Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Enoch 2021

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

Recommended Posts

Enoch, am I right in thinking that you are saying that the earth is flat, a flat disc?

 

Indeed! I too am curious as to what explanation Enoch gives for his observation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you missed this Enoch. Here is experimental proof that the earth is a round, rather than a flat disc.

I don't think that is a good question. Every person is different with individual priorities. Enoch's priorities likely differ from yours, so his reasons will sound very reasonably in his head, while they may sound absurd in ours.

 

I've heard "Satan worship" as reason before. Its possible that appears as a reply again.

Simply lack of a correct scientific mindset is another explanation.

 

Another experiment. (you'll need 3 friends for this, or a lot more time)

You travel to a spot directly below the sun (you arrange this in advance)

Your friends travel to 1110km, 2220km and 3330km directly north of you.

Each plant a 1m high stick in the ground and measure its shadow at the same time.

You'll measure 0m

North1 measures 0.1736m (sin(10°)*1m)

North2 measures 0.3420m (sin(20°)*1m)

North3 measures 0.5m (sin(30°)*1m)

From this, you can measure the angle the sun-rays make compared to the ground.
You can now use basic geometrie to triangulate the position of, either the sun, or the rounding of the earth.
 
The distance to north1 is 1110km. The length of the shadow was 0.1736m. The height of the sunspot above the earth is 1m/0.1736m*1,110km=6,392km
The distance to north2 is 2220km. The length of the shadow was 0.3420m. The height of the sunspot above the earth is 1m/0.3420m*2,220km=6,491km
The distance to north3 is 3330km. The length of the shadow was 0.1736m. The height of the sunspot above the earth is 1m/0.5m*3,330km=6,660km
 
2 positions different from the 0 are sufficient btw, but I added the third so it'll get clearer. Its also sufficient to know where the 0 is compared to these measurements. So you'll only need a single friend to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, I don't have a problem if you really do believe the earth is flat as that is up to you and your personal preference, but personally I think there is no need to believe that IMHO. I don't think Genesis mentions a flat earth really, nor a round one. I know there are attempts to claim that, "the bible says thus and so" about the earth, but sometimes it just doesn't go into great detail about those things.

 

For me the only impressive thing the bible says about the earth is that it, "hangs on nothing", which is a pretty unequivocal statement that there is no literal foundation upon which it rests. So we mustn't argue that the earth rests on something, as Christians, but that is all we need to do.

 

Personally I just can't understand why you would want to believe the earth is flat. Like I say, I don't hold it against you but I admit you have surprised me. " Eddie, Had I woken up with my head sewn to the carpet I wouldn't be more surprised than I am right now." - Clark Griswold, National Lampoons Christmas vacation.

 

;)

 

"Is there no-one on this flat earth to even challenge me?" - General Zod superman 2. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you planning to present any evidence in support of your assertion, or is this strictly an emoticon based argument?

 

 

You mean, besides this....

 

7602503_G.jpg      :laugh_point:

 

??  

 

If you look real close, you can see Ditka Waving!!

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Me too  thumbsup.gif

 

 

 

 

Yea sure; We'll get to that.

 

Do you have a comment here please, allow me to post the Godzilla sized Elephant in the Room for the 3rd Time...

 

This is a Picture of the Chicago Skyline taken from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville across Lake Michigan 60 Miles Away ....

 

7602503_G.jpg

 

 

If we are on a "Ball", with a circumference of 25,000 miles ---

 

Spherical geometry proves the following elevation loss in all directions from a fixed point observer on a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference:

 
  1 mile - 8 inches
  2 miles - 32 inches
  3 miles - 6 feet
  4 miles - 10 feet
  5 miles - 16 feet
  6 miles - 24 feet
  7 miles - 32 feet
  8 miles - 42 feet
  9 miles - 54 feet
10 miles - 66 feet
20 miles - 266 feet
30 miles - 600 feet
40 miles - 1066 feet
50 miles - 1666 feet
60 miles - 2400 feet
70 miles - 3266 feet
80 miles - 4266 feet
90 miles - 5400 feet 
100 miles - 6666 feet
 
That means Chicago should be 2400 Feet BELOW the Horizon (Technically, the Sears Tower is 1454 Feet so...it should still be out of sight by 1,000 feet).  Errrr, can somebody please tell me What in The World is going on here ??    :think: 
 
This alone brings the Entire House of Cards Down.
 
 
So if you please, GO AHEAD....?  thumbsup.gif

 

Enoch has been told, quite correctly that this image is a mirage and that it the result of refraction.

 

He says he wants to know "What in The World is going on here??

 

Well, I suspect, Enoch is just being his difficult self to be difficult.

 

Here is what is going on, Enoch.  We know that cold air can bend light downward essentially letting us see things that are beyond the "normal" horizon.  We also know that you are looking across a body of water (Lake Michigan) that can be considerably colder than the air above it.

 

Can I "prove" this specific picture is a mirage ..... well, not unless I have access to the weather conditions, water, and air temperatures at the time it was taken.   I do happen to have this one other piece of evidence.   See, I did a google search for images of mirages.

 

Here's one of the pictures that came up:

lake_michigan_mirage.jpg

 

 

It's a picture of a mirage..... does it look at all familiar?

 

What is really going on here is Enoch playing more sophomoric games..... again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I don't think that is a good question. Every person is different with individual priorities. Enoch's priorities likely differ from yours, so his reasons will sound very reasonably in his head, while they may sound absurd in ours.

....

Another experiment. (you'll need 3 friends for this, or a lot more time)

You travel to a spot directly below the sun (you arrange this in advance)

Your friends travel to 1110km, 2220km and 3330km directly north of you.

Each plant a 1m high stick in the ground and measure its shadow at the same time.

You'll measure 0m

North1 measures 0.1736m (sin(10°)*1m)

North2 measures 0.3420m (sin(20°)*1m)

North3 measures 0.5m (sin(30°)*1m)

From this, you can measure the angle the sun-rays make compared to the ground.
You can now use basic geometrie to triangulate the position of, either the sun, or the rounding of the earth.
....
2 positions different from the 0 are sufficient btw, but I added the third so it'll get clearer. Its also sufficient to know where the 0 is compared to these measurements. So you'll only need a single friend to find out.

Actually, Eratosthanes did a similar experiment around the year 200 BC and calculated the circumference of the Earth as something between 40,000 and 46,000 km (using the modern unit of measurement). So Enoch is arguing something that was settled about 2200 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, I don't have a problem if you really do believe the earth is flat as that is up to you and your personal preference, but personally I think there is no need to believe that IMHO. 

 

I don't "believe" it, it's Demonstrably TRUE.

 

 

I don't think Genesis mentions a flat earth really, nor a round one. I know there are attempts to claim that, "the bible says thus and so" about the earth, but sometimes it just doesn't go into great detail about those things.

 

 

That's Incorrect...

 

Start @ 1:47:25...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVBxIC4caHI

 

 

 

For me the only impressive thing the bible says about the earth is that it, "hangs on nothing", which is a pretty unequivocal statement that there is no literal foundation upon which it rests.

 

 

It's the exact Opposite.  It doesn't 'hang on nothing' because it's supported by pillars.

 

 

 

Personally I just can't understand why you would want to believe the earth is flat. 

 

You will after you watch that video.

 

 

Like I say, I don't hold it against you but I admit you have surprised me. 

 

 

The 'gravity' of the situation is not lost on me. :P   If it can be refuted, then GREAT....I'm willing to be proved wrong --- I have no issue with it whatsoever; that's why I posted it....it get's me closer to the TRUTH. thumbsup.gif

 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean, besides this....

 

7602503_G.jpg      :laugh_point:

That's as much evidence of a flat earth as this is of a flying boat:

article-0-129FC49E000005DC-904_634x384.j

 

Do you have specific evidence to present that is uniquely in favor of your image resulting from a flat earth rather than refraction?

 

Do you plan on addressing any of the other responses to your initial points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's as much evidence of a flat earth as this is of a flying boat:

 

article-0-129FC49E000005DC-904_634x384.j

 

 

 

Kool, great quality there. 

 

Do you have specific evidence to present that is uniquely in favor of your image resulting from a flat earth rather than refraction?

 

Yes, it's Prima Facia just look @ each pic.

 

 

Do you plan on addressing any of the other responses to your initial points?

 

Sure, one second...There's 200 of them.

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently I don't have to recreate the wheel, here's 200 of them....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg

 

So please, take your time and list the refutations:

 

1.

 

2.

 

3....   ect ect

 

I can't wait!

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Is this a serious topic?

Yes it is, and your Mind Numbing answers show how Bankrupt you are.

Can you suspend with the moronic insults? I can try and do the same. I am civilized, so it doesn't come natural though.

Not Enoch.

 

Currently you have a speed of 465 meters/second, so does New York. 

Well, actually your speed is a function of the cosine of your latitude.   Using 40,000 km as the circumference of the Earth and 24 hour as the rotation period, we get 1667 km/hr which works out to about 463 m/sec at the equator.  New York City, approximately latitude 40.7 degrees, would then have a speed of about 351 m/sec.  If one were 1 meter from the North Pole, it would be about 0.26 meters per hour.

 

So if the Earth is 'spinning' @ 465 meters/second from West to East (1,000 miles an hour) and you're taking a flight from San Diego to New York @ 500 miles per hour, how do you reach your destination before the destination comes screaming up @ 500 miles per hour from your "6" , pray tell?? 

So if the Earth is 'spinning' @ 465 meters/second from West to East (~ 1,000 miles an hour)  ---  if I wanted to travel from New York to San Diego 2425 Miles, why shouldn't I just get in a Helicopter/Hot Air Balloon and "Hover" for 2.4 Hours ??    :gotcha: 

This is from the same person who likes to criticize my understanding of science......

 

The reason the destination doesn't come "screaming up" on you or that you can't "'Hover' for 2.4 Hours" is that your airplane / Helicopter / Hot Air Balloon is already moving along with the surface of the Earth.  So, they are already moving along at that "465 meters/second" before they ever take off.

 

If your premise (rotflol hysterically, btw) that the atmosphere is also 'spinning' @ the same speed as the Earth: then, please elucidate the mechanism by which the atmosphere is attached to the Earth; I will Accept VELCRO!!  :laugh_point:  

It has already been explained to Enoch that gravity is "the mechanism by which the atmosphere is attached to the Earth."   Yeah, I know it's the weakest of the four fundamental forces, but it's strong enough to hold us on the Earth, isn't it?

 

So if the Earth is 'spinning' @ 465 meters/second from West to East and I shoot a Cannon Ball straight up in the air here in Missoura and it takes 15 seconds to land ---- it should land 7,000 meters (4 Miles) to the West ?? 

You forgot to answer my Cannonball Example....?

It was answered.... the cannonball is travelling at the same speed as the Earth before you shoot it straight up.  Without some external force acting on it, it will continue moving in the same speed and direction.   In this case, gravity will take care of the up/down part.  But you're going to have to apply a considerable westward force to make it land 7,000 meters to the west in only 15 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, I don't have a problem if you really do believe the earth is flat ....

 

I don't "believe" it, it's Demonstrably TRUE.

Geez Louise .... a flat Earther.

 

For some reason, that really doesn't surprise me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Enoch, am I right in thinking that you are saying that the earth is flat, a flat disc? 

 

 

Yes.  I'm not saying mountains/valleys don't exist.  ;)

 

Pretty Close to this...

 

un-flag.png

 

Butt the "UN"  <_< Wreath up against and around the disk...that's the ICE ICE baby.

 

 

Wouldn't we be able to see the cities behind Chicago, too?

 

 

Yes, but wouldn't Chicago be 'in the way'?  :P

 

 

Couldn't I look through my telescope right now and look at you sitting back in your lazy boy with a cigar laughing at us?  ;)

 

 

Conceptually yes, if you had a Super Duper Telescope with some Megalithic Resolution.  But you're gonna still run into some problems (Mountains/Fog/Humidity, ect ect)...

 

SEE Proof #142 ( 1:22:55 )...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious.

 

How do you explain the sun descending behind the horizon if the sun is a spotlight flying above the surface at all times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the video:

1. The horizon seems always a straight line, regardless of altitude. 

On a ball earth, you would have the distances as you've written above. (ex: 3 miles - 6 feet) 

The becomes a none-straight line only when looking at it from a birds-eye perspective. Right now you're in the middle of the circle, with only a relatively small elevation.

2. The horizon seems always at eye-level.

The horizon is not at eye level. Your eye is at eye level, the (Earth) horizon is at (distant) ground level. It's the most distant part you can see.
You seem to be confusing the artifact produced by the observing instrument (eye) with what is observed (distant ground level).

3. The water level is flat! A wobbling earth would cause wobbling water.

The earth does wobble. The earth spins at a consistent rate. The only acceleration the water undergoes is the centripetal acceleration, and the earths gravity counters that.

4.5.6. Rivers run down to sea level. Water is flat.

Correct. The water is attracted to the center of the earth. So on the globe, all water seeks a path the easiest to get as close as possible to the center. So if the sea level is actually at 12,756km above the center of the earth. The Mississippi starts above 12,756km  above the center of the earth.

7. A straight line is 8 inch/mile, this is never factored into effect in engineering.

8inch/mile = 0.01% This is way below the expansion coefficients of materials used in construction. The gaps the engineers leave between parts is more then enough to compensate.

8. Panama canal is horizontal!

You do realize that horizontal is curved with the horizon, right? If not, see 4.

9. Some quoted engineer.

See 7. And argument from authority.

10. London to Liverpool

You measure from the center of the earth.

 

That's all for now.

Any questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Enoch: Butt the "UN"   <_< Wreath up against and around the disk...that's the ICE ICE baby.

 

As long as the UN sign is not there then I'm not too fussed about you being a flat earther  ;) Lol. And I don't make fun of you for it either, as the bible warns us about mocking others. I still believe you are an intelligent guy, as you have so clearly shown in this thread by your evasive brilliance. :D

 

One thing I will say, here we see that the evolutionists seem to be able to refute the claim of a flat earth fairly well(no offense meant Enoch, obviously you are still capable of making a smart defence of any position) however, one thing I have noticed is that when it comes to an issue like this, where genuine science/maths is at play, it seems to me the evolutionists can win the debate.

 

That strikes me as very, very interesting because it strikes me as the OPPOSITE when it comes to the evolution-debate. This is very, very curious to me because when it comes to the evolution debate it seems like the evolutionists lose that debate in a very obvious and clear way but when it comes to defending real science such as gravity or the earth's shape, they win the debate very quickly and smartly.

 

I mean just look at this situation - basically I would not dare to disagree with the evolutionists in this thread because I would feel totally refuted and wouldn't know where to even start, I would literally be struck dumb, no logic could help me here. But when it comes to evolution, there is no defence and they look like weak reasoners with no knowledge. I am not insulting the evolutionists, I am just trying to point out to them that they are defending a turd. The evolution-turd is making the evolutionists LOOK weak, but it is clear that they are not really stupid and without knowledge, it is simply that their theory is stupid, and so they obviously then look a bit silly in debate because that turd won't float.

:D

 

CONCLUSION: Absolutely no problem with the level of intelligence and knowledge the evolutionists have, but it is STRIKINGLY OBVIOUS that in a debate about evolution, nothing like this thread would happen, because I could find so many logical holes in evolution in five minutes that I would be here until Christmas just listing the fallacies.

 

SOLUTION: Ditch evolution theory, and only defend strong science. 

:farmer:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I will say, here we see that the evolutionists seem to be able to refute the claim of a flat earth fairly well(no offense meant Enoch, obviously you are still capable of making a smart defence of any position) however, one thing I have noticed is that when it comes to an issue like this, where genuine science/maths is at play, it seems to me the evolutionists can win the debate.

 

That strikes me as very, very interesting because it strikes me as the OPPOSITE when it comes to the evolution-debate. This is very, very curious to me because when it comes to the evolution debate it seems like the evolutionists lose that debate in a very obvious and clear way but when it comes to defending real science such as gravity or the earth's shape, they win the debate very quickly and smartly.

The difference is:

The round earth hypothesis can be explained in a couple of lines of text. The round earth hypothesis can be proven by use of a single stick and primary school geometrie. 

The biological evolution hypothesis needs a lot more explanation. The biological evolution hypothesis consequently also needs a lot more elaborate proof, some of which we can hardly do ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another question Enoch, with regards to your first or second to reply to me. (Can't quote it properly just now)

 

Why would a flat disc earth require a god any more than the spherical one we have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video continued:

11.12. =10

13. The experiment showed that the light could be seen 100 miles away.

The results were not found in all later tests. Refraction is presumed what caused the results as was shown later.

14. The experiment showed that the light could be seen 100 miles away.

No other source to cite the experiment. I can't discuss the findings.

15. check 7:40. Airplanes should be space ships!!

:cry:

Gravity doesn't exist, right? So if we jump we risk ending up flying to outer space as well?

16. Airy's failure

I admit I have no ready available explanation. I'll have to look this up and get back to you.

17. The night-sky would be light.

The percentage of a light from a star that reaches us decreases with the square of the distance. Some stars simply don't give off enough light for us to perceive.

Seek out a location where there is little light pollution and you'll see a lot more stars. Then take a camera with a high sensitivity and you'll see even more. The lights are there, you're just not seeing them.

18. Measurements of the speed of light show its absolute in this stationary experiment.

Correct. Possible conclusions are a stationary earth or a disapproval of the "aether" the earth was supposed to be moving in. 

Further tests showed that there was no "aether".

19. The stars are moving always the same, you should see change from season to season if we move among them.

The size of the universe is so large that our limited motion is not easily observable by the naked eye. Since the milky way also has a revolving motion we do have see a slow change. You should look up Hipparchus. He found out in 127BC that they did. A simple example is that about each 2000 years, the sun is in a new constellation. From Mozes to Jesus it was Aries, from Jesus to now it was Pisces, Now we're in Aquarian.

20. Ballistics example.

I'll give you the calculations tomorrow, when I have more time.

 

So far:

For 16,20 I need to get back to you.

You'll have to explain me how you think the sun moves.

Any questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fjuri: The difference is:

The round earth hypothesis can be explained in a couple of lines of text. The round earth hypothesis can be proven by use of a single stick and primary school geometrie. 

The biological evolution hypothesis needs a lot more explanation. The biological evolution hypothesis consequently also needs a lot more elaborate proof, some of which we can hardly do ourselves.

 

That isn't the difference. The difference is that there is no scientific or mathematical verification of biological evolution, because it is a philosophy wearing science-pants. :P

 

Evolution doesn't just get debated, it gets slaughtered. The reason you have to use for evolution, is basically fallacious reasoning. Obviously we have expounded those faults over many threads but when a thread like this happens, it really makes evolution stand out like a sore thumb, because it doesn't matter how much time you dedicate to arguing evolution, it can be refuted easily because it is basically a science-story but gravity and round earths are science fact. Because they are science-fact, it is easy to prove that they are, because they are STRONG science. But with evolution, an incredibly WEAK science, it literally doesn't matter how long you dedicate to evolution, it can be slaughtered logically, and very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I don't make fun of you for it either, as the bible warns us about mocking others. 

 

No worries, I'm used to it. 

 

 

I still believe you are an intelligent guy, as you have so clearly shown in this thread by your evasive brilliance. 

 

Thanks, but it matters not.

 

 

One thing I will say, here we see that the evolutionists seem to be able to refute the claim of a flat earth fairly well.

 

 

:rotfl3: ....

 

 

8. Panama canal is horizontal!

You do realize that horizontal is curved with the horizon, right? If not, see 4.   (Guess what this is??)

 

9. Some quoted engineer. (I agree, it needs to be CITED.  I'll work on it, this is merely Day 4 for me  )

See 7. And argument from authority. (If he's an Engineer, then how on Earth can it be an argument from authority??)

 

10. London to Liverpool

You measure from the center of the earth. (  :blink: )

 

15. check 7:40. Airplanes should be space ships!! (He calls this an answer?? ) ...

 

I was going to pick out the Top Ten from the 200, @ this point...this is Number 1: 

 

If the Earth is 25,000 feet in circumference, then Pilots @ 35,000 feet traveling @ 500 mph --- to simply maintain altitude, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards, (to compensate for the Curvature) and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!! :funny:100000000000------>

 

So this is refuting fairly well ??

 

 

(no offense meant Enoch, obviously you are still capable of making a smart defence of any position) however, one thing I have noticed is that when it comes to an issue like this, where genuine science/maths is at play, it seems to me the evolutionists can win the debate.

 

Genuine Science and Math, eh? 

 

but when it comes to defending real science such as gravity or the earth's shape, they win the debate very quickly and smartly.

 

 

The Earth's Shape is REAL SCIENCE  :gigglesmile:   Please show me this REAL SCIENCE....? ...

 

WhichEarth.JPG

 

Can you tell me 'What on Earth' is going on here??

 

The one on the left is taken Jan 4 2012; the right, April 22 2014.  Not even speaking to the color of the Water, which is a tear jerkin belly laugher in it's own right....Can you tell me what my next 2 questions might be ?? :kaffeetrinker: 

 

Define Artistic Licence....?

 

Gravity is REAL SCIENCE, eh?

 

What is Gravity....?

 

Can I ask you, do you think the atmosphere from ground level to the vacuum of Space is Super Glued/Velcroed to the Earth by Gravity ??

 

I mean just look at this situation - basically I would not dare to disagree with the evolutionists in this thread because I would feel totally refuted and wouldn't know where to even start, I would literally be struck dumb, no logic could help me here.

 

 

I'm not you.

 

"You measure from the center of the earth." ----  Yes, I'm feeling totally refuted.

 

Please answer EACH COMMENT ABOVE (Save the first two)....Specifically please.

 

 

Anything regarding the 'alleged' ambiguity in the Bible concerning what GOD said concerning the Earth ??

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking quotes from this text version of the video Enoch posted: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

Define "above". Fjuri is correct that sea level is defined as a particular distance from the center of the earth, which is why it's 240 feet in Birmingham. Assuming the math works out, the author is correct that if you drew a line between two points at sea level in London and Liverpool, Birmingham would be substantially more than 240 feet higher than the line underneath it, but sea level in Birmingham isn't on that line.

 

11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.â€

There's no problem with defining train stations as being relatively level, they're just relatively level with respect to distance from the center of a sphere rather than from a plane. To use the London-Birmingham-Liverpool line example, the main force you have to resist are pointing toward the center of the circle of that arc, not just "down" relative to one of the points on the arc, and you're not pulling "forward" in the sense of some absolute vector in space, you're pulling relative to the surface of the earth. Gravity isn't pulling you downhill to London, it's pulling you down toward the center of the earth.

 

15) 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;†a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.

Gravity pulls the plane down, lift pushes it up. To stay level (or climb) you have to adjust the lift to the appropriate level. I have no idea why the author thinks that level flight isn't possible with a round earth.

 

20) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west. In actual fact, however, whenever this has been tested, vertically-fired cannonballs shoot upwards an average of 14 seconds ascending, 14 seconds descending, and fall back to the ground no more than 2 feet away from the cannon, often directly back into the muzzle.

Why would they fall west? Firing a cannonball into the air doesn't rob it of its inertia, nor does it remove it from the forces that are acting on it. The cannon is moving, the air is moving, so the ball moves more or less along with it. Why would you expect otherwise?

 

21) If the Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, helicopters and hot-air balloons should be able to simply hover over the surface of the Earth and wait for their destinations to come to them!

22) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point.

See above.

 

23) Ball-believers often claim “gravity†magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.

How would the behave differently?

 

24) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph then North/South facing cannons should establish a control while East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others while West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer. In actual fact, however, regardless of which direction cannons are fired, the distance covered is always the same.

See 20.

 

25) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph, then the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph should never be able to reach its Eastward destinations before they come speeding up from behind! Likewise Westward destinations should be arrived at thrice the speed, but this is not the case.

Hey, this looks familiar! See 20, as well as the first time I brought this up.

 

26 and 27 are basically the same as 25.

 

28) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, then clouds, wind and weather patterns could not casually and unpredictably go every which way, with clouds often travelling in opposing directions at varying altitudes simultaneously.

Why not?

 

So far this seems to be based entirely on inconsistent and generally poor reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Enoch: I was going to pick out the Top Ten from the 200, @ this point...this is Number 1: 

 

If the Earth is 25,000 feet in circumference, then Pilots @ 35,000 feet traveling @ 500 mph --- to simply maintain altitude, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards, (to compensate for the Curvature) and descend 2,777 feet over half a mileevery minute !!!  :funny:100000000000------>

 

So this is refuting fairly well ??

 

Like the video, these are all called false conditional implications. Fjuri listed many false implications.

 

Pilots travelling at 500mph would not fly towards the edge of the atmosphere for the same reasons centripetal force keeps a formula one car from not being flung out of a corner. Being flung out in a straight line is usually referred to by the false pseudo-force that is called, "centrifugal" force. In fact there is no such thing as centrifugal force, what is actually happening is that linear momentum overcomes the amount of centripetal force caused by the car's tyres. (traction/and also downforce)

 

So what you are asking me/us to believe is that there is no such thing as angular momentum caused by centripetal force. But we can see it's effects in many examples. If we drive a bus around a corner at a speed a formula one car can hold the bus will flip over, as linear momentum will take over. So the centripetal force of the earth keeps a plane travelling on an parallel trajectory to the earth's surface. Clouds are the same, they don't drift in a straight line off into outer space.

 

 

 

When a pilot is doing 500mph in a straight line, so to speak, the centripetal force generated by the earth naturally takes the plane around the natural curvature of the earth. This is the genius of God's creation, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15) 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;†a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.

 

1. Gravity pulls the plane down, lift pushes it up.

 

2. To stay level (or climb) you have to adjust the lift to the appropriate level.

 

3. I have no idea why the author thinks that level flight isn't possible with a round earth.

 

 

1.  Thanks

 

2.  Thanks again, Astonishing!

 

3. Well because he's not saying level flight isn't possible, for One  :rolleyes: .  #2....He's saying that on a 'Globe' with a 25,000 mile circumference and traveling @ 500 mph @ 35,000 feet.... TO MAINTAIN ALTITUDE you would constantly have to adjust the altitude downwards (Decline and/or Speed) to Compensate for the Curvature and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!

 

I have taken a Metric Ton of flights (including 'across the pond') and this is a tear jerkin belly laugher on Nuclear Steroids!!  I flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity in comparison.    

 

 

28) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, then clouds, wind and weather patterns could not casually and unpredictably go every which way, with clouds often travelling in opposing directions at varying altitudes simultaneously.

 

 

Why not?

 

 

:consoling:  Because you have a ground squirrel level contradiction (I bolded and underlined them).

 

 

So far this seems to be based entirely on inconsistent and generally poor reasoning.

 

 

Thanks for your Ipse Dixit Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy 'One Liner' Hand-Wave Dismissal.

 

 

Special Note: This is day 4 for me of considering this topic and day 2 with the Proofs; Ergo...I haven't vetted it. However, I am very interested in the rebuttals for future research.

 

VERY Special Note:  I am currently on the Fence whether the Earth is Flat or a Sphere; playing the 'devil's advocate' as it were.  I thought posting it here would SPEED UP the process.  thumbsup.gif

 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Enoch: VERY Special Note:  I am currently on the Fence whether the Earth is Flat or a Sphere; playing the 'devil's advocate' as it were.  I thought posting it here would SPEED UP the process

 

Fair enough. Thanks for sharing, it is an interesting topic. I'm glad you're, "on the fence", because once you're on the flat-side, there's no coming back and it's the men in white coats for you. ;):P

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms