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

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.....

 

It's easy to circumnavigate a flat disc...

 

Flat_Earth-magellan.png

 

I want to see Just ONE from North to South   :gotcha:

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

 

:consoling:   Didn't we go over this before.... like for a couple pages?  And it's 2777 ft every minute @ 500 mph.

 

Paisan --- "Actually, I am a licensed pilot"....  "If one were to descend at over 2700 ft/min ... a really steep descent ... the nose of the plane would be pointed well below the horizon."

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-4&do=findComment&comment=131519

 

 

Show my work ??  :get_a_clue:  Isn't it plainly obvious to an 8 year old ?

 

This is tantamount to requesting to 'show my work' for establishing Rib-Eye's come from Cows.

 

 

regards 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, #4 (Connected to #2 --- Entropy)...

 

"There's no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space, says Dr Kevin Pimbblet, lecturer in astrophysics at the University of Queensland."

 

Since there is no physical boundary between our atmosphere and the Vacuum of Space, How on Earth can you have a Vacuum connected to a Non-Vacuum and still have the properties of a Vacuum? :blink:   :shock: 1000000000----->
 
  “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.†---- Mark Twain

 

regards

 
 
 
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:consoling:   Didn't we go over this before.... like for a couple pages?  And it's 2777 ft every minute @ 500 mph.

You repeated yourself a bunch, but never actually explained anything. No explanation of what the passengers would experience. No discussion of the pitch down that would be required. Just a lot of emoticons and you acting incredulous.

Paisan --- "Actually, I am a licensed pilot"....  "If one were to descend at over 2700 ft/min ... a really steep descent ... the nose of the plane would be pointed well below the horizon."

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-4&do=findComment&comment=131519

I already addressed this:

 

"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?

You're equivocating between two different ideas of what descending means. More specifically you're trying to apply the flat Earth notion of a constant "down" to a spherical Earth. That's why I keep asking you to explain what you think the forces involved would look like, or what the passengers would experience.

 

If thrust is the same (because the plane is flying at constant speed), and lift and gravity are the same (because the plane flying at a constant altitude), where does the ludicrousness come in?

 

Show my work ??  :get_a_clue:  Isn't it plainly obvious to an 8 year old ?

Sometimes 8 year olds come to incorrect conclusions. Sometimes 50 year olds come to incorrect conclusions. That a thing is obvious to you at whatever age is meaningless unless you can support it.

 

This is tantamount to requesting to 'show my work' for establishing Rib-Eye's come from Cows.

Which you could easily do, if the evidence was actually on your side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No explanation of what the passengers would experience. No discussion of the pitch down that would be required. 

 

Your appeals and trainwreck arguments are CLEARLY no better than that of a clumsy child, sir.

 

Thanks for Posting, Sincerely thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, Enoch gets extra points there for getting in a Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos Ramírez reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets continue with the 200 point debunk continuation. I will make use of the link Popoi provided, which has a text version of the video. It is found here.

 

Items 001-010 in post #40.

Items 011-020 in post #44.

 

There were objections to the following points (per post #46): My original. Enoch's reply.

8. Panama canal is horizontal!
You do realize that horizontal is curved with the horizon, right? If not, see 4.   (Guess what this is??)
First, I'll correct my assessment, the canal in question was the Suez canal, not the Panama canal (irrelevant detail).
My conclusion remains, the canal is horizontal, not straight. 
When you look at a circle and zoom in close enough, it'll resemble a straight line. That's one of the reasons we can make approximations in calculation. For instance, the sin of a corner can be taken to the corner itself (sin(x)=x) for very small corners (for small x's).
 
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??)
The argument is that engineer W. Winckler said that it was absurd. 
I'll counter that with (being an engineer myself) saying that a flat Earth is absurd. Now what.
Fact remains, as I pointed out in point 7:
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.
 
10. London to Liverpool
You measure from the center of the earth. (  :blink: )
Popoi: Fjuri is correct that sea level is defined as a particular distance from the center of the earth, which is ...
I must correct myself (and Popoi). The sea is not equidistant from the center of the earth. I'll be closer to a level in which the resulting force (from gravity and rotation) is equal. 
So, the water will fill in as much low area's as possible to get as low a potential energy as possible. Similarly, London and Liverpool are at similar potential energy levels.
 
15. check 7:40. Airplanes should be space ships!! (He calls this an answer?? ) ...
That was the claim from the video...
Let us look at the plane. It has a potential energy from its height compared to the earth surface. An increase in distance to the earth center is an increase in potential energy. A decrease in distance to the earth center is a decrease in potential energy. So for a plane to follow the straight line, as suggested, it would cause an increase in potential energy. This would need to be 'created' somehow. It isn't, so the plane will stay level automatically.
 
More to come...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets continue with the 200 point debunk continuation. I will make use of the link Popoi provided, which has a text version of the video. It is found here.

 

Why continue "Whistl'n Past the Graveyard"??, You haven't answered these...

 

#1.  If the Earth is 25,000 feet in circumference, then Pilots flying @ 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 !!!

 
500 miles2 x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet, Total Drop needed in one hour.
 
166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 Feet per minute.
 
ERGO...TO MAINTAIN ALTITUDE you would constantly have to adjust the altitude downwards (Decline and/or Speed) to Compensate for the Curvature of the Earth and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!
 
A flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity in comparison.
 
 
 
#2I have another question:  How is it that you're breathing right now?  :gotcha:   According to the Laws of Entropy --- if not purposely hindered, High Pressure to Low Pressure...ALWAYS!!  You're surrounded by the Vacuum of Space -- nearly a perfect vacuum, with 'No Boundary'. 
 
"There's no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space, says Dr Kevin Pimbblet, lecturer in astrophysics at the University of Queensland."
 
Outer Space should be sucking the air out of the atmosphere @ break neck speed until equilibrium is reached: 
 
Sea Level =  760 Torr
 
> 105,000 Feet (32 km) turbojets no longer function ≈ 8 Torr
> 264,000 Feet (80.5 km) = U.S. definition of space flight ≈ 10-3 Torr
 
Low Earth Orbit (300km/186 miles)) Pressure = 10-9 Torr:
 
Moon Pressure = 10-12 Torr:
 
Interstellar/Deep Space ≈ 10-17 Torr

 

 

 

#3. "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!!! 
 
 
#4. "There's no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space, says Dr Kevin Pimbblet, lecturer in astrophysics at the University of Queensland."

 

Since there is no physical boundary between our atmosphere and the Vacuum of Space, How on Earth can you have a Vacuum connected to a Non-Vacuum and still have the properties of a Vacuum?  :blink:    :shock: 1000000000----->
 
 
 
These are next on the docket...
 
#5. It is impossible for a convex object ('allegedly', The Moon) to uniformly reflect light equally in all directions, only flat or concave surfaces can do so i.e., to have any angle of incidence.  If a surface is convex, then every ray of light points in a direct line perpendicular to the surface resulting in ZERO Reflection!
 
#6. If the Moon is reflecting the Sun's Light (which it's not, SEE Immediately Above) then why is the Temperature of Moonlight colder than it is in Moon-Shade ?
 
 
#7.   hqdefault.jpg
:rotfl3:
 
 
regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:  

OK.... Let's put another stake in the heart of Enoch's 2777 fpm argument.

 

Enoch (because I sure as hell won't do this one .....) is flying an airplane at 500 mph and an altitude of 2800 feet.  According to Enoch, that aircraft must descend at 2777 fpm.  We know from previous calculations that 500 mph = 8.33 miles per minute.  At 8 inches times the distance (in miles) squared, in the first minute the surface of the Earth falls off by 8.33 miles squared times 0.67 feet per mile or 46.5 feet.   Enoch has descended from 2800 feet to 23 feet (plus the 45.5 feet due to the curvature of the Earth... or a new altitude of less than 70 feet.  In less than two more seconds, Enoch is going to kiss the ground at 500 mph.  IOW, his life expectancy during this dive is less than 62 seconds.... which is why I'll leave this one for Enoch.

 

As previously demonstrated (in post #96), what Enoch describes is the average rate of descent to reach the ground at the horizon from a distance of 500 miles.... but if he doesn't start out at an altitude of about 167,000 feet, he's going to have serious problems with that rate of descent.

 

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 !

What Enoch calls my "feeble attempt @ diversion" was, in fact, a (documented) response to a diversion by Enoch.  I again remind Enoch that if he wants to keep this discussion on-topic then he needs to lead by example.   I also hope lurkers will go check those subjects out.  They will quickly find Enoch's argument on that topic amounted to: "is not."  

 

Hopefully, lurkers will also notice that Enoch provided Lake Biakal in Siberia as "one of the flattest places on Earth."  I proposed a test that could be conducted on that lake to demonstrate if the Earth is curved or flat.  In that post, I also pointed out that this effect is something that has been observed for centuries. Enoch has (understandably) not responded to that example.... maybe that was just another "feeble attempt @ diversion" by me.  I see it as yet another nail in the coffin of a flat Earth.

 

(Note:  As I was composing this, Enoch posted #159 which again mentions his Lake Biakal example... while he has not addressed the rebuttal I have posted.  My prediction:   As with his rate of descent claim, Enoch will simply repost Lake Biakal until it too becomes an "argumentum ad nauseam")

 

 

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.

OK.... let's try this with three aircraft .... all at an altitude of 1000 feet.  We'll use helicopters because they have hovering capability (which makes the example easier to understand, but it doesn't change the math).  These aircraft are spaced 10 miles apart which means the first aircraft will descend 66.7 feet when it reaches the second aircraft.  These aircraft are now flying together.

 

According to Enoch, over the next 10 miles, the first aircraft (which is now travelling 20 miles total will have a total drop of 268 feet less the 66 feet of the first 10 miles, so in the second 10 miles it will descend about 200 feet more than the second aircraft which has only descended 66.7 feet.  Yet, according to Enoch, these aircraft should be side-by-side.  The second aircraft, which has only travelled 10 miles will descend 66.7 feet.  At this point, the third aircraft joins the other two.

 

Over the next 10 miles, the first aircraft which has now travelled 30 miles will have a total drop of 600 feet.  This means that in the third segment, it has "gone down" by 332 feet.  The second aircraft will descend by a total of 268 feet with 200 feet of that being in the third segment and the third aircraft will descend only 66.7 feet.

 

Yet all three of these aircraft are flying side-by-side at an altitude of 1000 feet.  I will leave it to Enoch to explain how three aircraft can "drop" different distances and remain in formation.

 

The differences only get worse as the distances increase.

 

(Eating the cherry on Enoch's "Wholesale Dodge" claim.)   Thanks, Enoch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to circumnavigate a flat disc...

 

Flat_Earth-magellan.png

 

I want to see Just ONE from North to South   :gotcha:

Too easy....

 

Already done, several times.  From this link:

TAG Group vice president Aziz Ojjeh and a team of four other pilots broke a

31-year-old speed record for a pole-to-pole circumnavigation of the globe in late November. The TransPolar08 crew circled the globe over the North and South Poles in a Bombardier Global Express, chopping 95 minutes off the record previously held by a Pan Am Boeing 747SP that made the trip in October 1977.

 

In fact, we know both the polar and equatorial circumference of the Earth:

The Earth’s circumference – the distance around the equator – is 40,075 kilometers around. ..... The Earth’s meridional (Pi notes: that's north-south) circumference is 40,008 km.

 

Enoch can now reconcile that with a flat Earth...... but I won't be holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absolutely hilarious, did you consult a 3rd grader? ....

 

 

Lets continue with the 200 point debunk continuation. I will make use of the link Popoi provided, which has a text version of the video. It is found here.

 

Items 001-010 in post #40.

Items 011-020 in post #44.

 

There were objections to the following points (per post #46): My original. Enoch's reply.

8. Panama canal is horizontal!
You do realize that horizontal is curved with the horizon, right? If not, see 4.   (Guess what this is??)
First, I'll correct my assessment, the canal in question was the Suez canal, not the Panama canal (irrelevant detail).
My conclusion remains, the canal is horizontal, not straight. 
When you look at a circle and zoom in close enough, it'll resemble a straight line. That's one of the reasons we can make approximations in calculation. For instance, the sin of a corner can be taken to the corner itself (sin(x)=x) for very small corners (for small x's).
 
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??)
The argument is that engineer W. Winckler said that it was absurd. 
I'll counter that with (being an engineer myself) saying that a flat Earth is absurd. Now what.
Fact remains, as I pointed out in point 7:
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.
 
10. London to Liverpool
You measure from the center of the earth. (   :blink: )
Popoi: Fjuri is correct that sea level is defined as a particular distance from the center of the earth, which is ...
I must correct myself (and Popoi). The sea is not equidistant from the center of the earth. I'll be closer to a level in which the resulting force (from gravity and rotation) is equal. 
So, the water will fill in as much low area's as possible to get as low a potential energy as possible. Similarly, London and Liverpool are at similar potential energy levels.
 
15. check 7:40. Airplanes should be space ships!! (He calls this an answer?? ) ...
That was the claim from the video...
Let us look at the plane. It has a potential energy from its height compared to the earth surface. An increase in distance to the earth center is an increase in potential energy. A decrease in distance to the earth center is a decrease in potential energy. So for a plane to follow the straight line, as suggested, it would cause an increase in potential energy. This would need to be 'created' somehow. It isn't, so the plane will stay level automatically.
 

:rotfl3:

 

1. .First, I'll correct my assessment, the canal in question was the Suez canal, not the Panama canal (irrelevant detail).
2.  My conclusion remains, the canal is horizontal, not straight. 
3.  When you look at a circle and zoom in close enough, it'll resemble a straight line. That's one of the reasons we can make approximations in calculation. For instance, the sin of a corner can be taken to the corner itself (sin(x)=x) for very small corners (for small x's).

 

1. astonishing.

2. So it's horizontal not straight, eh?  So it's horizontally curved ?

3. Breath Taking.  What does this have to do with the argument?

 

 

1.  The argument is that engineer W. Winckler said that it was absurd. 
2.  I'll counter that with (being an engineer myself) saying that a flat Earth is absurd. Now what.
3.  Fact remains, as I pointed out in point 7:
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.

 

 

1.  That's correct.

2.  Well he was Published.  Post the Projects you've Published....?

3.   :cry: Errr, it's 8 inches per mile2 (for what, the 25th time?).  Post those 'expansion coefficients' and materials for that ...?  :laugh_point:

 

1. I must correct myself (and Popoi). The sea is not equidistant from the center of the earth.
2. I'll be closer to a level in which the resulting force (from gravity and rotation) is equal. 
3. So, the water will fill in as much low area's as possible to get as low a potential energy as possible. Similarly, London and Liverpool are at similar potential energy levels.

 

1. Where is the Center of the Earth?

2. Gravity??  What's That....i.e., What is Gravity and What is the Cause...?  "Rotation"? --- Begging The Question Fallacy.  Errr..that's what you're trying to prove.

3. That's amazing.  Who is talking about Potential Energy? 

 

 

Let us look at the plane. It has a potential energy from its height compared to the earth surface. An increase in distance to the earth center is an increase in potential energy. A decrease in distance to the earth center is a decrease in potential energy. So for a plane to follow the straight line, as suggested, it would cause an increase in potential energy. This would need to be 'created' somehow. It isn't, so the plane will stay level automatically.

 

 

You sure got this thing for Potential Energy, don'tcha?  What on Earth does this have to do with the price of pineapple in Hawaii, pray tell??

 

 

oy vey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too easy....

 

Already done, several times.  From this link:

TAG Group vice president Aziz Ojjeh and a team of four other pilots broke a

31-year-old speed record for a pole-to-pole circumnavigation of the globe in late November. The TransPolar08 crew circled the globe over the North and South Poles in a Bombardier Global Express, chopping 95 minutes off the record previously held by a Pan Am Boeing 747SP that made the trip in October 1977.

 

 

Ahhh from your link....

 

"Ojjeh and his crew opted to fly westbound, preferring to take a chance on the strength of prevailing headwinds to conduct more of the flight in daylight than if they had taken the eastbound option. The westerly course also allowed them to avoid congested airspace."

 

So they flew westbound to circumnavigate the Earth from North to South ??  :blink:   The request wasn't to have them fly in a circle around the 'Poles' Captain  :gilligan: .

 

Post the Flight Paths....?

 

btw, anything on the Non-Vacuum Vacuum ?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too easy....

 

Already done, several times.  From this link:

TAG Group vice president Aziz Ojjeh and a team of four other pilots broke a

31-year-old speed record for a pole-to-pole circumnavigation of the globe in late November. The TransPolar08 crew circled the globe over the North and South Poles in a Bombardier Global Express, chopping 95 minutes off the record previously held by a Pan Am Boeing 747SP that made the trip in October 1977.

 

In fact, we know both the polar and equatorial circumference of the Earth:

The Earth’s circumference – the distance around the equator – is 40,075 kilometers around. ..... The Earth’s meridional (Pi notes: that's north-south) circumference is 40,008 km.

 

Enoch can now reconcile that with a flat Earth...... but I won't be holding my breath.

 

Ahhh from your link....

 

"Ojjeh and his crew opted to fly westbound, preferring to take a chance on the strength of prevailing headwinds to conduct more of the flight in daylight than if they had taken the eastbound option. The westerly course also allowed them to avoid congested airspace."

 

So they flew westbound to circumnavigate the Earth from North to South ??  :blink:   The request wasn't to have them fly in a circle around the 'Poles' Captain  :gilligan: .

Post the Flight Paths....? 

You could have simply found it at the link.

:

TAG TransPolar 08 Record Flight Attempt

• Departs TAG Aviation’s Farnborough Airport in the UK at 10.05.54 UTC on November 21

• First technical stop at Whitehorse, Canada

• Second technical stop at Majuro, Marshall Islands

• Third technical stop at Christchurch, New Zealand

• Fourth technical stop at Punta Arenas, Chile

• Fifth technical stop at Sal, Cape Verde Islands

 

In addition, we have had satellites in polar orbits for decades.

 

btw, anything on the Non-Vacuum Vacuum ?? 

I had made no claims with regard to the vacuum other than Earth's gravity holds the atmosphere to the planet.  You have cited a source stating that there is no clear demarcation between the Earth's atmosphere and space.  Since I completely agree with that, there was no need for a comment by me.

 

Besides, that is somewhat off topic and I wouldn't want to be accused of an attempt to divert the discussion.

 

More on topic.... anything on those guys walking on a frozen Lake Biakal? It is, after all, specifically on-topic as it supports a curved planet and is incompatible with a flat Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have simply found it at the link.

:

TAG TransPolar 08 Record Flight Attempt

• Departs TAG Aviation’s Farnborough Airport in the UK at 10.05.54 UTC on November 21

• First technical stop at Whitehorse, Canada

• Second technical stop at Majuro, Marshall Islands

• Third technical stop at Christchurch, New Zealand

• Fourth technical stop at Punta Arenas, Chile

• Fifth technical stop at Sal, Cape Verde Islands

 

1. You accidentally on purpose forgot to answer...

 

Ahhh from your link....

 

"Ojjeh and his crew opted to fly westbound, preferring to take a chance on the strength of prevailing headwinds to conduct more of the flight in daylight than if they had taken the eastbound option. The westerly course also allowed them to avoid congested airspace."

 

Do you understand that West to East is not North to South ??

 

2. This isn't a Flight Path these are "Stops".  Post the Fairytale GPS Tracking Data:gotcha:   I wanna see that TRICK!

 

 

In addition, we have had satellites in polar orbits for decades.

 

Sure, and Pol Pot was a Humanitarian and anton lavey was pre-trib.

 

 

I had made no claims with regard to the vacuum other than Earth's gravity holds the atmosphere to the planet.

 

 

1.  What is Gravity?  What is it's Cause...?

 

2.  Reification Fallacy:  gravity "holds".  What is the Fairytale Mechanism "Holding" the atmosphere to the planet?

 

 

You have cited a source stating that there is no clear demarcation between the Earth's atmosphere and space.  Since I completely agree with that, there was no need for a comment by me.

 

 

So how are you BREATHING RIGHT NOW ??  Please explain how a Vacuum can be attached to a Non-Vacuum and still remain a Vacuum ??  

 

 

Besides, that is somewhat off topic and I wouldn't want to be accused of an attempt to divert the discussion.

 

 

oh brother

 

 

 It is, after all, specifically on-topic as it supports a curved planet and is incompatible with a flat Earth.

 

 

So you're saying one of the Flattest places on Earth supports a Curved Earth ?  :blink:

 

Does Oxidation Support Phlogiston?

 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to circumnavigate a flat disc...

 

Flat_Earth-magellan.png

 

I want to see Just ONE from North to South :gotcha:

 

 

regards

Sure, I can circumnavigate around my house .....only if I change my direction from time to time; however, if I don't change directions, I'm not circumnavigating anything unless I'm walking on an ellipsoid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:consoling:   Didn't we go over this before.... like for a couple pages?  And it's 2777 ft every minute @ 500 mph.

 

Paisan --- "Actually, I am a licensed pilot"....  "If one were to descend at over 2700 ft/min ... a really steep descent ... the nose of the plane would be pointed well below the horizon."

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-4&do=findComment&comment=131519

 

 

Show my work ??  :get_a_clue:  Isn't it plainly obvious to an 8 year old ?

 

This is tantamount to requesting to 'show my work' for establishing Rib-Eye's come from Cows.

 

 

regards

 

2,700 feet/min, but yet the plane gets no closer or further from the ground. To those on the plane and the plane itself, it feels like a smooth level flight. So, E, hypothetical speaking of course, if the earth is indeed a gigantic sphere, would that not be exactly how one would fly a plane for the bulk of the flight, e.g., at a constant altitude above the ground? ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

 

Is this a Mirage? :blink:

 

And btw, I have another 2,000 examples with most FURTHER than 60 Miles!

 

Guess what, E, I'm going back home to grand rapids, michigan in a couple of weeks and have plans to play golf near Benton harbor. If I have time, I'll swing by Stevensville and test whether or not I can see Chicago from the beech. If I see it, then maybe you're onto something; if not, well then there's probably some other explanation....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I can circumnavigate around my house .....only if I change my direction from time to time; however, if I don't change directions, I'm not circumnavigating anything unless I'm walking on an ellipsoid...

 

Well sir, you stated...

 

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

 

Then I showed you...

 

Flat_Earth-magellan.png  Voila 

 

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

 

 

2,700 feet/min, but yet the plane gets no closer or further from the ground.

 

 

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

 

 

To those on the plane and the plane itself, it feels like a smooth level flight.

 

 

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

 

Have you ever actually taken a Flight sir?

 

 

So, E, hypothetical speaking of course, if the earth is indeed a gigantic sphere, would that not be exactly how one would fly a plane for the bulk of the flight, e.g., at a constant altitude above the ground?

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

Guess what, E, I'm going back home to grand rapids, michigan in a couple of weeks and have plans to play golf near Benton harbor. If I have time, I'll swing by Stevensville and test whether or not I can see Chicago from the beech. If I see it, then maybe you're onto something; if not, well then there's probably some other explanation.

 

 

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

 

 

After your golf game, swing on over to Italy...

 

genova.jpg

 

 

 

From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Gorgona can often be seen 81 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Gorgona should be hidden beyond 3,332 feet of curvature.

 

From Genoa, Italy 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Capraia 102 miles away can often be seen as well. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Capraia should always remain hidden behind 5,605 feet, over a mile of supposed curvature.

 

Also from Genoa, on bright clear days, the island of Elba can be seen an incredible 125 miles away! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Elba should be forever invisible behind 8770 feet of curvature.

 

From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Corsica can often be seen 99 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Corsica should fall 5,245 feet, almost an entire mile below the horizon.

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Why would the nose have to be pointed below the horizon to produce level flight? What angle below the horizon would it have to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TAG TransPolar 08 Record Flight Attempt

• Departs TAG Aviation’s Farnborough Airport in the UK at 10.05.54 UTC on November 21

• First technical stop at Whitehorse, Canada

• Second technical stop at Majuro, Marshall Islands

• Third technical stop at Christchurch, New Zealand

• Fourth technical stop at Punta Arenas, Chile

• Fifth technical stop at Sal, Cape Verde Islands

1. You accidentally on purpose forgot to answer...

 

Ahhh from your link....

 

"Ojjeh and his crew opted to fly westbound, preferring to take a chance on the strength of prevailing headwinds to conduct more of the flight in daylight than if they had taken the eastbound option. The westerly course also allowed them to avoid congested airspace."

 

Do you understand that West to East is not North to South ??

I didn't forget to answer at all. 

 

Do you understand that to get from Canada to New Zealand you will need to fly (mainly) south? Do you understand that to get from Chile to the UK you will need to fly (mostly) north? All they did was make a course adjustment to avoid headwinds; get more daylight time; and avoid congested airspace. 

 

2. This isn't a Flight Path these are "Stops".  Post the Fairytale GPS Tracking Data:gotcha:   I wanna see that TRICK!

Sorry, I don't have that data. The only places that matters is on the leg from the UK to Canada and the leg from New Zealand to Chile. Since the TAG flight has been submitted for certification by the FIA, and a condition of certification is that they fly over both poles, we can safely hold that the data was submitted to the FAI for validation.

 

Maybe this will help, it's from the Flat Earth Society:

VIVnMJt.pngxYpoU06.png

 

However, there have been several polar circumnavigations, two of which are mapped out above on the latest, cutting edge, Flat Earth Atlas of 2014. As you can see from their routes, the journeys were done in several hops (4 and 5 respectively) as the planes could only fly about 10,000km between refuelling. In both cases the planes flew directly over the north and south poles, (Emphasis Pi's) as a requirement for the record attempt; that being how a polar circumnavigation is defined.

 

I have to guess that the dashes and question marks indicate the Flat Earthers don't have an answer for how it was done any more than you do.

 

Then there is this about the Pan Am circumnavigation:

Pan American World Airways celebrated its 50th Anniversary by flying round-the-world over both

the North and South poles.  This flight set several aviation speed records certified by the

Federation Aeronautique Internationale.

 

Itinerary:

Departed San Francisco, CA                           10/28/77

over the North Pole                          10/29/77

London, England                              10/29/77

Capetown, South Africa                       10/29/77

over the South Pole                          10/30/77

Auckland, New Zealand                        10/30/77

Arrived San Francisco, CA                            10/30/77

 

Notice, this flight had been certified by the FIA which requires passage over both poles as a condition for acceptance of the record.

 

If you have a problem with it, take your issue up with the FIA which verified the flights.

 

In addition, we have had satellites in polar orbits for decades.

Sure, and Pol Pot was a Humanitarian and anton lavey was pre-trib.

Smart-a$$ comment noted.

 

Do you have something substantive to say about those satellites or do you simply deny they exist?

 

btw, anything on the Non-Vacuum Vacuum ?? 

I had made no claims with regard to the vacuum other than Earth's gravity holds the atmosphere to the planet. 

1.  What is Gravity?  What is it's Cause...?

 

2.  Reification Fallacy:  gravity "holds".  What is the Fairytale Mechanism "Holding" the atmosphere to the planet?

1a.)  Stercus Tauri.  It's nothing more than a conversational style of writing.

1b.)  If you don't know, consult those third graders you have claimed could refute Einstein's theories.

2.)   Gravity.   If you think gravity is a "Fairytale Mechanism" then take a step off a really tall building and find out.

 

You have cited a source stating that there is no clear demarcation between the Earth's atmosphere and space.  Since I completely agree with that, there was no need for a comment by me.

So how are you BREATHING RIGHT NOW ??  Please explain how a Vacuum can be attached to a Non-Vacuum and still remain a Vacuum ??  

Please explain how this is relevant to the shape of the planet as both a flat and spherical Earth have this "problem."

 

Besides, that is somewhat off topic and I wouldn't want to be accused of an attempt to divert the discussion.

oh brother

Your accusation that I was trying to divert this discussion when I responded to a diversionary comment by you has already been documented.  I suggest you show this is relevant to the shape of the planet.

 

More on topic.... anything on those guys walking on a frozen Lake Biakal? It is, after all, specifically on-topic as it supports a curved planet and is incompatible with a flat Earth.

So you're saying one of the Flattest places on Earth supports a Curved Earth ?  :blink:

 

Does Oxidation Support Phlogiston?

I'm saying the fact that we would see those guys "disappear" from the ground-up as they get farther apart is evidence for a curved planet.  Also, this same effect (objects disappearing from the bottom up as they move apart) has been observed for centuries in coastal cities as ships go out to sea. 

 

In what way is oxidation or phlogiston relevant?   Do you have a substantive answer, or is this just another smart-a$$ comment?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why continue "Whistl'n Past the Graveyard"??, You haven't answered these...

 

#1.  If the Earth is 25,000 feet in circumference, then Pilots flying @ 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 !!!

 
500 miles2 x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet, Total Drop needed in one hour.
 
166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 Feet per minute.
 
ERGO...TO MAINTAIN ALTITUDE you would constantly have to adjust the altitude downwards (Decline and/or Speed) to Compensate for the Curvature of the Earth and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!
 
A flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity in comparison.

Your calculations are wrong. 500mph is 500/60miles per minute.

That means the drop required is 2777/60² feet per minute, is less then a feet per minute, the first minute.That's doable, right?

You then reset the clock. Look at the new horizontal level and you can drop this less then a feet per minute again, without any problem. Repeat 60 times and you'll have dropped your 166,666 feet when compared to the original position, without problem.

 

#2I have another question:  How is it that you're breathing right now?   :gotcha:   According to the Laws of Entropy --- if not purposely hindered, High Pressure to Low Pressure...ALWAYS!!  You're surrounded by the Vacuum of Space -- nearly a perfect vacuum, with 'No Boundary'. 

 
"There's no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space, says Dr Kevin Pimbblet, lecturer in astrophysics at the University of Queensland."
 
Outer Space should be sucking the air out of the atmosphere @ break neck speed until equilibrium is reached: 

Gravity... Can you agree that if gravity was real, that would fix the problem?

One of your problems you always seem to consider only a single effect working on a specific 'problem'.

 

#3. "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!!!

There's flat and flat.

I suggest you might look up someone with a Theodolite in your environment and if its possible do some testing near lakes.

 

 

#4. "There's no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space, says Dr Kevin Pimbblet, lecturer in astrophysics at the University of Queensland."

 

Since there is no physical boundary between our atmosphere and the Vacuum of Space, How on Earth can you have a Vacuum connected to a Non-Vacuum and still have the properties of a Vacuum?  
 
These are next on the docket...

Isn't this answered in #1?

 

 

 

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

Can you explain the problem, I don't see what you mean.

 

Ran out of time, will come back for 6 and 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, do you acknowledge the existence of the ISS ? If so, do the crew imagine or pretend when they look out the window that they are orbiting the globe every 90 minutes ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, do you acknowledge the existence of the ISS ? If so, do the crew imagine or pretend when they look out the window that they are orbiting the globe every 90 minutes ?

Better ... when the crew of the ISS looks out the window, they see the curvature of the Earth... no matter where they are and no matter what direction they look at Earth.  

 

That will not happen on a flat planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction to my post #171.

 

I had written:

 

Enoch 2021, on 19 May 2016 - 2:35 PM, said:snapback.png

btw, anything on the Non-Vacuum Vacuum ?? 

piasan, on 19 May 2016 - 3:18 PM, said:snapback.png

I had made no claims with regard to the vacuum other than Earth's gravity holds the atmosphere to the planet. 

Enoch 2021, on 19 May 2016 - 4:07 PM, said:snapback.png

1.  What is Gravity?  What is it's Cause...?

 

2.  Reification Fallacy:  gravity "holds".  What is the Fairytale Mechanism "Holding" the atmosphere to the planet?

1a.)  Stercus Tauri.  It's nothing more than a conversational style of writing.

1b.)  If you don't know, consult those third graders you have claimed could refute Einstein's theories.

2.)   Gravity.   If you think gravity is a "Fairytale Mechanism" then take a step off a really tall building and find out.

 

That should be:

1)  If you don't know, consult those third graders you have claimed could refute Einstein's theories.

2a)  Stercus Tauri.  It's nothing more than a conversational style of writing.

2b)  Gravity.  If you think gravity is a "Fairytale Mechanism" then take a step off a really tall building and find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your calculations are wrong. 500mph is 500/60miles per minute.

That means the drop required is 2777/60² feet per minute, is less then a feet per minute, the first minute.That's doable, right?

You then reset the clock. Look at the new horizontal level and you can drop this less then a feet per minute again, without any problem. Repeat 60 times and you'll have dropped your 166,666 feet when compared to the original position, without problem.

Correction, its 2777/60 feet = +/- 55feet per minute, the first minute. Still doable.

 

Correcter even, is looking at the force on the object because of the "descend". The Force in a 100kg person would be: F=M*a = M * v²/r = 100kg * (800km/h)² / 6,375km = 100km * (222m/s) / 6,375,000m = 0.77N

Consider the force of the attraction that pulls or pushes a man towards the ground is 100kg * 9.81m/s² = 981N. 

Most people will not even be aware of this force.

Ah, the joy of SI units. The civilized west FTW.

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