Evolution Fairytale Forum

# So The Earth Is A Sphere Spinning @ 1000 Mph, Ok...

## Recommended Posts

Ignored

Thanks for letting me know.

I'll not waste anymore time trying to educate you.

• 1

##### Share on other sites

I'd actually quite like to know where Calypsis stands on this.

##### Share on other sites

Well sir, you stated...

"Back in 1999, I literally went around the world. Left Chicago and flew east to Bahrain. There I joined the kitty hawk battle group and after a couple month stint in the gulf, we headed east for Thailand and eventually Japan. After a couple of months I flew back to the state from Tokyo, flying east to .....Chicago. I'm not exactly sure how that could happen on a flat earth....."

Then I showed you...

Voila

So you can circumnavigate your garage... it matters very little to me or your query.

It's 2777 feet descent per minute @ 500 mph to Maintain Altitude.

Yes if you're on shrooms and Granpa's Cough Medicine.

Have you ever actually taken a Flight sir?

Many more times than I can count .....

For the 85th Time!!......If the Earth is a Sphere with a Circumference of 25,000 miles (which you believe) and you flew @ 500 mph and wished to Maintain Altitude @ 35,000 feet then you would have to descend 2777 feet every minute to MAINTAIN ALTITUDE above your Fairytale Curved Earth   i.e., the nose of the plane would never get above Horizontal, save for take off.  How many times have you experienced this??

Now I'm very sorry but... The Next Block of Instruction:  How to make a Sandwich!!!      mmm K?

No, it doesn't....at least, not in a meaningful frame of reference.  The only frame of reference that matters is plane's velocity vector relative to the earth's gravitational vector at any given moment.  And, for the majority of a flight, the plane's velocity vector is perpendicular to the gravitational vector meaning that the plane is not ascending or descending.

What if there's fog, raining or haze/humidity ect ....  Is the Idea still Kaput ?

Maybe.  But, I could then just ask people who live there.  "Hey, do you normally see the Chicago skyline on clear days?"  They would certainly know better than you and me, right?

##### Share on other sites

I intend to get into a bit of amateur astronomy myself. There's a few associations for it in the area I've just moved to. Apparently you can also sometimes see the northern lights too which will be quite cool.

If you've moved up to Scotland then you shouldn't be far away from light pollution free skies, so you should get optimum use from a telescope as long as its not too dreich ! I've never witnessed the northern (or southern) lights, must be an amazing spectacle.

##### Share on other sites

Yeah....  it looks like two views of a spherical object.  It is worth note that we can see the Earth as a complete circle.  If Earth were flat we should also see Europe, Asia, Australia, all of Africa (rather than just a small part in the right image), and Antarctica.   The inability to observe even one of thes continents strongly suggests the Earth is spherical.

Also, the entire planet has been mapped (multiple times) by satellite.  In more than 40 years of such mapping, no satellite has ever flown away into space; no satellite has ever detected the "pillars" supporting the planet; and no satellite has ever taken images of points on opposite sides of the globe; and no satellite has ever had to change direction due to encountering the edge of the planet.  Enoch can explain why those observations (and many experiments going along with them) are inconsistent with his flat-earth proposal but are completely in line with a spherical planet.

In simple terms ..... if the Earth is flat, where is the edge?

If the US Government fabricated the moon landings, then they would certainly keep such images under wraps, right?  Of course, it begs the question of just how exactly satellite orbitology would work with a "flat" earth.....especially those satellites in geosynchronous orbit .... like my XM radio.  Also, there are now many commercial imaging satellite vendors (American and foreign); you'd think one of them would break the nefarious code of silence ....

##### Share on other sites

Enoch: Your reasoning here is a Trainwreck.  You post an Incoherent Straw Man of 3 Feet with your fairytale School Playground with no distances then stumble into a False Comparison Fallacy juxtaposing it with a Baseless, Already Falsified Conjecture, 'bare' Assertion Fallacy wrapped in Ambiguity.

A strawman fallacy is when you take someone's argument and misrepresent it then refute the misrepresented version.

I argued that the height of something on a spherical earth, is relevant because obviously the higher up you are, the farther you can see, and the higher up the thing you are looking at, is, the more you can see it.

This is why on a round earth ships looking like they are coming out of the waves and sinking. On a flat earth they would appear as tiny dots then grow larger and larger. This is why when we look at distant islands, we can only see the tops of them and not the very bottom. If the earth is flat, why can't we see the bottom? They are usually shaved off, so they look like they are coming out of the sea, here is a picture of Toronto, the curvature means we can only see the top of the tower from this distance, and from this low height, close to person's eye-view: (don't tell me, Aristotle photo-shopped it! That devious swine!)

##### Share on other sites

Say Goodnight, this Parties Over (Well it's been over since my first post) but Let's PILE ON...

US Navy Weapons Instructor PUMMELS your Fairytale "Spinning Ball"...

##### Share on other sites

A strawman fallacy is when you take someone's argument and misrepresent it then refute the misrepresented version.

Yea, here's the Textbook Version...

Mike The Wiz ---

"Enoch, if I sit at my window and look into the distance there is a school, I can't see the playground but if I rise to my feet, adding three foot or so of height, I can see most of the playground even though it is plan-flat.

That's just three feet! If something far away is hundreds of feet high, and you are at 75 foot above sea level, I would in no way be confident that you could assert that you could not see those islands."

I really don't know how many more ways to clobber this.

Read this REAL SLOW.... You take the Observers Elevation then you take the Highest Point of your Target (Hold that thought), THEN you all of a Sudden take the...

Distance in Miles2 x 8 inches per mile/12 = Feet of Curvature on a "Ball" Earth Between you and your Target.

Lets say your Target is 100 Miles away, Ergo --- on the "alleged "Ball" there should be 6,666 Feet of Curvature between you and your Target.

If your Elevation is 100 Feet and the Target is 2,000 Feet Elevation how much of an Impact is that gonna have on 6,666 Feet in your Face ??

This is why on a round earth ships looking like they are coming out of the waves and sinking.

This is why when we look at distant islands, we can only see the tops of them and not the very bottom. If the earth is flat, why can't we see the bottom?

They are usually shaved off, so they look like they are coming out of the sea, here is a picture of Toronto, the curvature means we can only see the top of the tower from this distance, and from this low height, close to person's eye-view:

How far away is Toronto in this shot ???

(don't tell me, Aristotle photo-shopped it! That devious swine!)

Well show some of his pics and we'll evaluate....?

regards

##### Share on other sites

No, it doesn't....at least, not in a meaningful frame of reference.  The only frame of reference that matters is plane's velocity vector relative to the earth's gravitational vector at any given moment.

The Planes Velocity Vector and the Gravitational Vector, eh?

What's Gravity?  What is the Cause of Gravity...?

How bout Victor's Vector ?   Or the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator's Vector...

And, for the majority of a flight, the plane's velocity vector is perpendicular to the gravitational vector meaning that the plane is not ascending or descending.

Sure and I'm Superman.

Maybe.  But, I could then just ask people who live there.  "Hey, do you normally see the Chicago skyline on clear days?"  They would certainly know better than you and me, right?

I suppose, but then it's mere hearsay.  Remember, Errr...we already have the Picture

If the US Government fabricated the moon landings, then they would certainly keep such images under wraps, right?

They did for years, not so much anymore...

and ...

and thousands of others.

Of course, it begs the question of just how exactly satellite orbitology would work with a "flat" earth

Well you got one thing right it's Begging The Question Fallacy x 5-8, there are no Satellites or "Orbitology"....

1.  Because there is no " VACUUM ", Errr....Space.  If you think there is, then please...

How can a Vacuum (Space) be attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) and still be a Vacuum??      Please discuss in the Law of Entropy Context..?

In a Related Question:  How are you Breathing ??

2.  The Fairytale Satellites are allegedly "Orbiting" in the Thermosphere.  So ahhh, Go ahead and List the Temps where they're @.... THEN... look @ what they're made of THEN.... look @ the Melting Point of the thing's they're made of.... THEN Look back again @ the respective Melting Points ... THEN reconcile without taking Shrooms...?  mmm K

3.  How are they Orbiting a Flat Earth?

.....especially those satellites in geosynchronous orbit .... like my XM radio.

regards

##### Share on other sites

Say Goodnight, this Parties Over (Well it's been over since my first post) but Let's PILE ON...

US Navy Weapons Instructor PUMMELS your Fairytale "Spinning Ball"...

Really?  Since the video is almost two hours long, can you summarize the gist of his points?  I'm curious because navy weapons sort of fall under my area of expertise...

##### Share on other sites

#5. It is impossible for a convex object ('allegedly', The Moon) to uniformly reflect light equally in all directions, only flat or concave surfaces can do so i.e., to have any angle of incidence.  If a surface is convex, then every ray of light points in a direct line perpendicular to the surface resulting in ZERO Reflection!

Funny thing..... I took a basketball, which is a convex surface in all directions.   Put in a dark room; pointed a flashlight at it and turned the flashlight on. The basketball was illuminated quite nicely.

Did it generate its own light, or was it visible due to reflected light from the flashlight?

##### Share on other sites

I really don't know how many more ways to clobber this.

Just one would be good.

Why not ask that random 2nd grader what shape the Earth is?

He's claiming there are no satellites, but GPS can't work without them and geosynchronous satellites are necessary for such services as DirecTV and Dish Network to function.  So now we have major communication and navigation systems that can't function because the satellites essential to their operation don't exist.

At this point, Enoch is just playing pigeon chess.

##### Share on other sites

Just one would be good.

Why not ask that random 2nd grader what shape the Earth is?

He's claiming there are no satellites, but GPS can't work without them and geosynchronous satellites are necessary for such services as DirecTV and Dish Network to function.  So now we have major communication and navigation systems that can't function because the satellites essential to their operation don't exist.

At this point, Enoch is just playing pigeon chess.

I haven't read this whole thread, but what's his reasoning for this massive conspiracy? ....

##### Share on other sites

I haven't read this whole thread, but what's his reasoning for this massive conspiracy? ....

I was started a reply to this but decided it's probably better to let Enoch explain it ......

I'd actually quite like to know where Calypsis stands on this.

Yeah.   I'd like to see what Gilbo, Mike Summers, IndyDave, and other YEC have to say about it also.

##### Share on other sites

I'm curious because navy weapons sort of fall under my area of expertise...

Yeah, me too. .... especially since I was involved in all three types of submarine launched ballistic missiles.... the sub I was on carried Polaris missiles with a range of 1500 miles (2700 km); and I then served on surface ship for test launches of the Poseidon missile (range 2800 miles/4500 km); and the development of the Trident missile (range 6000 mi/10,000 km).  All of the weapons included the curvature of the Earth in the calculation of their launch trajectories.... and their accuracies improved to within 100ft/30m over time.

##### Share on other sites

Enoch has been sequestered away to another part of this forum where his future here will be determined by the moderating team. In the mean time, since I see a debate about a flat earth as having no relevance whatsoever to the purpose of this forum (no, I don't believe in a flat earth), this thread is closed indefinitely.

##### Share on other sites

Apparently this nonsense (e.g. Eric Dubay's arguments) has spread enough that Danny Faulkner just wrote an article on the question to address it:

Is the Earth Flat?