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

But do I really have a position?

 

 

Yes, you most certainly do.

 

 

My position is that the bible doesn't give literal descriptions of any great detail about the physical nature of the earth as a planet or as a disc, therefore how can I support my position since my position would be supported by the absence of any mention of these things?

 

 

Yes it does, I gave a pretty comprehensive list here: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-4&do=findComment&comment=131573

 

And also, provided you with one of the World's Leading Bible Scholars on the Topic, here: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-2&do=findComment&comment=131471

 

If you don't see it after that, which is quite difficult for me to swallow --- then... so be it.

 

I just don't think the bible includes much in the way of scientific description.

 

 

The Bible is Historical Documentation it has nothing whatever to do with "Science" ---The Scientific Method. 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a non-sequitur that they are that shape BECAUSE of gravity alone. Don't forget, the gravity is already presented by the fact that the object is large and is there, if the object does not yet exist the gravity caused by the large object can't exist either. (putting the cart before the horse). The gravity is caused by the large object not the large object being caused by the gravity.

 

 

If you are implying accretion is proven I have news for you;

 

Normally a given physical system will naturally go towards the state that requires the least amount of energy to maintain. In terms of gravity it takes energy to separate masses from each other, and so the lowest energy state of a gravitational system would be an object that is a sphere; every particle is as close to the center of gravity as it can get without two particles occupying the same space.

 

Of course there are other forces and factors besides gravity, which is why objects of low mass are not necessarily sphere-like, but objects that are of sufficient mass like stars and planets are spheres or close to it.

 

I'm not talking about accretion, although it is related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...I was expecting a colourful tirade, that was pretty cool of you Enoch. I can also understand why you would be suspicious of people's motives after many years of debating. Glad that's sorted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Goku: Normally a given physical system will naturally go towards the state that requires the least amount of energy to maintain. In terms of gravity it takes energy to separate masses from each other, and so the lowest energy state of a gravitational system would be an object that is a sphere; every particle is as close to the center of gravity as it can get without two particles occupying the same space.

 

You claimed gravity causes a large body to create it's spherical shape. Obviously if the large body does not yet exist then there can be no gravity to cause the sphere. First you need a planet in order to create the gravity caused by it's mass.

 

Your logic seems to be that because a wheel is fixed centrally to an axle that the round shape of a wheel is caused by the rotation of the axle because it always rotates dead-centre causing the round shape of the wheel. 

 

But obviously a wheel is designed to be round.

 

Likewise, I can see how a planet can be congruent with gravity, in the best way being spherical, like I can see that a wheel being congruent with an axle is best achieved by being round. 

 

 

 

Goku: Of course there are other forces and factors besides gravity, which is why objects of low mass are not necessarily sphere-like, but objects that are of sufficient mass like stars and planets are spheres or close to it.

 

This obsession with posturing by stating obvious things to us, is quite transparent. We don't need to be told that 2 add 2 is 4, we know there are other forces in the universe. :rolleyes:

 

Red highlight: what is the force that creates the shape of a termite-mound then? Seems to me you are simply ATTRIBUTING the shape of things to forces, without really knowing that those forces fully CAUSED those shapes.

 

Think about it. Read your posts back, - all you have done is provided speculation. You have simply ASSERTED that, "this is why", and "this is why", "oh and by the way, this is why X is this shape".

 

It all counts as begging-the-question fallacy. Prove a planet was made round by gravity. Stop simply saying things and show the experimental evidence OR admit that you believe-by-faith in naturalism/materialism, that you simply BELIEVE it causes those shapes, like you believe a natural force created the intelligently designed shape of a giraffe.

 

That's fine Goku. I don't hate you for believing these things, but don't pretend they are proven facts by using subtle epithets such as, "that's why". "that's why" IMPLIES and is a HEAVY ALLUSION, it IMPLIES that the reason is well known and accepted as 100% proven fact. (misleading)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Enoch: If you don't see it after that, which is quite difficult for me to swallow --- then... so be it.

 

Enoch I think this is the heart of this entire issue. As people, we see things according to our own subjective reasonings/opinions/knowledge/personality etc... and sometimes we believe we accept things because we tell ourselves the evidence they are true is overwhelming but we really believe them because we have an agenda and we dupe ourselves into believing that we are being objective. We create cognitive dissonance to the point where if we are shown the earth is round we will still say it is flat or find a way to say it is flat.

 

For example if a person who thinks they are a wolf and has been raised by wolves, looks in a mirror and is told, "there, you are identical to me", he would probably say, "I see two wolves".

 

The true reason I am not going ALL OUT to prove to you the earth is round is the same reason I wouldn't strive to use all of my intellect to prove that candy-floss filled invisible pigs don't exist.

 

I don't say that to insult you, I am simply telling you the truth, that is how absurd I consider a flat-earth belief to be. My only real interest in this thread was to perhaps reason with you if you were on the fence. If you are dogmatic about the earth being flat, I respect that you have the freewill right to make that choice. 

 

I apologise if I have irritated you in this thread. I will look more into your arguments and try and understand more about them, at some later stage perhaps, but this issue doesn't interest me a great deal I must confess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch I think this is the heart of this entire issue. As people, we see things according to our own subjective reasonings/opinions/knowledge/personality etc... and sometimes we believe we accept things because we tell ourselves the evidence they are true is overwhelming but we really believe them because we have an agenda and we dupe ourselves into believing that we are being objective. 

 

I agree to a point.  Not everyone is the same however and some don't "Dupe" themselves for very long...especially when the Empirical Evidence is overwhelming

 

 

We create cognitive dissonance to the point where if we are shown the earth is round we will still say it is flat or find a way to say it is flat.

 

We create cognitive dissonance to the point where if we are shown the earth is Flat we will still say it is round or find a way to say it is round.

 

 

The true reason I am not going ALL OUT to prove to you the earth is round is the same reason I wouldn't strive to use all of my intellect to prove that candy-floss filled invisible pigs don't exist.

 

 

So this is the TRUE Reason you won't SUPPORT your claims?  :huh:

 

 

I am simply telling you the truth, that is how absurd I consider a flat-earth belief to be. 

 

 

Without warrant and one iota of SUPPORT on a subject a 12 year old could refute with ease if the Earth was a "Spinning Ball" with a circumference of 25,000 miles.

 

If you are dogmatic about the earth being flat, I respect that you have the freewill right to make that choice. 

 

 

I only become 'dogmatic' when the evidence is so overwhelming so as to dictate such a position.  e.g., I'm quite "dogmatic" that Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can't Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints. ect ect

 

 

I apologise if I have irritated you in this thread.

 

 

You have not.  I was hoping for more Creationists to chime in.

 

 

 I will look more into your arguments and try and understand more about them, at some later stage perhaps, but this issue doesn't interest me a great deal I must confess.

 

 

I can see why, you don't have recourse...

 

#1.  Aircraft Maintaining Elevation @ 35,000 feet traveling @ 500 mph on a Spinning Ball --- 'Centripetal Force' is Non-Sequitur.

 

#2. Breathing --- Entropy: High to Low Pressure (all you'd here is a BIG WHOOSH  :laugh_point:  ) ---  You didn't touch it

 

Allow me to Present #3:

 

After the "Mirages" and "Refractions" (rotlol, btw), I thought to myself hmmm   :think: ...then it hit me brightidea.gif like a Freight Train, FROZEN WATER ...

 

"Lake Baikal in the south of Siberia is not only the oldest and deepest lake in the world, but during colder months it freezes and forms one of the flattest surfaces on Earth."
 
Lake Baikal, Russia: 
 
Max. Length: 636 km (395 miles)
Max. Width: 79 km (49 mi)
 
So for a "Spherical 'Ball' Earth" -- 395 miles2 x 8"/12 = 104,016 Feet of Curvature = a Hump in the Middle...20 Miles High!!  In comparison, it would make Mt. Everest look like Kansas!!! 
 
:rotfl3:
 
REFRACT-MIRAGE THAT !!!!  thumbsup.gif
 
The Fat Lady is growing somewhat Hoarse.... and I really just heard the starting gun.
 
 
regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Enoch: So for a "Spherical 'Ball' Earth" -- 395 miles2 x 8"/12 = 104,016 Feet of Curvature = a Hump in the Middle...20 Miles High!!  In comparison, it would make Mt. Everest look like Kansas!!! 

 

Okay, even if you are right on the maths of which I have no idea if you are, from our perspective, wherever we are on the planet will be flat. If you travelled the 395 miles it would not feel like you had climbed four Everests because Everest is a greater distance from the centre of the earth.

 

If you walked the distance of that lake from X to Z, your distance from the centre of the earth would remain the same, meaning it is one of the flattest places on earth, as I assume it is X feet above sea level, and pretty much the same at the other end.

 

Let's say the earth is flat for sake of argument. nevertheless if there is a planet and there is the centre of gravity on that planet, at the centre of that planet, do you agree that if you walk from the bottom of an Everest sized mountain to the top you would be nearly 30 thousand foot farther away from the centre of the planet? Do you agree that if you walked the distance of a lake you would be at the same distance from the centre of the planet at both points? Assuming such a planet exists, and assuming gravity exists, of course. :rolleyes:

 

We don't see that "hump" in the middle because we are so small that from wherever we stand the horizon looks flat. Imagine in the following image, that the red section represents the distance of the lake, and the black block represents a 30,000 foot mountain. Because people are so small and the planet is so large, wherever we are it seems pan flat. On that picture we can see the curvature only because we are at such a great distance relative to the hypothetical planet.

 

post-2116-0-87629800-1463582928_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, on the following very quickly drawn diagram I have created a way of seeing what the curve of the earth would look like from space, for the distance of approximately 400 miles.

 

I took the circumference of the earth which is approximately 24, 000 miles, and I divided it by 400 miles which gives about 60 sections each at 400 miles.

 

On the below chart I split up the circle shown into 16 equal quadrants, approximately, with then meant if I halved the size twice more it would give me a section which is about one 64th of the circle. ( a generous thing to do since we know the figure is closer to 1 quadrant of 60)

 

I then blown up the image to show what the curve of the earth would look like for a 400 mile section. This section is coloured in red. You can see the blow-up picture on the right, showing a curve that is so close to looking flat it is hard to even notice the difference between that curve and a straight line.

 

 

post-2116-0-07028300-1463584016_thumb.jpg

 

CONCLUSION: Even if the curvature of the earth truly is as massive as 200 thousand odd feet for 400 miles of length as you can see the diagram provably shows that in actual fact, visually from this distance we can see how insignificant that distance is, visually, no matter how big the number sounds. I suspect your maths is wrong but even if it is right we can see there would be no visible hump, what there would be is a curve so close to straight it seems flat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, even if you are right on the maths of which I have no idea if you are, from our perspective, wherever we are on the planet will be flat. If you travelled the 395 miles it would not feel like you had climbed four Everests because Everest is a greater distance from the centre of the earth.

 

If you walked the distance of that lake from X to Z, your distance from the centre of the earth would remain the same, meaning it is one of the flattest places on earth, as I assume it is X feet above sea level, and pretty much the same at the other end.

 

Let's say the earth is flat for sake of argument. nevertheless if there is a planet and there is the centre of gravity on that planet, at the centre of that planet, do you agree that if you walk from the bottom of an Everest sized mountain to the top you would be nearly 30 thousand foot farther away from the centre of the planet? Do you agree that if you walked the distance of a lake you would be at the same distance from the centre of the planet at both points? Assuming such a planet exists, and assuming gravity exists, of course. :rolleyes:

 

We don't see that "hump" in the middle because we are so small that from wherever we stand the horizon looks flat. Imagine in the following image, that the red section represents the distance of the lake, and the black block represents a 30,000 foot mountain. Because people are so small and the planet is so large, wherever we are it seems pan flat. On that picture we can see the curvature only because we are at such a great distance relative to the hypothetical planet.

 

attachicon.giftower.jpg

 

 

Oh, I'm as right as the rain...

 

 

http://flatearthwiki.com/index.php?title=Earth%27s_Curvature

Ball Earth Curvature Chart - Imperial

Bluemarb.jpg

 

Your position and appeals are so woefully untenable, it's difficult to put it into words.

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Lake Baikal in the south of Siberia is not only the oldest and deepest lake in the world, but during colder months it freezes and forms one of the flattest surfaces on Earth."

http://www.redbull.com/us/en/adventure/stories/1331712375916/mysterious-places-part-5

 

 

Lake Baikal, Russia: 

 

Max. Length: 636 km (395 miles)

Max. Width: 79 km (49 mi)

 

So for a "Spherical 'Ball' Earth" -- 395 miles2 x 8"/12 = 104,016 Feet of Curvature = a Hump in the Middle...20 Miles High!!  In comparison, it would make Mt. Everest look like Kansas!!!

How is "flatness" determined? Would the method used have different results if Earth were indeed spherical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you are calculating the visual horizon of a spherical object, then the radius of that object must be part of your calculations.  Right?  That's what dictates the degree of curvature between two points on the sphere, e.g., the smaller the radius -> the more curvature; the larger the radius -> the less curvature.  So, again, I don't follow what you are calculating here. 

Reference my post #96.  It explains what Enoch envisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch is treating it as if an airplane flies tangent with respect to the surface from it's current position.

 

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

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

Please don't attempt to Divert my Thread sir.

As documented (above), it was you, not I who diverted the thread.   If you don't like my response to your diversion(s), then with all due respect, I suggest YOU keep it on-topic.

 

Stop wasting my time 

You are free to not respond as I point out your absurdities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to a point.  Not everyone is the same however and some don't "Dupe" themselves for very long...especially when the Empirical Evidence is overwhelming

You seem to be the exception in that the empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports a spherical planet.

 

After the "Mirages" and "Refractions" (rotlol, btw), I thought to myself hmmm   :think: ...then it hit me brightidea.gif like a Freight Train, FROZEN WATER ...

 

"Lake Baikal in the south of Siberia is not only the oldest and deepest lake in the world, but during colder months it freezes and forms one of the flattest surfaces on Earth."
 
Lake Baikal, Russia: 
 
Max. Length: 636 km (395 miles)
Max. Width: 79 km (49 mi)

Excellent example.

 

I think we all agree that:

1)  Lake surfaces are level.  Specifically, the surface of the lake at all points will be at right angles to the normal force.

2)  A frozen lake surface will also be level.... confirmed by your citation.

3)  For a height of 6 feet (about 2 meters), the horizon will be at a distance of about 3 miles (around 5 km).

 

Here's an experiment  .... wait, let me rename this as a "test" of a flat Earth. (All numbers are rounded for convenience.):

Two individuals each about 6 feet tall go out to the frozen Lake Baikal on a day when the visibility is over 10 miles.   If the Earth is flat, they should still be able to see each other (from head to toe) at the limits of visibility.  These two people begin to walk in opposite directions, checking periodically to see how much of the other person each is able to see.   What we will observe is that as these two people move farther and farther apart, they see less and less of each other with the section of them blocked beginning at the ground and working up until, at a distance of about 6 miles, all each of them can see of the other is their heads.... from the neck down they are completely blocked by the horizon..

 

This is what mariners and those living close to ocean coast lines have observed for centuries.  It is entirely consistent with a spherical planet but is totally inconsistent with a flat Earth.

 

How does this happen on a flat Earth?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Four Fundamental Forces (Strength): 

 
Strong Nuclear = 1
Electromagnetic = .001
Weak Nuclear = .0000000000000001
gravity = .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001   :laugh_point: 

 

So that's 'the force' allegedly holding the air in from the ground to 186 miles and above ?  :blink:  ...Yep, and I'm a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot.

Yet gravity is strong enough to hold you to the surface of the planet.

 

If gravity is such a weak force, then you should have no problem at all with stepping off a 1000 foot high cliff;  After all, gravity is too weak to cause any kind of problem ..... right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

EnochYour position and appeals are so woefully untenable, it's difficult to put it into words.

 

Colourful question-begging-epithets, prove little.

 

Here I have clearly shown that on a sphere that has a circumference of about 24,000 miles, if you half that on the diagram of the circle, by drawing a line, obviously on a 2D diagram each distance of curvature for each section would be 12,000 miles. Am I left or right? 

 

So to divide it by 4 you get 6,000 miles. 24,000/8 = 3000. /16 = 1,500. /32 = 750. /64 = 375 miles.

 

So if we split the earth up into 64 equal pieces like on the diagram I shown, then each section would represent 375 miles. 

 

Conclusion: The diagram shows that for one 64th of a circle you can visibly see that the curvature looks so TINY that if you isolate that section and only look at that section on a blown-up image (coloured red on my diagram), then you can clearly see that the curvature is so hard to see that it is close to a straight line, meaning your claim that there would be a great lump in the middle of that lake, isn't correct. The reason why Everest is an obvious lump is because of it's height to base ratio. If Everest had a base that was 1,000 miles in diameter in every direction, and it's peak was 500 miles in every direction, then Everest would look like a pancake-flat field. :acigar: We would still be looking for Everest this time next month. The reason it's altitude is so BLATANT, is because it is so very narrow at it's base and even narrower at it's top. But from a very high birdseye view, Everest starts to look like a mere part of a scar on the earth, just one part of the scar which is the Himalayas. Massive from our puny perspective, but a blip from any real height.

 

What would be more noticable, a hill that is 1000 foot high but is moor-land as far as we can see, or a tower that is 50 foot in diameter but 1000 foot high? It is all about relativity. That is what you never seem to factor into your equation. From our perspective that lake is pancake flat, as the horizon always moves as we move. (relative to us)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are free to not respond as I point out your absurdities.

 

You haven't pointed out anything other than your usual SOP Incoherent Straw Man Fallacies. 

 

You're just upset because you got your "Clock Cleaned" (per usual) @ Light Speed with your trainwreck matheMagics...here: ( http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-4&do=findComment&comment=131569 ....

 

and I Quote:

 

Piasan: "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?"

 

Enoch2021: "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   :rolleyes: : 166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 Feet per minute."

 

You then "Wholesale Dodged" that   :rotfl: with your next trainwreck Straw Man retort, here: ( http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-5&do=findComment&comment=131585 )...

 

Piasan: "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?"

 

1. Can you tell me what on earth this is..."Why not show that the airplane you say needs to be pointed", pray tell ??  Is English your first language ?

 

2. How can I show you an Airplane descending over a Fictitious Globe "Ball Earth" @ 2777 feet per minute to Maintain Altitude, when they don't need to -- because Errr...the Earth is Flat ??  In other words, you want me to show you something that never occurs? :get_a_clue:  

 

3. Who on Earth is talking about gaining "Energy" :blink: ...more importantly, who is talking about GAINING Altitude??  My Argument is, it must LOSE Altitude to follow the "alleged" Curvature of the Earth.  It's kinda the opposite and in the "well duh" territory. 

 

 

Then your feeble attempt @ diversion (Same Link)...

 

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

 

For everything Sacred and Holy, I sure hope the lurkers DO go check those subjects out !!!  Your appeal ( feebly concocted BLUFF) here is tantamount to Hitler challenging the Allies vehemently to send Crime Scene Investigators to Auschwitz !

 

 

Then the Final Cherry on Top conclusion of the "Wholesale Dodge" (Caveat:  This isn't a Straw Man Fallacy, it's more of Hanlon's Razor motif)...

 

Piasan: "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."

 

1.  Errr, it's not inches per mile for each and every mile Captain....it's 8 inches per mile by the Total Distance -- Squared.

 

2.  And Again, How can I show you something that never happens??  Ask one of your evo-cohorts that have Special Mind Powers to assist you. thumbsup.gif

 

 

Oy Vey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colourful question-begging-epithets, prove little.

 

Sure, it's tantamount to walking on the North Shore of Hawaii and exclaiming, "What Ocean??"  :dono:

 

 

Is there something particularly confusing about this ?? ...

 

http://flatearthwiki...rth's_Curvature

Ball Earth Curvature Chart - Imperial

Bluemarb.jpg

....????

 

Or is your argument that you live on a 'Spinning Ball" -- Sphere... without arc ?  :rotfl2: 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Enoch: Is there something particularly confusing about this ?? ...

 

No, but there's something you haven't noticed from that diagram. Look at part of the diagram again, only a bit closer, using a keen Columbo-eye:

 

 

 

As you can see, the distance of Baikal on that flat-earthers diagram, is so slight a curve that it almost resembles a straight line. Look at the red line below, that is the curve of the earth, the closer you get to the earth the flatter and flatter the curve seems. If you zoomed in to every two miles, you could not notice the curve any more. (Everest is the blue triangle, as Everest is 5 miles high, only this is a wild exaggeration because Everest would not look that big because Everest starts way above sea-level, so that would be Everest if it started from sea-level without any other mountains around it).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. How can I show you an Airplane descending over a Fictitious Globe "Ball Earth" @ 2777 feet per minute to Maintain Altitude, when they don't need to -- because Errr...the Earth is Flat ??  In other words, you want me to show you something that never occurs? :get_a_clue:

How can you claim that airplanes can't or don't fly in a way that would maintain altitude over a spherical Earth if you can't show any work to prove it?

 

The physics of flight are very well understood. It's entirely possible to say "Ok, instead of the plane being attracted to uniform 'down' direction*, what if it's attracted toward the center of mass of the planet?", and work out how a plane would behave under those conditions.

 

The video's claim is that a plane would have to be flown in a way that planes don't or can't fly to maintain altitude in such conditions, but that assertion isn't supported in the video and hasn't been supported by you.

 

*or however you think things falling toward the ground works in a flat earth scenario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Enoch: Or is your argument that you live on a 'Spinning Ball" -- Sphere... without arc ?

 

No my argument is that appealing to large numbers doesn't mean anything, as those figures have to be taken in relation to the size of the earth.

 

For example, 5% of 100 is 5 but 5% of 100 million is 5 million. 

 

5 million seems a massive figure but it isn't massive relative to 100 million.

 

The earth falling away some 200,000 feet every 400 miles or thereabouts, is not massive in relation to the circumference of the earth which is 24,000 miles, approximately. On a sphere that size, 200,000 foot of drop is a drop in the ocean. From our point of view relative to the horizon, we simply would never notice it because the horizon always travels with us on a sphere.

 

So it's ironic when you use laughing smilies. I describe to someone that on a cube there are six faces and they laugh at me because they argue there is obviously four faces.

 

But sure - go ahead and make out I am a retard if it amuses you. (what does the bible say about sitting in the seat of mockers?)

 

 

 

Enoch: Or is your argument that you live on a 'Spinning Ball" -- Sphere... without arc ?

 

So if I disagree with the mathematical figure you have arrived at, or I at least doubt it, it then follows that I believe a sphere would not have an arc? Couldn't it follow that I believe it has an arc but with a different mathematical figure? :smashfreak:

 

"Khan...I'm LAUG.." (don't have me go there!   :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but there's something you haven't noticed from that diagram. 

 

I don't think you do, Especially when you're posting Cartoon Drawings from who knows where in an attempt to "Side-Step" it.

 

 

As you can see, the distance of Baikal on that flat-earthers diagram, is so slight a curve...

 

 

1.  "Flat Earther's" Diagram??  I thought I was the Originator!  Where'd you get this Cartoon from?

 

2.  The distance is a curve?  A Curve can have a distance but a distance isn't a Curve. The Distance is 395 miles.

 

Do you know the Declination of that Distance on a Sphere with a circumference of 25,000 miles ??  Do you need me to post it again?

 

 

Look at part of the diagram again, only a bit closer, using a keen Columbo-eye:

 

 

On which part of the Cartoon? 

 

 

If you zoomed in to every two miles

 

 

And we get to "The RUB" ...where are you ZOOMING IN from ?  :laugh_point:

 

 

 

Look at the red line below, that is the curve of the earth

 

 

Sure it is.  I'm waiting for Wile E. Coyote to come popping out.

 

 

....the closer you get to the earth the flatter and flatter the curve seems

 

 

Well yea, cause The Earth is Flat.   What do you mean by the "Closer you get to the Earth"...?

 

 

No my argument is that appealing to large numbers doesn't mean anything, as those figures have to be taken in relation to the size of the earth.

 

 

Well I'm not appealing to "Large Numbers", I'm appealing to The Pythagorean Theorum  which gives 8 inches per mile as the curvature on a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference. 

Spherical Trigonometry dictates that it varies inversely with the square of the mile so the first mile establishes line of sight, the second mile would fall 8 inches, the third mile 32 inches, the fourth mile 72 inches ect ect.

 

And I am taking "Those Figures" in Relation to the Size of the Earth.  Again...

 

Is there something particularly confusing about this ?? ...

 

http://flatearthwiki...rth's_Curvature

Ball Earth Curvature Chart - Imperial

Bluemarb.jpg

Do you see the relation to the Size of the Earth here??

 

 

But sure - go ahead and make out I am a retard if it amuses you.

 

 

I don't think and never have considered you a retard   :think: .  Please stop Reifying "Smiley Faces/emogi's" as me attempting to impugn your Intelligence.

 

 

(what does the bible say about sitting in the seat of mockers?)

 

 

Well, I'm not mocking you....so that takes care of that.  If you asked, what does the Bible Say about the Six Days of Creation it would have the same relevance here.

 

I find it truly Ironic that I (Flat Earther) was being charged with mocking a Spherical Earth believer. 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you claim that airplanes can't or don't fly in a way that would maintain altitude over a spherical Earth if you can't show any work to prove it?

 

I'm saying they do fly to maintain their altitude.  But to do that on a Spherical Earth with a Circumference of 25,000 miles they would have to make the 2777 foot adjustment every minute @ 500 mph. --- ( I've now explained and SHOWED this @ Least 10 times to you personally, and over 80 on this Thread).

 

They don't make these Ludicrous Adjustments, Cause....Wait for it.....The Earth is FLAT !!!

 

The physics of flight are very well understood. It's entirely possible to say "Ok, instead of the plane being attracted to uniform 'down' direction*, what if it's attracted toward the center of mass of the planet?", and work out how a plane would behave under those conditions.

 

 

What is your specific argument here...?

 

 

*or however you think things falling toward the ground works in a flat earth scenario

 

 

Yes it's called "DENSITY" and the consequences thereof.

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying they do fly to maintain their altitude.  But to do that on a Spherical Earth with a Circumference of 25,000 miles they would have to make the 2777 foot adjustment every minute @ 500 mph. --- ( I've now explained and SHOWED this @ Least 10 times to you personally, and over 80 on this Thread).

 

They don't make these Ludicrous Adjustments, Cause....Wait for it.....The Earth is FLAT !!!

Why would that 2,777 foot adjustment be "ludicrous"? Please show your work.

 

Also keep in mind that by "show your work", I mean detail the forces involved or describe what the passengers would experience and why. I don't mean repost the same numbers in a different color or with a different emoticon.

 

What is your specific argument here...?

It is possible to show your work. You don't have to have an actual spherical Earth and a plane to determine whether a theoretical plane could fly level around a theoretical Earth. The physics and forces involved are well described, even if you don't think those descriptions are accurate..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in '99 I was just starting high school....

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