Evolution Fairytale Forum

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

## Recommended Posts

I don't think you actually checked the "calculation."   Let's try it.....

Drop = 8 inches per mile times the distance squared.  Distance per minute = 500 mph / 60 minutes per hour = 8.33 miles per minute.  Distance squared = 69.4 miles.  Multiply 69.4 miles by 8 inches and we get 77.4 inches....  less than 7 feet per minute.   What about the other 2770 feet?

That's some Pretty Hilarious matheMagics:  pay attention...

So @ 500mph in one hour,  500 miles2 x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet -- Total Drop needed in one hour.

Watch this, it's the tricky part   : 166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 Feet per minute.

Like I said, nearly 2800 fpm is a really, really steep descent.  If I cut power on the little puddle jumpers I flew, the rate of descent would be between 300 and 500 feet per minute.

You're telling me, that's why I said a roller coaster would be Placid Serenity.

Do you really have this much trouble with the English language, or do you just argue everything?

Na, I was just messin with ya

##### Edit ######

On further reflection .....  Standard approach decent rate is 300 feet per mile.  At 500 mph (8.33 miles per minute), that would be about 2500 fpm.  But there's a "speed limit"  of 250 kt (288 mph) below 10,000 ft.

You need ALOT1000000 ----->more 'Editing'

regards

##### Share on other sites

Enoch: You're telling me, that's why I said a roller coaster would be Placid Serenity.

You do enjoy your kind of colourful superlative-overkill.

If I said to you; "he figured it out deductively", if you agreed Enoch you would probably say; "Never mind that, he was Columbo's love child on steroids".

Not that I am complaining, it does make your posts fun to read.

Enoch, can I just give an analogy again? And if you want to reject my argument that's up to you, I'm just throwing it out there, it is no way an attack on you, to me this is all rather academic information for mild discussion, and I am hoping you are still taking a fence-position on this issue.

Imagine if you are standing on the spot, and there are two houses in the distance separated by about 100 foot. Imagine you point with your finger at the house on the left. Then you point with your finger to the house on the right. Question; how far did your arm move? The distance between you pointing to the house on the left and the house on the right, let's say for argument sake is about 20 inches. Now, if you travelled towards the house on the left from that point, and I travelled to the house on the right, from that point, the distance between us when we reached each respective house, would obviously be 100 foot.

So what am I saying? Imagine those pointed fingers were now instead replaced with a plane's nose, and this time the two spots in the distance are below and above each other. If you dip the nose of the plane those 12 inches, when you reach the bottom point you would be 100 foot below the point you would have travelled to had you not dipped the nose 12 inches.

So I think the error in your logic is that you are assuming that a pilot would wait until he had reached a tremendous altitude rather than dipping the nose slightly so that he won't travel to that altitude. Obviously as we increase the distance of those two spots, the farther the distance between the two points. So on the below diagram I drawn, your suggested path of flight is marked in red and the type I am suggesting is marked in green. On the green trajectory, each point is an analogy of how the plane would dip it's nose slightly so as to not travel higher and higher. but on your red-trajectory the pilot would travel higher and higher, and then descend. (roller-coaster on steroids2 )

##### Share on other sites

You do enjoy your kind of colourful superlative-overkill.

Yes I surely do...I like to add a little color

Not that I am complaining, it does make your posts fun to read.

Thanks, a Win Win.  I like to express myself.

Enoch, can I just give an analogy again?

Mike you're a Good Man.  But understand, I'm not taking any more analogies -- when my argument stands on the Real McCoy

I have well over 200 Proofs but they are all academic in lieu of Maintaining Altitude for a typical flight on an 'alleged' Sphere with an 'alleged' 25,000 mile circumference.  Hard Stop!!

The argument is practical, simple, beautifully elegant, and downright cataclysmic in its ramifications !!

There's no way out

I'm just throwing it out there, it is no way an attack on you, to me this is all rather academic information for mild discussion, and I am hoping you are still taking a fence-position on this issue.

And I don't take offense Mike.  2 weeks ago I was in your exact position...I LOL'ed, Hysterically I might add---- @ the challenge presented before me and I said give me 5 minutes!!  Well, those 5 minutes have come and gone --- I Can't Refute It !!

Sitting here after I retired many years ago, I had everything I 'believed' ripped to shreds in an instant (Literally).  My eyes were opened by HIS Grace....after I recovered, I said SHOW ME....?

HE DID, but they were bite sized chunks leading me here (HIS WISDOM, LOVE, PATIENCE, is beyond comprehension).

btw, I'm not on that 'fence position' anymore....it's not comfortable, I'd rather eat glass

The funny thing is, it was right in front of me the entire time...

Scripture:

(Genesis 1:6) "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
(Genesis 1:7) "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."
(Genesis 1:8) "And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
(Genesis 1:14) " And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

(Job 9:6) "Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."
(Job 22:14) "Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven."
(Job 26:7) "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."
(Job 26:10) "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end."
(Job 28:24) "For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;"
(Job 37:3) "He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth."
(Job 37:18) "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?"
(Job 38:4) "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."
(Job 38:5) "Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?"
(Job 38:6) "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;"
(Job 38:13) "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?"

(1 Samuel 2:8) "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them."
(2 Samuel 22:16) "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils."

(1 Chronicles 16:30) "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

(Psalms 18:15) "Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils."
(Psalms 75:3) "The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah."
(Psalms 93:1) "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."
(Psalms 96:10) "Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously."
(Psalms 102:25) "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands."
(Psalms 104:5) "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."
(Psalms 136:6) "To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever."

(Proverbs 8:27) "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:"
(Proverbs 8:28) "When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:"

(Isaiah 40:22) "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
(Isaiah 48:13) "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together."
(Isaiah 66:1) "Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?"

(Ezekiel 1:26) "And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it."

(Daniel 4:11) "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:"
(Daniel 12:3) "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever."

(Jonah 2:5-6) "The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.  {6} I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God."

(Matthew 4:8) "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;"  <--- How can this happen on a Globe, pray tell ??
(Matthew 24:31) " And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

(Revelation 1:7) "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." <--- How can this happen on a Globe, pray tell ??

regards

##### Share on other sites

Enoch, I appreciate the lengths you have went to, so that you have now established a fairly unmovable position on this issue. I again reassure you I am not here to fight you, yourself as a person because I have no motive to do that. You are a fellow Christian so really it doesn't offend me that you take this position.

For me personally, I am not sure I could ever take that position, because it presents a bit of a slippery slope, in my opinion...

For example, if the earth is no round and it is a flat disc then I have to reject so many things that the facts of reality have shown to us. For example, if I took up your position, do I believe the stars are not suns/orbs with mass? Do I have to believe that there is no gravity, only "up" and, "down", that if there really was a "down under" that folk would be falling down? What about the moon, is that a disc too? Are the shadows of the earth time-captured, and the eclipses, somehow false? or are the photos false and photo-shopped? What about Aristotle observing the shadows before photo-shop? What about all of the pictures of the world, from the apollo missions?

You see, all I'm trying to do is show you that everything we know about the world would also have to be false, it leads to a slippery slope where we have to believe that nasa faked the moon, all photos of the earth are fabrication, the shadow of the earth is an illusion. The moon itself we can see has shadow on it a s a 3D object. Where do the stars go when they orbit? Do they really go into storehouses?

For me personally, I don't think I could accept that all of the things we know about the world, are fake, the people that would have to be involved in the cover up means that there would be no way to hide it. Are you then suggesting the whole world and all of it's governments are in on it? Where do the astronauts go when we see them floating in space. The holiday inn? (couldn't resist that last remark)

A slippery slope that leads to basically rejecting reality, in my opinion friend.

I also think the bible doesn't refer to foundations of the earth except allegorically. The people writing it did not understand what was in the centre of the earth, the earth's foundation is it's core, IMHO. You would have to explain all of these things for me, such as why nasa faked it as well as all the other countries that now go to space. Have you seen the imagery of spaceman orbiting the earth, it can't be photoshop because no matter how good CGI is, they didn't have CGI that good in the early ninetees and we still saw plenty of shots of the earth and moon.

So all I am asking is that you don't join the other 42 genuine Christians on earth that also believe this notion.

##### Share on other sites

Like I said, nearly 2800 fpm is a really, really steep descent.  If I cut power on the little puddle jumpers I flew, the rate of descent would be between 300 and 500 feet per minute.

"steep" depends entirely on how you're moving with respect to Earth. 2800 f/m descending straight toward the ground is very steep. 2800 f/m "descending" relative to an arbitrary starting point keeping the plane level with respect to the ground at all times is a cakewalk. (cakefly?)

A question that may help clarify things:

If you started a plane at the north pole of a spherical Earth and flew south to the equator, would you say you have descended ~4,000 miles?

##### Share on other sites

As a side-comment, also I think the, "circle of the earth" would be wrong if the Hebrew word actually intended us to translate it as circle because a circle is two dimensional. Even the flat-earthers don't believe the earth is two dimensional but more of a cylindrical 3D disc. I think, "circle" is a misleading translation into english, apparently the Hebrew didn't really have a word for sphere, IIRC.

So it makes sense to me that circle is just the closest translation in english.

Personally I am still convinced I am correct and the centre of gravity means that unhindered a plane would follow the curve of the earth the same as a satellite does. A satellite doesn't shoot off into space for the same reason, you have to counter gravity on the correct axis. The only reason nasa went to the moon is because they created a design that could counter gravity enough to break orbit.

##### Share on other sites

A question that may help clarify things:

If you started a plane at the north pole of a spherical Earth and flew south to the equator, would you say you have descended ~4,000 miles?

Well, according to Enoch, I'm sure you would.

Enoch is treating it as if an airplane flies tangent with respect to the surface from it's current position.  The problem here is that the plane would actually be climbing with respect to the ground.  IOW, that will happen only if lift exceeds weight.

A different way to point out the problem with Enoch's approach is that in order for the airplane to increase its altitude above ground, it must gain (potential) energy.  (PE = mgh).   So, if the plane is flying straight forward increasing its altitude... as Enoch claims, the altitude change is made by storing potential energy..  for an aircraft to climb, lift must exceed weight which creates a net upward force on the aircraft causing a vertical acceleration and greater altitude.  (ie:  The plane climbs instead of staying level.)

##### Share on other sites

Any Comments on these (for the 4th TIME!!!)....

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...

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?

##### Share on other sites

You would have to explain all of these things for me, such as why nasa faked it as well as all the other countries that now go to space. Have you seen the imagery of spaceman orbiting the earth, it can't be photoshop because no matter how good CGI is, they didn't have CGI that good in the early ninetees and we still saw plenty of shots of the earth and moon.

You can go all the way back to the '60's.  When NASA landed men on the Moon, we were in the middle of the "Cold War."   The Russians would have liked nothing better than to show the entire US space program was a fraud.

Had the Russians been able to show the Earth is not spherical, they would have done so in a heartbeat.  They couldn't because it isn't.

##### Share on other sites

Enoch is treating it as if an airplane flies tangent ....

You still commenting here after your fiasco matheMAGICS and reasoning got Jacked Yard ??    My word sir, this is tantamount to your Hypothesis/"Independent Variable" Implosion.

oy vey

##### Share on other sites

Or anyone who would know the answer. I'm genuinely interested.

Since you're now back, Enoch, can you explain this to me please.

##### Share on other sites

Piasan: You can go all the way back to the '60's.  When NASA landed men on the Moon, we were in the middle of the "Cold War."   The Russians would have liked nothing better than to show the entire US space program was a fraud.

Had the Russians been able to show the Earth is not spherical, they would have done so in a heartbeat

Yeah you've spiked my memory of that reasoning now. Maybe ten or so years ago I watched a program about the conspiracy about the moon landings and I thought this was the strongest logical point, it seems pretty bulletproof.

##### Share on other sites

Enoch is treating it as if an airplane flies tangent with respect to the surface from it's current position.  The problem here is that the plane would actually be climbing with respect to the ground.  IOW, that will happen only if lift exceeds weight.

You still commenting here after your fiasco matheMAGICS and reasoning got Jacked Yard ??    My word sir, this is tantamount to your Hypothesis/"Independent Variable" Implosion.

Yeah.... as I've said before.... the minute we start doing an actual analysis of the physics you're done.

Why not show that the airplane you say needs to be pointed MUST be descending at nearly 2800 fpm to NOT gain altitude (at 8 inches per mile squared) will not gain energy as it gains altitude?

Can't do it can ya?    Just like your GPS / one-way speed of light failure.

As long as we're at it.... why not show the plane won't stay level by losing only 8 inches per mile for each and every mile it travels.   Bet ya can't do that either.

##### Share on other sites

For me personally, I am not sure I could ever take that position, because it presents a bit of a slippery slope, in my opinion...

Either GODS WORD or man's Mike, your choice.

For example, if the earth is no round and it is a flat disc then I have to reject so many things that the facts of reality have shown to us.

What Facts...?

(Romans 3:4) "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

For example, if I took up your position, do I believe the stars are not suns/orbs with mass?

Well the "sons of GOD" are Stars.  The Book of Enoch   states that they are beings and follow paths.

Do I have to believe that there is no gravity, only "up" and, "down", that if there really was a "down under" that folk would be falling down?

Well you're gonna have to come up with another definition of Gravity; i.e., it's Cause.

What about the moon, is that a disc too?

That's not my Argument, My argument is the Earth is a flat disc.  (I would not be surprised if it is)

Are the shadows of the earth time-captured, and the eclipses, somehow false?

Nope. Your position has some splain'n to do.  You're gonna have to come up with coherent explanations for Lunar Eclipses (a Few Hundred from what I've Found) that have both the sun and moon above the horizon

I also seen one documented the other day with the sun setting in the west and moon rising in the east but the eclipse was on the NORTH SIDE of the MOON !!!!     Probably another one of those Refractions or Mirages.

What about all of the pictures of the world, from the apollo missions?

ha ha ha...

You see, all I'm trying to do is show you that everything we know about the world would also have to be false...

Ahhh, not everything.

it leads to a slippery slope where we have to believe that nasa faked the moon, all photos of the earth are fabrication

See Above.

And our battle is not against flesh and blood Mike.  It "Who's behind the Folks @ nasa"!!  God said he is the Wisest and most Beautiful of all HIS creations and "The Father of Lies".

Where do the stars go when they orbit?

Huh?

Do they really go into storehouses?

(Psalms 33:7) "He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses."

For me personally, I don't think I could accept that all of the things we know about the world, are fake, the people that would have to be involved in the cover up means that there would be no way to hide it.

1.  It's not ALL things.

2. You clearly don't know your enemy.

3.  You also need to familiarize yourself with the concept of "Compartmentalization".

Are you then suggesting the whole world and all of it's governments are in on it?

Most --- YEPPER!!  See Daniel for a Tutorial of the Powers behind the World Governments and...

(Psalms 2:2) "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,"

A Conspiracy "Theory"   of the World Governments..... against GOD !!

Where do the astronauts go when we see them floating in space. The holiday inn?

I don't know.  I don't know what shampoo they use either.

A slippery slope that leads to basically rejecting reality, in my opinion friend.

It is YOU that's rejecting 'REALITY'; it's called Cognitive Dissonance.

I also think the bible doesn't refer to foundations of the earth except allegorically.

You think??    You have Absolutely NO WARRANT, whatsoever...save for mere fiat.  There are ZERO Rhetorical Cues in any of those passages my friend.

The people writing it did not understand what was in the centre of the earth, the earth's foundation is it's core, IMHO.

Wow!!  I wasn't expecting that remark.  Talk about a Slippery Slope, this is a Tsunamic Landslide!!!  A Doctrinal and Theological trainwreck of Mammoth Proportions.

Those 'people' were merely writing GOD'S WORDS Mike.

You would have to explain all of these things for me, such as why nasa faked it as well as all the other countries that now go to space.

This is pretty comprehensive...

So all I am asking is that you don't join the other 42 genuine Christians on earth that also believe this notion.

Say What??

You're Whistlin Past The Graveyard Mike.

regards

##### Share on other sites

Yeah.... as I've said before.... the minute we start doing an actual analysis of the physics you're done.

1000000000--------->

ahhhh, KaBlooie !!! You can't recover.

Why not show that the airplane you say needs to be pointed MUST be descending at nearly 2800 fpm to NOT gain altitude (at 8 inches per mile squared) will not gain energy as it gains altitude?

What on Earth

Just like your GPS / one-way speed of light failure.

They failed like the Chicago Bears Failed against the Patriots in Super Bowl XX.

If anyone would look @ your arguments in those topics, they'd have to be resuscitated from tear jerkin belly laugher syndrome.

Stop wasting my time

##### Share on other sites

Enoch, are your answers that I am going to hell and I don't believe in God's word? I mean I've heard of muddying-the-water, but this is akin to filling the Suez canal with custard.

Enoch: Either GODS WORD or man's Mike, your choice.

Limited choice fallacy, there is no logical disjunction if God has NOT said the earth is flat. I know you have STATED scripture somehow points to it but I disagree with you, I agree with CMI's arguments about it.

Your style is obviously to SWITCH it all around on me, and have me prove gravity, despite all the scientific evidence, and prove a spherical earth against all of that obvious evidence.

I never do that Enoch, I never take the burden-of-proof upon my shoulders just because someone tries to plant it there.

Basically you want to make the statements conspiracy theorists make and then have me disprove them. To me, that is like saying that the burden-of-proof would be upon me to prove I am human if someone claimed I was an alien.

Don't have me say it to you Enoch....I'm nearly saying it....."Khan...I'mmm L.....", I won't quite say it, since we are soldiers on the same side, ultimately.  Instead we shall agree to disagree then. I will remain in the position of having niceness-disease.

##### Share on other sites

Aww shucks no one is going to tell me

##### Share on other sites

Enoch, are your answers that I am going to hell and I don't believe in God's word? I mean I've heard of muddying-the-water, but this is akin to filling the Suez canal with custard.

Nope I never said that and is kind of a "Proby" appeal there Mike.  You'll be judged on what you did know...that's between you and HIM.

Limited choice fallacy, there is no logical disjunction if God has NOT said the earth is flat. I know you have STATED scripture somehow points to it but I disagree with you, I agree with CMI's arguments about it.

Huh?  Limited Choice Fallacy ---I don't think so.

Can you post the Scripture where HE said it was a Ball -- wobbling and spinning on it's axis @ 1000 mph, rotating around the sun @ 67,000 mph, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way while the entire Galaxy rockets 670,000,000 mph through the universe all originating from a 'big bang' --- Every Year the Earth is traversing 5.8 Trillion Miles!!

Your style is obviously to SWITCH it all around on me

My 'Style' is to find the TRUTH.

and have me prove gravity, despite all the scientific evidence

Ahhh no. Didn't we go over this like 3 times?

and prove a spherical earth against all of that obvious evidence.

You have no evidence...all you have is what you've been told and some Belly Laugher photos.

I never take the burden-of-proof upon my shoulders just because someone tries to plant it there.

You have no case, save for 'hear-say'.

Basically you want to make the statements conspiracy theorists make and then have me disprove them.

Ahhh no.  Conspiracy Theorists, eh?  The Ultimate no effort 'hand-wave' dismissal of a lunatic   tactic.  How'd you like Psalm 2   ??

To me, that is like saying that the burden-of-proof would be upon me to prove I am human if someone claimed I was an alien.

No, not in the Galactic Zip Code.

regards

##### Share on other sites

Since you're now back, Enoch, can you explain this to me please.

Explain WHAT?? And why would I even have to ask for goodness sakes??

##### Share on other sites

I don't think you actually checked the "calculation."   Let's try it.....

Drop = 8 inches per mile times the distance squared.  Distance per minute = 500 mph / 60 minutes per hour = 8.33 miles per minute.  Distance squared = 69.4 miles.  Multiply 69.4 miles by 8 inches and we get 77.4 inches....  less than 7 feet per minute.   What about the other 2770 feet?

That's some Pretty Hilarious matheMagics:  pay attention...

So @ 500mph in one hour,  500 miles2 x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet -- Total Drop needed in one hour.

Watch this, it's the tricky part   : 166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 Feet per minute.

No.  You pay attention ......

What you describe is if one were to put a stick in the ground at the horizon as seen from an airplane at an altitude of 166,000 feet and a distance of 500 miles..  At that altitude descending at that rate, your wheels will knock that stake on the ground over.  Continuing on exactly the same path you will then begin to climb at the same rate and, after another 500 miles you will again be at 166,000 feet.

This, from a distance to horizon calculator explains it:

The Mathematics behind this Calculation

This calculation should be taken as a guide only as it assumes the earth is a perfect ball 6378137 metres radius. It also assumes the horizon you are looking at is at sea level. A triangle is formed with the centre of the earth © as one point, the horizon point (H) is a right angle and the observer (O) the third corner. Using Pythagoras's theorem we can calculate the distance from the observer to the horizon (OH) knowing CH is the earth's radius ® and CO is the earth's radius ® plus observer's height (v) above sea level.

Sitting in a hotel room 10m above sea level a boat on the horizon will be 11.3km away. The reverse is also true, whilst rowing across the Atlantic, the very top of a mountain range 400m high could be seen on your horizon at a distance of 71.4 km assuming the air was clear enough.

What Enoch describes is a plane flying from "O" to "H."  Continuing on that path in a straight line would create a mirror image triangle on the other side of the line "CH."  Or, as I said in post #84.... the plane is flying a tangential path.  In practice, at O, the plane has considerable potential energy and the pilot would need to throttle back to burn off that potential energy until reaching point H.  Then, he would need to increase power in order to regain the potential energy that had been given up.

An aircraft flying straight and level has 4 forces in balance... lift, weight, thrust, and drag.  It will neither climb nor descend.  Enoch's plane starts having weight exceed lift as it descends, then lift exceeding weight as it continues on its path.  I'm sure, as an experienced passenger, Enoch is aware that planes climb to altitude, cruise there .... sometimes thousands of miles beyond the horizon, then descend to the destination.

In short, Enoch's example does not follow the curvature of the Earth which is a requirement of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

##### Share on other sites

Explain WHAT?? And why would I even have to ask for goodness sakes??

Why an earth tat is a flat disc as you suggest would require a god any more than a spherical one. I asked and quoted my question several times.

##### Share on other sites

So this topic has 3 goals, right?

The first is provide an understanding of what the idea of a flat earth would contain. Enoch did this in post #90.

The second is to disproof it. I provided this in post #73.

The third is to educate him, where his home schooling failed?

##### Share on other sites

Enoch: Ahhh no.  Conspiracy Theorists, eh?  The Ultimate no effort 'hand-wave' dismissal of a lunatic    tactic

I didn't mean it like that. I won't use that term if you want. However obviously there are conspiracy theorists such as the guys who say the moon landings are faked, that always seem to play the tactic of, "you disprove this list of complaints...oh and by the way, I've thought of all of the potential complaints and have my answers ready".

It just seems to me it would not matter what anyone argued. I also believe if I took a flat-earther up into space and he was shown the earth and orbited it he would still find a way to say it was not a planet. By definition, that is crackpottery, perhaps not lunacy but definitely you would be dealing with a person incapable of objectivity.

But, I still believe if we took you up into space to orbit the entire thing, that you would accept the earth was not flat. I don't think you have reached that level. We know when people have reached the crackpot level because we see them on TV, people who insist Obama is the anti-Christ and it literally would not matter what you said to them, they would still believe it. Then when he loses the presidency they will move on to saying it is the next president that is the anti-Christ.

##### Share on other sites

They may have a point with Trump.

##### Share on other sites

Keysi: They may have a point with Trump.

Lol.