’re on a ball and being held down and pulled to it by a force generated from molten magnetic core at the center of it, thats alright. You see real science crushes that ridiculous theory- if a magnet is melted into liquid it will no longer have any magnetic properties and he deepest hole that’s ever been drilled down into the Earth is less than 8 miles. It’s beyond preposterous for any one person, group or cult to have any clue what is over 4000 miles down into the Earth.
TJ, if you read your google article further, you would have come across this disclaimer on the article:
[Textbook disclaimers are down, but not out. This satirical look at “only a theory” disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.]
So not only do you flat earthers have zero evidence, but zero reading skills as well.
However the theory of gravitation is only a theory. And not even agreed on by the big names in science. You may know there is Newtonian gravity, and totally different gravity proposed by Einstein. So even the big names in science, they present their competing and incompatible theories of gravitation.
So no matter what Google may say, the explanations we have of how gravity works are most certainly theories. There is, of course, an observable fact, that is if you drop an item that is more dense than the medium it is in it will fall down.
So that is a fact. If you let go of an object in a medium that is less dense than the object it will fall down. So gravitation is a theory trying to explain why the more dense object falls down in a less dense medium. It can be noted of course also that if you let go of a less dense object [helium filled balloon for example] in a more dense medium [the atmosphere] it will fall up. However this can not be explained by the theory of gravitation…
So yes. Gravitation is a theory and Google the article in question is incorrect in assuming it is not.
Newton’s law of gravity is the limiting case of Einstein’s model, valid for ‘small’ masses and ‘low’ speeds. In that case, they yield the same results.
Einstein’s work builds on the work of Newton and extends it to new realms.
Conceptually, one could say that Newton’s law is simply descriptive and Einstein’s theory provides a deeper understanding.
A helium filled balloon floating up is totally consistent with gravity.
The denser surrounding air is pulled on harder per volume by gravity than the balloon and forces it self below the balloon that is thus pushed up by it.
It is the same proces that forces a football, submerged in water back to the surface.
You may also compare this to balance scales that depend on gravity. One arm may swing up against gravity, just because it holds a lower weight.
There is an actual fact, observable fact. And that is that things tend to fall down. And they have measured and discovered they accelerate as they fall down and measured that acceleration. These are actual measurable facts, and if you call this “gravity”. That is of course fine. But when you try to explain how it works, like Newton and Einstein, then these are theories. Trying to explain the actual observed fact of gravity.
So there is a definitely something that causes things to fall down, so yes, if you create a vacuum then a helium filled balloon will also fall to the ground.
The theories are the explanations that attempt to explain how it is working actually, what is causing the gravity, etc. But there is that force pulling everything down, no one can deny that.
This is all very interesting stuff. Nobody has given scientific proof the earth is flat. NOBODY!
So for you so called geniuses holding on to this idea, riddle me this.
“If I leave from my home and walk in a straight line for just over 40,000 km.(I can walk on water and over mountains easily for this scenario)…Where would I end up??
Yes. You are correct Rob. No one has given any scientific proof the earth is flat. You can say there is no absolute scientific proof the earth is a globe but there is a fully functional, logical and quite reasonable globe earth model that in almost all cases makes very accurate predictions of practically everything we see happening around us. So it is quite reasonable and logical and scientific to accept that the earth is most likely a globe with quite a high degree of confidence.
However, there is no working flat earth model even, if you ask them how it works they will just say, “We don’t know how it works, we’re not scientists… But we know it is flat…”
So these are not equal models, globe earth and flat earth…
But as far as your walking idea, on the generally understood flat earth it depends on the direction you walk. All directions, except south, would result in the same experience you expect on a globe. Even if you walked South on the flat earth you would come to Antartica and it is too extremely cold and desolate, you can not go very far. So Actually no matter what direction you walked on the flat earth you would have the same experience as you would expect to have on the globe earth.
East and West are circular, as they are on the globe, same thing, and North, you will get to the North Pole in both cases, and South, you will end up at Antartica. However flat earthers believe Antartica is an outer ring, not a pole. But you would not be able to tell the difference as you were walking there.
My scenario gave parameters: I could walk on water, over mountain, through the cold Antartica was assumed. My point, is I would end up where I started on a globe. But if the earth was flat where would I end up? I bet no flat earther could give a reasonable final destination. If they say a large ice wall, then please provide a picture, and also what is on the other side of that ice wall? I think maybe they’ve watched too much game of thrones.
Yes Rob, you would end up where you started on a globe. But on our globe you would not get far into Antarctica before you died. So you can’t do this on the Earth. The distances are very great. Even on the Antartica we believe on the globe. There is no fuel there, there is no heat there, the temperature can be down around minus 90 degrees Celsius, so my point stands, you are correct, if you walked on a globe you would eventually come back to your starting point but you have to understand it is not possible to do this on the Earth. So you are presuming the earth is a globe, however you can not test that using the scenario you have given.
Everyone presumes the earth is a globe, however proving the earth is a globe, that is a different thing.
As I stated before, I’m my scenario I can withstand the cold. Please explain where I would if I walked in a straight line, any direction for 40,000 km.
You can’t because you know I would end up where I started.
Yes. If you were on a globe you would end up where you started. But the point is you can’t do this on the earth, so you can’t test to see if the earth is a globe or not. That is the problem. It is difficult to come up with a practical test you can use, that you can actually carry out, to prove the earth is a globe.
My point is the results of your test would be identical on the flat earth as proposed by the flat earthers and the globe earth as proposed by the globe earthers. Because in either case, there is now way you can actually withstand the cold. So we have to be realistic.
More rubbish. “Yes. If you were on a globe you would end up where you started. But the point is you can’t do this on the earth, so you can’t test to see if the earth is a globe or not.” What you mean is that you haven’t bothered to do it.
Nobody has bothered to do it David.
Nobody travels around the globe in all the possible directions to test if it is possible. Because we know it is a globe and just presume it is possible.
In reality, if you are honest and think about it, most of the travel, 90%+ it is from one point to another in the Northern hemisphere, and most travel to the Southern Hemisphere is from some point in the Northern Hemisphere. So apart from maybe going around the equator, no one travels anywhere else all the way around the earth, no one crosses the poles for example. Air travel is not allowed above the poles and sea travel is impossible.
So we just presume the earth is a globe and imagine we can travel around it in every direction, but in reality no one is actually doing this.
I think https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions gives us a comprehensive list of expeditions to, around and through
It’s the same on both models for East and west. North – South circumnavigation ALONE destroys the magical spinning waterball. There has NEVER been North – South circumnavigation…NEVER!
The North south navigation is reported in Guinness Book of Records in 1982 https://guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface
“Flat Earth Facts” just stated “quite reasonable and logical and scientific to accept that the earth is most likely a globe with quite a high degree of confidence.”
I am confused by your moniker then
The purpose of the “Flat Earth Facts” website is to discover the truth about the shape of the earth. So if it is a globe, I have no problem with that, we are just exploring the possibilities.
Personally I am not convinced it is a globe, I am convinced it is not as the flat earthers present, their map, for example, is obviously completely incorrect.
Anyhow the current situation is the only logical, scientific and working model we have is the globe earth model. It does have flaws and unexplained grey areas and does depend on the magic of gravity to explain the unexplainable. However it is a good working model. Whereas the flat earth people don’t have a model. If you ask them how it works if the earth is flat, they say they don’t know how it works. If you ask them to draw a map that works if the earth is flat, they can’t draw the map…
So there is no competition between the flat earth theory and the globe earth theory, globe earth wins for sure, flat earth is not in the running. If you consider it from the point of view of science.
Because for science you have to have a theory, you have to have a model, and your model can then be tested by comparing the predictions of your model to our actual observations. So the globe earthers have their theory and model and we can use their model to make predictions and compare the predictions of the globe earth model with our actual observations, and for the most part, the observations will match the predictions of the globe earth model.
However flat earthers, they don’t even have a theory, they all have different ideas, there is no agreed on theory, and without a theory there is no question of a model. So flat earthers they can not present a predictive model, because they don’t understand how it could work if the earth was flat… That is actually a big problem. So flat earth is not science, because they don’t have an agreed on theory and have not been able to construct a valid predictive model based on their theory.
So flat earth is more like a religion. They have a belief, but they don’t feel they need to have any science or working model to prove their theory. They don’t have to prove their theory because they know the earth is flat, they don’t need a model because they know the earth is flat…
However, my point, is although the globe earthers have presented a very beautiful theory with quite an accurate predictive scientific model, that is not a guarantee it is correct.
So what we are really doing here, ultimately, is trying to explore the possibilities of developing another valid scientific predictive model that explains our observations assuming that the earth is not a globe.
Science has done a good job of explaining how the earth being a spinning globe can explain our observations, we want to explore and see if it is possible to make an equally good theory and predictive scientific model without presuming the earth is a spinning globe.
I am fairly sure we have no actual proof the earth is a spinning globe. At least no one has ever presented such conclusive proof to me. So really it is possible that we are not on a spinning globe. There are certainly many indications that the earth is stationary for example. There is no indication the earth is spinning. Nothing we can measure will indicates that. There is certainly a rotation happening, in the sky everything is spinning around once in 24 hours. So there are two ways of understanding this. We can presume we are spinning and the rotation is caused by our spinning, or everything could be spinning around the earth. And there is no way really for us to tell one way or the other, from earth, because it would look the same. However if the earth was spinning we should be able to detect that spinning and we can’t…
Oh my. Ok I get it. I thought flat earthers were being serious here.
Have fun with all this. I have better things to do than debate a made up theory.
Earth standing still?? Is this a serious theory?
Yes. That is the problem with flat earthers. They don’t have a working model. But yes, certainly, stationary earth, that is quite possible.
All we can tell from earth is that there is a rotation. So that rotation can be explained by the earth rotating. Or, as was presumed by older cultures, the stars and other luminaries were rotating in the sky.
So both are possible and equally valid explanations for what we observe. Everything scientifically we have presumed about the globe earth would work equally well if we were to propose a stationary earth in the center of a rotating field of stars, moon, planets, etc.
And there are indications certainly that the earth is stationary. We can’t detect the movement of the earth, which we should be able to do if it was moving.
So these are two equally valid presumptions. It is only that current science has presumed a moving rotating globe, and we have become accustomed to that concept, but a stationary earth surrounded by a moving field of luminaries is an equally valid scientific proposition.
Rob and FEF- you will never see ‘scientific proof’ the earth is flat via universities or the mainstream, ever. The controllers of the world who run the governments will do anything to cover it up. The last time evidence through mainstream science even showed the earth is stationary and immovable was though four scientific experiments from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. These experiments are not allowed or taught in any universities. Aether physics has never been allowed to be studied ever since.
With today’s optics like with superzoom high-def cameras, we can in fact see too far. How is it that someone can take a direct line of sight photo from Lake Michigan all the way across to Chicago and photograph the city from the shoreline, the bottom of the buildings up from 62 miles away? It’s not a mirage and it’s been done many times. This would be impossible on a globe because there’d be 2,400 feet of curvature blocking it. Real science tells us that the level of water does not bend, especially around a 25,000 mile ball. It is a law violation in the fluid dynamics.
Have a look at JTolan Media 1’s work, is professional engineer and photographer and has done some amazing work and none of it is fabricated.
There are proofs and evidence all around us. If we truly lived on a globe every single human being once they were old enough to even identify with their senses would demonstrably know it. No one would be brainwashed into believing it and we wouldn’t be on here debating it.
Also take the time with an open mind and common sense to see many laid out proofs.
Of course there is and will probably always be disinformation and propaganda going against these fruits but that’s where your common sense comes in.
We who know the truth we’re just like you before.
Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
No to the contrary, you’ve got it quite wrong- look again… Science can’t explain gravity, it is density and buoyancy. It is not a force pulling you to a molten, magnetic core at the center of ball earth, so I’d let go of the fairy tale.
“Science can’t explain gravity, it is density and buoyancy. It is not a force pulling you to a molten, magnetic core at the center of ball earth, so I’d let go of the fairy tale.”
The ball Earth molten core is fiction. Density and buoyancy explains observed phenomenon, but you left something out.
Denser objects sink and lighter objects rise in fluids ( liquid or gas ). That’s objective observational evidence of directional change. Moreover, by the first law of motion ( Aristotelian ) any object in motion must be set in motion by another and the stronger moves the weaker.
A force is required to arrange the observations noted above. You are correct to doubt Newtonian/Einsteinian explanations ( I do and so even did Newton ) but it doesn’t mean force(s) are not involved. Nikola Tesla and others have their own explanations. There exists evidence ethereal/em forces play the dominant role here. There exists experiments indicating that rotating objects experience reduced inertial mass.
Including, rotating magnets appearing to reduce mass.
The Earth is fascinating, I recommend no one allow theories and conjectures to beguile their minds. Observe seek to understand and arrive at your own conclusions.
No ‘scientist’ has but what scientists have proven with the Michelson-Morley, the Michelson-Gale, the Sagnac and Airy’s Failure is that the Earth is stationary and does not move. Mainstream scientism tried to throw Einstein’s theory of relativity at the Michelson-Morley experiment trying to explain away the fact that there was no ether was due to the theory of relativity everything is relative. Btw, 100 renowned scientists had shredded Einstein’s theories to pieces. He didn’t discover E=mc2 in the Sagnac experiment debunked the Einstein theory.
Now as I’ve said in a previous comment… Navy gunners can sight targets with lasers from 100 miles away and there are hundreds of photos of Chicago from the shoreline and bottom of the buildings up from 50+- 60+ miles away. I’d like to know how a baller like yourself explains these phenomena? These tests, experiments and observations have been done all over the world. If its we can see way beyond the purported formula for the curvature of the Earth which doesn’t exist then you don’t need a lab coat to prove it.
for those who said that flatearthers dont have a model or can draw their model map!!! i actually stop here if this is the idea that you guys have and I feel sorry for your knowledge as I felt you were trying to be smart and mock flat earthers.
But it’s true Omi, Flat earther’s don’t have an agreed model, every flat earther has different ideas and none of them work, in the sense that none of the flat earth ideas are consistent with our actual observations. And flat earthers are unable to draw a map on a flat plane that works, or that is consistient with our actual experiences traveling around the “Globe”.
Your ignorance precedes you, you speak without any knowledge backing it up. The Azimuthal Equidistant New Standard Map of The World from 1892 has proven to be far more accurate than any nonsensical globe. If you give me your email address I will send you a PDF book called 16 Emergency Landings Proving Flat Earth. The book cannot be debunked in any way and off lights of course have been confirmed. It also has information from the USGS.
Yes. I have read about the strange emergency landings. Problem is I have personally proven that map is incorrect by flying from Auckland to Buenos Ares in less than 12 hours. Look at your map, it is not possible on your map, but it is what we would expect on the globe.
Also if it was as you claim it to be the sun never goes south of the Tropic of Capricorn, so if I was down at the southern most tip of South America, on your flat earth, the sun must remain in the northern part of the sky. It can not appear in the south. But you can check my video showing the sun doing a 360 degree circle around me at the southern most tip of South America. At that point it does go below the horizon in the south for a few hours, but you can see sun is in the south. Not possible on your flat earth map.
So I do not eliminate the possibility of the earth being flat. Maybe, but currently flat earth people, they can not produce a model that predicts our actual observations and experiences navigating the earth and what we see in the sky.
So that would be required for thoughtful people to consider the possibility. Thoughtful people, you can tell them “the earth is flat,” they will ask you to explain how the earth could be flat. Flat earthers will just say “I don’t know how, I just know it’s flat…”
So this is the problem….
No working flat earth model…
So which one of the over 300 maps of the magical spinning cartoon waterball do you subscribe to? I have a question I asked Dr. Danny Faulkner during an exchange, “At what height does atmosphere change to a vacuum?” So I’m asking you that same question.
No flat map can represent a globe. They are all projections and all inaccurate. And everyone knows that.
However, if the earth is a globe, the continents should be, and presumably are, correctly represented, in terms of their relative size and distances from each other.
So all flat maps are incorrect, in the sense they are all projections of a globe onto a flat plane. But the globe itself, that is the only way you can accurately depict the earth, with correctly proportioned continents and relative distances.
So the globes should be correct and all the flat maps are just projections of a globe and are all distorted.
Flat Earth maps pre-date globes and therefore cannot simply be projections of globes. Many maps prior to the 1540’s when globes started to appear show the continents appearing much the way we claim them to appear now. Most flat maps today have errors because the relative size and apparent import of land masses are inflated / deflated or mutated for political and ideological reasons not because of errors arising from the supposed practice of projecting curved land masses on to a flat surface.
You’ve made this dubious claim several times and cannot prove it.
This is not a claim, this is a fact. All the flat maps, at least which we use today, including your flat earth map, are projections of a globe on a flat piece of paper. So by definition, if the earth is a globe, it is impossible to accurately represent the shapes and relative distances of the continents on a flat plane. So everyone knows all flat maps are distorted to present the globe on a flat plane. This is not because of political or ideological reasons, although maybe some country may prefer a projection that makes their country look bigger and others smaller, but the real reason is it is impossible to accurately depict the continents on a globe on a flat piece of paper.
So my challenge to you would be to prove that the representation of the continents on the globe is incorrect, that in reality the continents are different from how they are represented on a globe.
Because the reverse is true also, if the earth were a flat plane it would not be possible to accurately represent the sizes and relative distances of the continents on a globe.
Give me your email address and I will send you ’16 Emergency Landings Proving Flat Earth’. This will shatter all of the research you just laid out. You will also see that nothing in that book can be debunked. Copernicus moved the Earth from the centre of the universe to being one of a number of planets revolving around the Sun. This model wasn’t accepted until 1543. The fact is, science can disprove too many things based this model today.
Yes. I have seen it. And yes, earth in the center or sun in the center, it is a matter of religion. Current scientists are sun worshippers, so they put sun in the center, it is their religion, that’s all. It is equally valid to have the earth in the center and stationary.
Previously, I wrote:
“Globe makers depict the continental land masses on flat paper then wrap them around a ball or hemisphere to render a globe, precisely the opposite of what you claim.”
This is only true in part. As the video I provided showed, globe makers do indeed render their depiction of the Earth’s continents on a flat paper surface & then wrap said paper around a hemisphere & in total a globe. However, while continents and areas in the polar regions appear on the globe without noticeable alteration from the flat surface original the equatorial regions have excess paper removed to force a fit ( you are correct a globe is not a plane ).
Note the paper removed contains no Earth surface rendering it’s left blank by design. However, the continents and land masses themselves are not adjusted at all from the flat surfaced original paper now wrapped around a globe!
Since you present yourself as one who claims to know the globe model so well, please tell me if as you say the land masses on globes based on the globe model are all depicted accurately how is it possible the land masses can be accurately rendered directly on a flat surface and then pasted on a globe? You claimed this could not be done. In addition, how can the distances between many polar land masses remain as rendered on a flat surface?
Globes are not as accurate as you think and their source material are Flat Maps!!!
Further, you may or may not be aware that many globes depict the massive ocean bottoms in topographical relief. The Nazi’s first did this and deluded many into believing they explored and supposedly carried out sonar analysis of these entire ocean bottom regions! In fact, the ocean floor has not been imaged and analyzed to anything remotely like depicted and remains to science a mystery!
Would like to know your thoughts and have a great weekend!
On the Level, of course… You can only print on flat sheets. So if you want to make a globe, you can’t print on the globe. So you have to print it on paper and stick it on the globe. But as you say, it is done in sections, and the sections fit together and cover the globe. Please check this website:
You will see how you can print a globe on flat paper and turn it into an actual globe.
As you say, it is done in sections and there are missing bits and you have to fold it together to make the globe.
So check out the page and you will see how it is done. The way it is done is continents are not correct when printed on the flat paper but become correct when wrapped around the globe.
NASA doesn’t know. They last claimed the moon was within Earth’s atmosphere and said moon was ~237,000 miles away. Of course they can claim just about anything and large numbers will accept it. Ask Dr. Danny Faulkner if he has personal experience observing whatever altitude he claims the supposed vacuum of space starts or did he acquire his proffered answer from someone else.
Can you please reference where NASA has claimed that the moon is within the earths atmosphere?
NASA website provides makes claim here.
CORRECTION CORRECT LINK.
The flat Earth Facts guy got it right, on the “spinning” atmosphere portion of this. Correct! To make your spindaball cosmology have ANY credence whatsoever, the ENTIRE atmosphere, starting at the surface of your so-called lithosphere, would have to rotate in EXACT unison, at whatever altitude you fly, is your spindaball cosmology actually held any water, pun intended. Air and gasses have weight. And in this case, incredible weight. Sorry. Your explanation even remotely using friction, of all things, ain’t gonna it.
What is your requirement for ‘exact unison’ based upon?
Clearly, the atmosphere is not rotating in exact unison with the earth, because we observe winds, even close to the surface of the earth.
There are all of these atmospheric phenomena, like trade winds, jet streams and anti cyclones. The latter rotating anti clockwise north of the equator and clockwise south of the equator.
But they all are consistent with a rotating sphere and air circulation caused by temperature differences and the Coriolis effect.
Hi R.S. Yes. That is the point. Everything in the atmosphere is moving in different directions. Even the weather patterns, as you note, they are moving in all sorts of different directions, the airplanes, they are flying in different directions, the birds, they are all flying in different directions, but everything is moving in relation to the earth below.
Everything is moving as if the earth was stationary below.
So if the earth is rotating then to produce this effect everything in the sky including those moving weather systems has to be held and pulled around with the rotation of the earth.
That is the mystery force that science has not been able to explain to us.
Every particle of the atmosphere has to be locked with and synchronized with the rotation of the earth, pulled around as the earth rotates, but at the same time that particle has to have complete freedom to move as the part of the storm system it is, etc., in a completely different direction.
So if you have got a hurricane, for example. It is rotating above a certain location on the earth, and it is moving in certain path, not at all related with the rotation of the earth. And that whole hurricane system has to be held in place and pulled around by the rotation of the earth.
There are two frames of reference here. There is the rotating frame of reference that everything in the atmosphere is locked to and being pulled around by, by some mysterious unknown force, and then there are all the movements we see in relation to the apparently stationary surface of the earth.
I know it is difficult to grasp because no one else actually has ever tried to explain this, because science has no answer to how it could happen. If you try and discuss it with actual scientists who have enough brain cells to see the problem they will just try and distract you, because they have no answer to this.
Things actually behave as if the earth is stationary. There is no way at the moment we can explain how the atmosphere and everything in it is being pulled around with the rotation of the earth and at the same time allow completely free movement of everything in the atmosphere in relation to the apparently stationary surface of the earth.
“Everything is moving as if the earth was stationary below.”
I do not agree. The winds do not blow at random.
Yet steams, trade winds and anticyclones all show patterns that are consistent with a rotating earth.
Yes. There is rotation in the system which is affecting the storms, trade winds and cyclones, etc. No one is arguing that there is not rotation. All I am saying is you can choose if you want to say the earth is rotating or if everything is rotating around the earth. The resultant movements and effects on the storms, trade winds, etc, will be identical.
So we are not able to determine, from earth, if it is the earth that is rotating, or if the earth is stationary and things are rotating around the earth.
Because the effects will be the same.
We can just presume one or the other and make our calculations accordingly.
Both assumptions are equally valid, and we can not tell, from earth, what is rotating. We can certainly determine there is rotation, but we can not tell if it is the earth rotating or the system rotating around the earth. That point you need to try to comprehend.
I do not agree with you on
“Because the effects will be the same.”
From a classical mechanics point of view, changing from one frame of reference to another can only be done between if they have no acceleration between them. If you go from an inertial frame of reference to a uniformly rotating one, you have to account for two fictitious forces: centrifugal and Coriolis.
So, the mechanics can be solved in both frames of reference, but the physical phenomena really differ. If the earth were stationary, as seen from a inertial frame of reference, anticyclones would no occur, gravity would not be 0.3% less at the equator, as compared to the poles.
Compare this with filming a flying chair carousel:
a) stationary, filmed from a fixed stand point.
b) rotating, filmed from a bike going round with the same pace.
Except for looking at the background, would you be able to distinguish both cases?
I think you would, by looking at the chains from which the chairs are suspended.
Are they straight down, or swinging outward?
Rubbish. Because you are attached to the idea, you want to believe it. And yes, of course we have a very nice model that makes us feel very comfortable with the assumption that the earth is rotating in a relatively stationary field of stars and the earth and planets are rotating around the sun, and the earth is just like the other planets we see in the sky and it is also rotating around the sun and the moon is rotating around the earth.
This is our world. The beautiful blue marble floating and spinning in space.
We are so attached to this concept and some of the greatest scientific minds in history have put together a very believable story that quite neatly explains everything in a logical consistent way.
So you, me, and everyone else on the earth practically are biased towards this model.
However, in reality, we do not know. This is a great very beautiful story to explain what we see happening in the sky given to us by our scientific priests. It is based on their religion. They are sun worshipers so, according to their religion they put the sun in the center and have the earth and all the other planets rotating around the sun. This is a relatively new concept. Previously it was accepted that the earth was in the center. Either could be the case. There is no way we can tell what is actually happening as we are within the system and it is simply impossible for us to determine what is happening as we can only see and measure the relative movements, which will be identical in both cases.
So you have to come to grips with the reality that what we have from science is a very well formulated genuine scientific predictive model, but it is based on assumptions. For example it is based on the assumption that the earth is rotating around the sun. And that assumption is arbitrary. We have no way of determining if the earth is rotating around the sun, or if the sun is rotating around the earth, because the relative motion and all the effects we can measure are identical in both systems.
So modern science has decided to assume the sun is in the center and earth is rotating around it. That is an initial assumption, and it may not be correct, and we have absolutely no way of finding out if it is correct or not.
It is absolutely valid to take as an initial assumption the sun rotating around the earth, and you can calculate everything perfectly also, just as convincing and scientific as the current ideas. So you have to try to understand there are things we don’t know, and that we have no way of finding out because we are within the system and all we can see are relative movements. We can measure and observe movements between the earth-sun-moon system but we have to take some reference point and presume that is stationary and calculate the other movements based on that reference point. So the earth-centered, geocentric, scientists, they take as there initial assumption the earth as their point of reference, which the heliocentric, sun centered, scientists, they take the sun as their stationary reference point.
So we live in the age of sun-worshipping heliocentric scientists, so that is their religion, sun is in the center. So they are preaching their religion through science, that is all.
Geocentric science is also completely valid. And there is no way anyone within the sun-moon-earth system can actually really tell what is going on. We can only observe the relative movements. You have to think about it because the programming is very strong. You know it might be correct also, current scientific model, but there are other equally valid models that an honest scientist can not dismiss.
I think it depends whether you want to do physics or you want to philosophize.
Your view is what physicist call the principle of relativity and they will agree with you that any viewpoint should be as good as any other. But they also want to have proper laws that allow them to explain and predict real world phenomena, like ballistic trajectories, weather patterns and planetary orbits and they succeeded very well with Newtonian mechanics.
But it worked only in inertial frames of reference. Did this mean they put those frame above all others? Initially, yes, I think they did.
I too, may be attached to that idea, but I am not a worshiper. This phrase just popped up in my mind: “All frames of reference are equal, but some are more equal than others” 😉
I know enough of general relativity to see that it is first and foremost a model that applied the principle of relativity to any frame of reference, allowing for all frames of reference to be treated equally.
Also, please, don’t call it rubbish, without properly responding to my point. Could you please share your interpretation of the flying chair carousel?
Analogously to the flying chair carousel, I am convinced the observed phenomena on an earth-like planet that is not rotating, with respect to distant stars, will be spectacularly different.
You are writing rubbish so what do you expect me to say? The rubbish is that you reject the idea that if you are within a system, that you can only measure relative movements, not absolute movements. And from within the system you can not know what is happening actually. All you can do is make an initial assumption and develop a theory based on that. You reject this principle, and that is rubbish because this principle is absolutely valid. I gave you another example in my previous posting, which you do not seem to have even read. We arbitrarily chose to take the sun as being the center of the solar system and calculate all the movements within the solar system based on that. But we can’t know if that is actually true or not. Because all we can do is measure relative movements. And we would measure exactly the same relative movements if the earth was in the center and the sun was going around the earth.
All “science” is like that. There are so many things they don’t know, they are forced to guess, and take it as an initial assumption, then they build gigantic theories on top of these arbitrary initial assumptions. And if the initial assumption is wrong then the whole thing is wrong.
So if you can not comprehend this and continue writing rubbish what do you expect me to say.
I have written the correct things, you can not comprehend it because you can not believe something you learned in school could be wrong, and I am not saying for sure it is wrong, I am just pointing out it is based on initial assumptions [ie that the earth is rotating around the sun] and we have no way of knowing if this is true or not.
So the reality is it is not possible for us to truly understand how the universe is working from the insignificant view we get of it from our position inside the system.
So there is no point writing more rubbish. Try and comprehend the fact that all the “science” you know is built on arbitrary assumptions that may not be correct. Science is a story, a “logical” scientific story, but not a story we can be confidently say is correct. So you have to eventually realize there are many alternative explanations that are just as valid as the story told by science.
Heliocentric story and Geocentric story, they are both equally valid, and as I pointed out, the only reason we believe the Heliocentric story is that the scientists who wrote it were sun worshipers, it is their religion and they are the ones who wrote the science books we studied at school.
I had carefully read you previous post, but it did not provide any new points, just a repetition of previous ones.
I do understand the concept of relativity of viewpoint and have done so, long before you accused me of putting the sun in the center, which I never wrote I did. In my view, there is no center of the universe, or, if you wish, any point could be the center.
Careful observations have learned physicists a few things:
1) there is no absolute position in space.
2) there is no absolute velocity in space.
Position and velocity can only be measured relative to other objects. The seventeenth century Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens acknowledged this, when we wrote down “Motus inter corpora relativus tantum est” (Motion between objects are relative in every aspect).
3) Acceleration can be experienced intrinsically, without reference to external objects. Rotation with a constant angular velocity corresponds to an acceleration that changes the direction, but not the magnitude of the velocity.
How this works out, is that one can observe things from reference frames that are shifted or linearly moving relative to each other, and the same laws give the same results. Frames with relative rotation, however, are a completely different matter.
You claim that the heliocentric and geocentric story are both equally valid, because
“there is no way anyone within the sun-moon-earth system can actually really tell what is going on. We can only observe the relative movements.”
Well, I think that is bit too quick. One can describe the solar system with a non-rotating earth in the center. But the curves are complex and I do not think there is in that case a consistent description of underlying phenomena, like the role Newton’s laws of motion and his law of gravity play in the heliocentric model. That does not make the heliocentric model true, but it makes it more versatile and useful. For one thing, it gives us a set of mechanical laws that work here on earth, as well as in outer space.
But we also have the observation that rotation can be experienced intrinsically. As an example, imagine a bowl half filled with water on a turn table. The water will be level if the turn table does not rotate. Otherwise, there will be a depression in the center. An other example is the flying chair carousel I mentioned before.
The pragmatic way it to state that rotation can be measured absolutely and physicists find that centrifugal forces are absent if and only if there is no rotation relative to the remote stars (within experimental detection limits and cases where we can ignore Einstein’s relativity). However, more theoretically, this was not found quite satisfactory and some theories have been proposed to have a better understanding of this, for example Mach’s principle. That’s why I wrote before that it depends on whether you want to do physics or philosophize.
If you still think this is rubbish, please do not repeat your points, but please explain the flaws in the views on the flying chair carousel and absolute rotation.
Yes. What you are saying is inconsistent and although you have confirmed that actually we can only experience and measure and see relative movements from our position within the system, agreeing with me, you are still trying to disagree with me and say that you can determine that the sun is in the center of the universe, not the earth.
And you have not completely grasped the situation. We are within the system, and we may be moving and the other planets, stars, moon, sun, etc, they may be all moving. So all we can do is measure the relative movements between us and the other things. We can not know actually what the absolute movements are from within the system. But we could know it if we were able to observe the system from outside. So there is some actual correct absolute movement. But that is beyond our ability, from within the system, to observe.
Yes, it is true, if the earth was rotating we should be able to measure it, but in reality, when we try to measure the rotation of the earth, if we try to detect the acceleration it should cause, for example, we can’t. So all our actual measurements, experiments and perceptions indicate the earth is stationary. It is only because we are taught the earth is rotating that we believe it is rotating. That is not what we experience. We experience everything rotating around the earth. And we can not detect any rotation of the earth.
So I can not see that you have provided anything that strengthens your argument, that is presumable that the scientists and astronomers are correct, and they know the earth is spinning and rotating around the sun, but they don’t. It is just a model, they have arbitrarily selected the sun as the center and calculated everything around that. You can select the earth as the center and calculate everything around that, it is an equally valid theory. And the stationary earth-centered theory seems much more likely because we can not measure or perceive the acceleration that you correctly state should be caused by a rotating earth nor can we come up with any explanation as to how the rotating earth could keep the atmosphere and everything in it in the same rotating frame of reference and pull everything around as it rotates as if it was all physically connected, while, at the same time, allowing everything to move freely in respect to the surface of the earth, as if there was no rotation.
So the point is either theory, rotating earth or everything rotating around the earth, is valid, only it seems more likely that earth is stationary because we are unable to perceive or measure any rotation.
Another solo global flight just concluded.
If earth is a ball, when planes are flying over the supposed curve going south how come the plane isn’t pointing nose down over the curve and say for instance the pkane is dropping scientists off at Antarctica how is it supposed to land as it would be upside down
Because they fly the planes pointing at the horizon. So as you go around the globe the horizon drops so you are dropping the nose to point at the horizon. But it is so gradual, a few inches per mile, that it is not noticeable. Also they keep the planes at a fixed hight above sea level. So if you remain at a fixed hight above the earth that automatically means you are following the curve of the earth, if it is a ball.
Flat Earth Facts- You need to talk to a real professional pilot- a gyro keeps a plane flying straight and level that means not following any shaped object, especially a ball. Have you seen photographed observations of Chicago from Lake Michigan? Many have taken direct line of sight photos up to 62 miles away. That means there should be over 2,400 ft. of curvature blocking the target being Chicago from basically the bottom of the buildings up to the skyline. And by the way to call it a mirage is laughable.
Here is the video of the day- you might learn something
Hi TJ. You are mixing two things in this comment, rubbish and truth. The truth is that the globe earth model is not capable of explaining in many cases our observations in regard to the distance of the horizon. In the example you have given, seeing Chicago over Lake Michigan, that should not be possible on a globe, because it should be below the curve. But in certain atmospheric conditions, I think it is when the sun it behind it, but I am not sure, anyhow in some circumstances, you can clearly see Chicago over Lake Michigan, which appears to be impossible if we were on a globe of the said dimensions.
So this is actually an admitted failing of the globe earth model. Actual scientists have known about this problem with the globe earth model for a very, very long time. Globe earth model fails in many cases to predict the actual observable horizon distance. And no one really knows why. Believers in the globe earth have no good answer for this. So that is the true part of your statement.
The false part of your statement is that you do not comprehend that by following a level or gyro or aiming at the horizon, a pilot will be automatically following the curve on a globe, if it is a globe. So that you need to ponder more deeply.
“I understand that you believe what what you’re saying but lets look at this objectively….” **SNIPPED – I don’t have time ** Your calculations are rubbish. It is only a few inches a mile the drop, the drop never increases above a few inches a mile. That is one of the mistakes the flat earthers make. In first mile the pilot only has to drop 8″ and he only has to drop 8″ in the second mile and in the hundredth mile he still only has to drop 8″ try and understand this.
And try to understand if you are aiming at the horizon, as pilots do either manually or by their instruments, you will automatically follow the curve of the earth.
This “flat earth proof” is total rubbish. Total misunderstanding of reality by the flat earth people.
Hi TJ. Yes. But there is a real problem with planes flying around a spinning ball. A real problem that the globe earthers can not explain.
That is how the airplane and atmosphere and everything else in the atmosphere spins in exact synchronization with the rotation of the earth, as if it was physically connected to the spinning earth but at the same time everything in the atmosphere, including the airplane, can exert its own force and travel in any direction it wants to but still, simultaneously being held by the earth and spinning with the earth.
An example to visualize what is happening is if you consider a potters wheel. I don’t know if you have seen it, but potters they have a flat spinning wheel and the throw clay on and spin it into vases or something. So that potters wheel is spinning, and there may be some ants walking around on that spinning wheel. They are held by and spinning with the wheel, but for them they can move around the wheel to various positions on the wheel without regard to the spinning of the wheel.
So if the earth is spinning, the plane is like an ant on the wheel, it can move from one place on the wheel to another place on the wheel without considering or being affected by the spin of the wheel. This is possible for the ants on the spinning potters wheel because they are standing on it, physically connected to the same spinning potters wheel. So while they are being pulled around with the wheel, they can ignore it and ant no 1 can just walk across the wheel to where ant no 2 is standing and he does not have to consider, nor is he affected, by the spin of the wheel.
So that is what the airplane does, it flys from New York to Los Angeles without having to consider the spin of the earth…
Problem is the globe earthers have not provided any mechanism that could keep the airplane connected to the same spinning frame of reference as the earth.
The plane can only be going in one direction. So yes. When the plane takes off it is spinning with the earth and has got the spin of the earth. But that is just a force in one direction. If the plane were to fly in the reverse direction to the spin of the earth, then it could negate that spin of the earth it had on takeoff, then it could just sit there in one spot and wait for the earth to spin under it.
But this is not possible. And at the same time science can give no explaination, no force that is holding the plane, the atmosphere, and everything in it, all in the same spinning frame of reference as the earth, while allowing everything free movement in relation to that spinning frame of reference. Just like the ants are free to move to any spot on the spinning potters wheel.
So this is a real problem with the globe earth model..
Flat Earth Facts,
Here is an explanation regarding air flight for you .
Yes Rob, you prove my point. Watch this video, read the article, they simply state that the plane, the atmosphere, everything, it is moving with the earth. But they do not give any explanation as to how this could happen. That is the problem. This is the “scientific” explanation. The atmosphere, the plane, and everything in the atmosphere, it is fixed to the earth and rotates with the earth.
But they are unable to give any explanation as to how this could be possible?
How is it that the plane, atmosphere, butterflies and birds are fixed to and pulled around by the rotation of the earth, but at the same time are free to move in any direction they choose?
Even the storm systems, cyclones, tornados, they are pulled around with the rotation of the earth.
What is the force that makes this possible? That is the question. That is the question that science does not ask because they have no answer to this question…
Some claim it is all held together by friction. Means the air is held in one spot above the earth and the all the air is being pulled around with the spin of the earth held together by friction. But the air moves freely. It can be blowing in any direction without any consideration of the rotation of the earth. So it is obviously not being held in place and being rotated by the earth.
As far as the plane, the plane is not being held in place by the air and the air is not moving in the same direction as the rotation of the earth anyhow, the plane can fly in any direction regardless of the direction of the air, it has no connection with the earth, and science can not give us any explanation as to how the plane could be being held and pulled around by the rotation of the earth and still have freedom to move in any direction it wants to without any opposing force except for the prevailing winds, that are blowing in a direction that is not at all synchronized with the rotation of the earth.
Unless science can explain the force that is holding everything in the atmosphere and pulling it around in synchronization with the earth, they can not say the earth is rotating. Our observations would indicate that the earth is stationary.
The airplanes, the butterflies, the atmosphere, everything behaves as if the earth was stationary…
“It is only a few inches a mile the drop, the drop never increases above a few inches a mile. That is one of the mistakes the flat earthers make. In first mile the pilot only has to drop 8″ and he only has to drop 8″ in the second mile and in the hundredth mile he still only has to drop 8″ try and understand this.”
In spherical geometry, there is no drop of 8″ simply the height of a curve. The shortest distance between any two points on spherical surface is a straight line from one point through the spherical body to the second point. The shortest outward maximum distance from the straight line to the outward, convex sphere surface is the height of the curve. The problem remains that spherical & plane geometry differ irreconcilably. The supposed curve height increases at 8″ per mile squared with each mile of Earth surface increased distance to guestimate curvature on a ball 25k miles in diameter. If your claim had merit the surface drops 8″ per mile Earth would not be a ball but a very slightly tilted ramp forever ascending or descending depending on the direction you take I guess. Please review spherical geometry, if you have questions please ask, because in point of fact your analysis suffers serious flaws.
Btw, airplane pilots would definitely notice the Earth surface below them curve away at 8″ per mile squared especially when flying at speeds of 1800 mph ( 60 miles every 2 seconds ) or faster as military aircraft often does. Yet air craft pilots claim they never make such adjustments & instrument logs should record if they did.
Thanks for the read. Cheers!
OTL, you are not thinking… The exponential drop is never noticed by anyone. The exponential drop is a function of the geometry of a circle. There is an exponential drop if you consider the starting point and say 100 miles in the distance, then the drop increases exponentially as the distance increases. But that is because you are going around a circle.
Try to understand. If you travel one mile around the globe you drop 8 inches only. Then take this one mile mark as your new starting point, and travel to the second mile, then between the first and second mile you only drop 8 inches. Same between the 100th and 101st mile marks, you only drop 8 inches.
So for the pilot, he only ever drops 8 inches per mile, never any more than that.
The reason that the drop, as measured from his initial starting point, increases exponentially, is not because the pilot is actually dropping exponentially, no, pilot is only dropping 8 inches per mile, always, what he is doing, however, is traveling around a globe. So his angle of travel is changing. So as he moves around he is always perpendicular to the force of gravity, means always perpendicular to the line you draw between him and the center of the earth, so his angle is constantly changing. It is the changing angle of his travel, in comparison to the angle he was traveling at the beginning, that causes him to be appearing to drop exponentially over time. But there is no exponential drop actually. He is only dropping 8″ per mile, first mile, second mile and hundredth mile, and thousandth mile…
This is one of the many, basic fundamental errors the flat earth people make…
The actual drop is always 8″ per mile, it never increases at all. The exponential drop is an illusion. It is not actually experienced by the pilot or by the builders of the Suez Cannel or the Great Wall of China. They only ever experience an 8″ per mile drop which is unmeasurable, within the margin of error for most measurements…
** confusing text snipped **
OTL, it is hard to work out what you are saying, very convoluted and confusing, but as far as I can tell your conclusion is the pilot would notice the curve as he was traveling around the earth. That is the wrong conclusion. Pilot will never drop more than 8″ per mile and 8″ per mile drop is too small to measure, it is within the margin of error of the instruments, so he could not detect it.
So there is no point in writing big confusing posts that don’t clearly explain anything and then in the end come up with the wrong conclusion.
Correct conclusion is the observations of a pilot traveling around the globe are consistent with what we would expect. He is automatically adjusting for the curve of the earth in many ways:
So the conclusion is we would not expect pilots to have to adjust for the curve of the earth, and even if they did have to adjust for it it would only be 8″ per mile at the most, and that would not even be noticeable. The drop never increases above 8″ per mile. There is no big drop that would ever be noticeable to the pilot because the plane is keeping itself perpendicular to the center of the earth, it is rotating around, so the plane never actually drops more than 8″ per mile, and strictly speaking it does not even drop 8″. It just stays at the same altitude and rotates so it remains perpendicular to the force of gravity. So really the plane does not drop at all, it just rotates ever so slightly keeping itself the same distance from the earth, and this is what a plane will do if you just go “straight” once you get to the cruising height.
I’m not bothered about this adjusting for the curve stuff, I want to know how the plane lands upside down or better still someone send a photo from an in-flight plane at Australia of the people being upside down getting sucked to the ball by gravity, if “gravity” didn’t exist everything in Australia would fall into the sky. Hilarious 😀
It’s hilarious James if you can not work out how this works, according to the globe earth model. According to the globe earth model there is gravity, a force pulling everything towards the center of the earth. So it is, in the globe earth model, gravity, that gives us the sense of up and down. So up that is the line from the center of the earth through you up into the sky, and down is the reverse. So as you go around the globe your perception of up and down changes. So in Australia down is pulling you down towards the center of the earth and up is the opposite.
It is a very reasonable and logical theory. So if you can not comprehend this I don’t know what to say.
” if “gravity” didn’t exist ” But it does, so exactly what is your problem James, aka, OTL, aka FEF?
Navigator, I am talking about the globe earth model, and globe earth model, it is totally dependent on gravity. So if we are going to discuss the globe earth model then we have to presume gravity exists. Because without gravity, a force that is pulling everything towards the center of the globe, globe earth model is impossible.
But that does not necessarily mean that gravity exists. Gravity is the “glue” that holds the globe earth model together. Anything they can’t explain, they say “it is caused by gravity…”
So gravity is a concept that has been invented to make the globe earth model feasible however it is simply a theory, no one has been able to prove that gravity actually exists. It is impossible to test on earth for example, because of the huge gravitational force they say is generated from the earth, so it overwhelms any experiments trying to prove or disprove the existence of gravity. So gravity remains an untested and unproven theory.
There is obviously some force that causes things to fall down. It can also be explained to a large extent by the simple fact that more dense objects will sink in a less dense medium.
In the water, for example, there is no gravity. If you put a beach ball on the water, it does not sink, but if you put a lead ball on the water it will immediately sink to the bottom. So there is no gravity acting in the water. In the water the only thing that is acting is density. Anything that is more dense than the water will sink, and anything that is less dense than the water will float. So gravity is not acting in the water. Only density.
And really air is just like less dense water. So what we believe to be gravity, it might just be caused by density.
But if that is the case, globe earth model will fail.
So scientists, they will never consider density as an alternative to gravity, although it is a completely reasonable alternative model, but science will never even dream of it, because without gravity, their globe earth model is impossible…
Another solo flight around the globe. Wonder what the flat earth (aka globe deniers) have to say about that.
Hi Rob. Please post the exact path “around the globe” they took. If you were going to confirm it was a globe with reasonable certainty you would have to take at least 2 flights at 90 degrees angle to each other. You can not confirm it is a globe by taking one flight. Usually these flights have nothing at all to do with confirming the earth is a globe and are in no way designed to prove the earth is a globe and don’t prove it is a globe at all.
But post the details of this one and we can check it.
Hi, FEF and aka’s.
Why are you deleting proofs. What are y0u scared of?
Hi Navigator. When you very rarely post something that is reasonable I post it, but generally you just post spam and insults, no facts, no proofs. So spam and insults, they get deleted. I have already mentioned this is not a site for the hard core globe earthers to fight with the hard core flat eathers. We are trying to consider if it is possible actually that the earth may not be a spinning globe in space. I am completely open to the possibility that it might be, and in fact, you know it is the best theory we have at the moment and overall globe earth theory is a very comprehensive model that in general makes good predictions that we can verify by our actual obeservations.
So the globe earth model is a real valid scientific predictive model that does actually make, for the most part, accurate predictions. So it is the only model really that is available at the moment and that is why it is widely believed.
But actually it is still a theory, we are investigating on this site if it is actually plausible that the reality could be quite different.
The flat earth people, they are not scientific, they have no model, they have no way of explaining our actual observations presuming the earth is a flat plane. They can not even draw a map that works, that matches our actual experiences, presuming the earth is a flat plane. As I say over and over the flat earth people don’t look at the sky because it is very difficult to conceive how the sky could be like this if we are on a flat plane. Really the sky does behaves as we would imagine it would if we were on a spinning ball in space.
So my conclusion really is that we are either on a spinning ball in space or we are in a simulation that gives us the impression we are on a spinning ball in space. And I am becoming more and more inclined to think we are more likely to be in a simulation, making us believe that we are on a ball spinning in space light-years away from everything else, that this being the actual fact.
Your conclusion is delusion. Show, us measurable curvature and axial rotation🤣
It is not my conclusion Steven, I am explaining it according to the globe earth model, it is their conclusion, I am not on their side, I am impartial. It is a logical thing, and that is what would happen, according to their model. All I am saying is their model is sound and it matches our experience and observations.
You can’t show axial rotation because all the measurements are made in relation to gravity, that is the vertical reference point. And it is that vertical reference point that keeps changing, because it is pointing to the center of the earth. So there is no axial rotation compared to the reference point which is that line going from your plane down to the center of the earth, because that reference point keeps readjusting as you go around the globe.
And how would you suggest we measure curvature that is less than 8″ in a mile? Of course in many cases we can see too far, that does seem to contradict the idea that we are on a globe of 8,000 miles in diameter. So globe earth model, it has got some points that it does not seem to work perfectly on, however, overall it is a fantastic model that does a very good job of predicting almost everything we observe happening very well. Compared to flat earth people who have no idea at all how anything could actually work, presuming the earth is a flat plane…
Belgium to Belgium . I don’t have details of exact flight path. But there have been many circumnavigations.
Actually you have to check the path. If you do some research and actually check the routes, only then can you make some conclusion. You have to know exactly where they flew, I think you will find they just fly along the already established flight paths, which proves nothing. But anyhow you can’t just say because someone took off at Belgium and flew “around the world” and landed back in Belgium that the earth is a globe. You can do exactly the same thing on a flat plane. It gets difficult because planes are not permitted to fly over the North and South Poles. Whole southern area beyond 66 degrees is restricted for flights. So I don’t think it is even possible to fly around the “globe” in a North South direction, because you can’t fly over North and South poles. There are flight paths, and generally the planes have to stick to the authorized flight paths.
But it is up to you to actually research it for yourself and find out, what the actual paths were they took.
So far I have never even seen anyone who has even set up an experiment to verify that the earth is a globe by making at least 2 flights and actually flying to prove it.
It would be VERY dangerous. There are areas, like parts of the Atlantic ocean, where you would be thousands and thousands of miles away from anywhere to land or get fuel, and in the Southern Hemisphere, there is practically nothing here, certainly below 60 degrees, there IS NOTHING. So if you were to fly across the South Pole you would have to fly for many thousands of miles in very cold, difficult flying conditions, with no access to anything on the ground. So it appears to me that it is impossible, given the restrictions as to where you can fly and even if you could, the great danger of flying over huge expanses of ocean and the poles.
So I would say it has never been done, but check it out and let us know.
FEF, here is the flight path of the latest solo flight. I haven’t looked into all of the other ones completed.
Hi Rob, thanks for posting the flight path. I think you can see what I mean, they are all following established flight paths. And they are all staying fairly close to land in case something goes wrong and they need help. None of them are flying over the vast uninhabited stretches of the Atlantic ocean and none of them are flying anywhere near the North and South poles.
So none of them are proving the earth is a globe. None of them are proving anything because they are all flying on established flight paths that we already have dozens or hundreds of planes flying on every day.
So these flights are not proving anything at all. It is just like people want to climb Mt. Everest, some people what to fly around the world. It is just a personal challenge. They are not trying to prove the earth is a globe, and they are not proving anything because they are just flying on the already established flight paths which we know you can fly on anyhow.
Flights paths that circumnavigate the globe. So what you are suggesting is that they are flying in a big circle??
Yes. Certainly. They could be flying around in a circle. There is no way to tell if it is a globe unless you can measure it in 3 dimensions. Means they need to fly in the North-South direction also, over the poles.
Only East/west circumnavigation is possible. You people who actually believe the magical spinning waterball are most likely those same people who took the jab and believe biden was elected. Without empirical measurement of curvature or axial rotation you have no argument. The foolishness is mind blowing!
“OTL, you are not thinking… The exponential drop is never noticed by anyone. The exponential drop is a function of the geometry of a circle. There is an exponential drop if you consider the starting point and say 100 miles in the distance, then the drop increases exponentially as the distance increases. But that is because you are going around a circle.
Try to understand. If you travel one mile around the globe you drop 8 inches only. Then take this one mile mark as your new starting point, and travel to the second mile, then between the first and second mile you only drop 8 inches. Same between the 100th and 101st mile marks, you only drop 8 inches.”
A circle has at every surface point a constantly changing slope, unlike a flat surface of unchanging slope. This change is and must be noticed at every point on the surface, as surface slope curves away. If Earth’s surface curved away at 8.5″ per mile squared you would notice it not just after 1 or 3 miles but everywhere observed. Lack of anyone’s ability to detect said curvature proves Earth level it doesn’t prove it’s a giant ball. You would not need to see a hundred miles of surface to notice a curve, that’s simply an unproven claim on your part. In past posts I’ve established quite well that no evidence of Earth surface curvature exists even over many miles when hundreds of feet of convex surface should have obscured it.
A further clarification about your following statement previously quoted:
“Try to understand. If you travel one mile around the globe you drop 8 inches only. Then take this one mile mark as your new starting point, and travel to the second mile, then between the first and second mile you only drop 8 inches. Same between the 100th and 101st mile marks, you only drop 8 inches.”
To reiterate on a supposed ball Earth after 1 mile and an 8 inch drop when you proceed to the 2nd mile you drop 8 inches as measured against a different slope line, not the one you started with capiche?
Yes OTL, that is the whole point, you are not actually dropping, your angle of travel is constantly changing to make you perpendicular to the imaginary line you can draw from your plane to the center of the earth. So you are actually remaining a constant distance from the earth, no drop at all, you are just constantly slightly adjusting your angle so you remain parallel to the ground directly below you. No dropping at all. Just automatically adjusting for the curve below you.
This is also the same when you are building a bride or a cannel, or the wall of China, etc. There is no drop at all to experienced by the constructors, the engineers, only there is a very slight curve which they automatically adjust for constantly because they use plumb bobs, which constantly point to the center of the earth, and in this way they automatically and constantly adjust for the curve of the earth and never notice it or have to account for it in their calculations. So this is another totally bogus and incorrect “proof” that the earth is flat…
Yes. OTL, there should be a drop in the distance for sure and that should obscure objects in the distance of course, and there are real problems in the globe earth model in predicting this. In many cases we appear to be able to see further than we should be able to see on a globe of 8,000 miles diameter. So I have already mentioned this many times. It is a known failing of the globe earth model, it is not able to accurately predict the horizon distance in some cases. I think everyone accepts this failing of the globe earth model, even the honest globe earthers, the actual scientists accept this as a failing of the globe earth model. So globe earth model is not perfect, but it is very very very good, compared to the nonexistent flat earth model…
But you don’t actually see a curve and we would not expect to see a curve, on a globe of said dimensions. For example, the flat earthers seem to think the horizon should be curved. You see them with their cameras panning around the flat horizon, as if this is proof the earth was flat. But on a globe we would not expect the horizon to be curved. Horizon should be flat, because every point on the horizon, on a globe, they are all the same distance from our eyes, so they will all be at the same level in the sky, forming a flat line.
So we don’t expect to be able to see any curve, even if the earth is a globe. This idea that you should be able to see curvature if we are on a globe is bogus. It does not prove the earth is flat, because the horizon is flat.
I already gave a very easy way to detect the curve of the globe. Go to the North Pole [or South Pole], look up, you will see Polaris [in the North] or celestial South Pole [no star but a central point in the sky that everything else is rotating around.] Now start traveling towards the equator. For every degree of latitude you travel towards the equator the Polestar [or Southern Celestial Pole] will drop in the sky by one degree. Until you reach the equator where both Polaris and Southern Celestial Pole are at the horizon. So you are now looking out into the sky in a completely different direction. Means you have rotated 90 degrees. Means you have traveled around the curve of the globe.
This is quite a powerful way to demonstrate the earth is a globe. On the other hand, no flat earther is able to explain how the sky could behave like this, presuming the earth was flat.
Consider, the fact one can view straight parallel surface lines on Earth’s surface out to the horizon, as seen by rail & road lines over long distances, proves the Earth is Level. Such rail & road lines can be tracked over both land and sea for many tens of miles. Surveyors would notice curvature immediately. To a surface observer, all outward radiating parallel surface lines would appear to curve inward toward one another and would in fact curve downward as well.
There is no point talking to you because you don’t seem to be able to comprehend anything… You just keep on writing nonsense…
Seriously, I apologize my statement was unclear, but avoiding inconvenient facts won’t help you. Straight parallel lines cannot exist on a globe
OTL, you do not comprehend what I say and you keep on saying the same rubbish without any consideration of the actual observable facts, like all flat earthers.
You claim: “Straight parallel lines can not exist on a globe.” Which is rubbish of course. All latitude lines on a globe are straight and parallel for a start. But your idea that if we are on a globe we should be able to see and measure curvature. I have already clearly explained that we can see and measure the curvature. You do not seem to have grasped that. You go to the North Pole, look up in the sky, Polaris is above your head and everything is rotating around it, there’s your axial rotation. And start traveling towards the equator, every degree you go south, Polaris drops down one degree in the sky, till you have gone 90 degrees around the globe and reach the equator and Polaris is at the horizon.
So in this way it is very easy to measure the curvature and see the axial rotation of the globe. As you know I am open to other explanations, but flat earthers don’t look at the sky, they have no explanation as to how this could happen by waking along a flat plane from the center to the equator.
And your point that you should be able to see the curve, this is so stupid. We are talking about inches in a mile. 63360 inches in a mile compared to a drop of 8 inches. You can not see this, because what we see has nothing to do with the shape of the earth anyhow.
There is perspective. We see in perspective, even in a long passage in a building you look down it and the roof appears to come down, the walls appear to come in and the floor appears to go up. If the passage was long enough it would all come together and disappear at a point, not so far in the distance actually.
So what we see, in perspective, it has nothing to do with actually what is there. The walls of the building are not coming in, the floor is not going up, the roof is not coming down. No, this perspective that we see everything in, it is only an optical illusion. So what we see, it has not got much to do with reality actually.
So no matter what the shape of the earth is, we can’t see it, because we see in perspective that pulls everything up to the horizon and pulls everything in the sky down to the horizon at some distance which is actually not that far away.
So when you try and observe things in the distance, you are not seeing it as it is, you are seeing an optical illusion.
Anyhow it is pointless, you do not seem to be able to comprehend it. You just write rubbish and rubbish and rubbish and never seem to learn anything, and anyhow you are the only person posting here so why bother? There is no point.
As I say so many times, this website is not for the mindless flat earthers or the mindless globe earthers, it is meant for people who want to consider what the actual situation is without having a preconceived conception as to what it actually is…
Sooo…in all the depths of this discussion, whatever happened to Lee, the Cosmology guy with the vast experience under his sleeves? Did the Flat Earth Fact guy scared him away? I was hoping that he was up for the challenge (that he had proposed) and throw in some of his logic… but, seem to have silently vanished into the shadows.