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

I didn't forget to answer at all. 

 

Yes you did.  Now you're gonna Hammer the C4 Fire with numerous Incoherent Arguments...

 

Do you understand that to get from Canada to New Zealand you will need to fly (mainly) south?

 

 

On which Map ??

 

 

 Do you understand that to get from Chile to the UK you will need to fly (mostly) north?

 

 

On which Map??

 

 

All they did was make a course adjustment to avoid headwinds; get more daylight time; and avoid congested airspace. 

 

 

Yea sure, that's what they're saying here...

 

"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."

 

You taking medication?

 

This Clobbers your Fairytale alone, but where's the fun in that.

 

Sorry, I don't have that data.

 

 

:gotcha: That's right you don't, because it doesn't exist.

 

 

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.

 

 

Matters....MATTERS for What, pray tell??

 

 

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.

 

 

What in the World sir??....does this look like "CIRCUMNAVIGATION" AROUND "The Globe" to you???....

 

VIVnMJt.png

 

 

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.

 

 

No Professor, the "Dashes" was what they DIDN'T DO !!

 

 

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

 

 

The South Pole???    WHERE IS THAT???

 

 

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

 

 

:get_a_clue: it's "Certified", it must be true.

 

They also say that a Vacuum is connected to a Non-Vacuum and still remains a Vacuum.  :shock:

 

 

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

 

 

Why don't you go ahead and provide a modicum of proof that THEY DO EXIST FIRST!! 

 

It's the Acme of Foolishness for anyone to even attempt to disprove a complete Argument for Ignorance (Fallacy)

 

 

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

 

 

I've pummeled your Einstonian fairytales so many times on this forum it's a tear jerkin belly laugher.  You heard of Quantum Mechanics by chance? 

 

 

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

 

 

It's called DENSITY and the consequences thereof.

 

 

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

 

 

Well, Errr...if there is No "Vacuum of Space" then you and your fairytale kinda have some problems, wouldn't ya say??  :rotfl:

 

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.

 

 

Wrong. It would also happen that way according the the Law of Perspective on Flat Planes.

 

Check 1:19:43, Proof# 138...

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

Grab a Telescope and try it. thumbsup.gif  If it was a "Spherical Earth", they should disappear long before they actually do.

 

 

In what way is oxidation or phlogiston relevant?

 

 

It was a Direct Parallel/Comparison to your trainwreck...

 

The Flattest Place on Earth is a Proof of a Curved Earth fiasco. <---  you call this coherent?

 

 

oy vey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Astonishing. 

 

How is my calculation wrong?

 

 

That means the drop required is 2777/60² feet per minute, is less then a feet per minute, the first minute.

 

 

Ahhh no.  For the 89th TIME...

 

It's Miles2 x 8 inches per mile/12 = Feet of Curvature for a Spherical Ball with a 25,000 Mile Circumference.

 

"They give their law for this fancied curvature, based on the world being 25,000 miles in circumference at the Equator, as being 8 inches for the first mile, 2 feet 8 inches for the second, 6 feet for the third, and so on, the rule being to square the number of miles between the observer and the object, then multiply that square by 8 inches and divide by 12 to bring it into feet, the quotient being the supposed curvature."
David Wardlaw Scott; Terra Firma; Cornell University Library, p. 123
 
Try again
 
regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike The Wiz...

 

I could have sworn I reckoned a comment by you before I started answering Piasan's trainwreck.  Was that a Mirage or Refraction?  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, do you acknowledge the existence of the ISS ?

 

Do you acknowledge that Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can't Author Technical Instruct Manuals/Blueprints and Something can't come from Nothing?

 

 

Can you tell us how a Vacuum can be attached to a Non-Vacuum... and still be a Vacuum??  :laugh_point:

 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea sure, that's what they're saying here...

 

"Ojjeh and his crew opted [/size]to fly westbound[/size], 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 [/size]eastbound option[/size]. The westerly course also allowed them to avoid congested airspace."[/size]

 

You taking medication?

 

This Clobbers your Fairytale alone, but where's the fun in that.

http://www.transpolar08.com/route.html

 

Take a look at an approximation of the route map. In addition to going north>south>north, it goes west and east in different places, likely due to the availability of places to refuel and weather.

 

Is the idea here that they went to the trouble of fabricating the entire journey, but they slipped up and revealed the true route in that quote?

 

What in the World sir??....does this look like "CIRCUMNAVIGATION" AROUND "The Globe" to you???....

 

VIVnMJt.png

It does on a globe. It looks weird when you try to project it on a flat map because Earth isn't flat.

 

No Professor, the "Dashes" was what they DIDN'T DO !!

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.transpolar08.com/route.html

 

Take a look at an approximation of the route map. In addition to going north>south>north, it goes west and east in different places, likely due to the availability of places to refuel and weather.

 

 

I did.  And Baloney, that's not what they said.

 

On the USGS MAP and UN MAP here....

 

Flat_earth.png

 

Where is South on this Map??  How is East and West Represented on this Map??

 

http://www.abodia.com/fe/articles/flat-earth-around-antarticia.htm ...

 

In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.â€
 
 
On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.†"In his book "South Sea Voyage," James Clark Ross reports a total voyage of over 60,000 nautical miles."
 

 

 

Is the idea here that they went to the trouble of fabricating the entire journey, but they slipped up and revealed the true route in that quote?

 

 

I didn't say or imply they fabricated anything; In Fact, it appears it was the TRUTH.... 

 

"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."

 

 

It looks weird when you try to project it on a flat map because Earth isn't flat.

 

 

Begging The Question (Fallacy)....you're assuming the very thing you're attempting to prove.

 

And that "Flat Map" Above is an Official USGS MAP   :gigglesmile: and the Emblem for the United Nations.

 

 

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

 

 

Yes, the Lack of 'GPS' Flight Paths.  Ya see, the Burden is ON YOU and Piasan "The Claimers" to SHOW THESE FIRST!!

 

Or do you find it logical for you to imagine things and then demand people who do not believe in your imaginings to demonstrate how your imaginings are false, BEFORE you give evidence for your imaginings?

 

You are aware that All Flights are Tracked by 'GPS', right ??  **** Well... all that aren't flying over the Oceans in the 'Global' Southern Hemisphere anyways.  :funny:

 

And, Can you please speak to how a Vacuum can be attached to Non-Vacuum...and still be a Vacuum? :blink:

 

 

regards 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike The Wiz...

 

I could have sworn I reckoned a comment by you before I started answering Piasan's trainwreck.

:get_a_clue:   :rotfl2:  :rotfl3:  :rotfl::funny:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Enoch: Mike The Wiz...

 
I could have sworn I reckoned a comment by you before I started answering Piasan's trainwreck.  Was that a Mirage or Refraction?  :P

 

Sometimes I create logically technical posts then read them back and think, "nah, no-one will understand". :D

 

I also don't want to take the position of being your opponent. If you have taken a dogmatic position on this issue then really nothing I say can change your mind anyway.

 

Instead of debating then I will just ask you one question; do you think counter-intuitive things that defy common sense, are always going to be false?

 

It seems with your list, each proposal highlights something counter-intuitive as the reason we should reject a round planet earth. I am just wondering then, does counter-intuitive = false, in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did.  And Baloney, that's not what they said.

All they said was "westbound". In the middle of talking about how they went around the Earth crossing over both poles. In your usual style, you've fixated on one word taken out of context that you think agrees with you, and ignored the rest of the article. I wouldn't think it was possible to quote mine from something that short, but I should know better than to underestimate your dishonesty by now.

 

On the USGS MAP and UN MAP here....

 

Flat_earth.png

That image doesn't show up anywhere on Google image search other than flat earth sites or sites responding to flat earth claims. More importantly it shows up nowhere on usgs.gov that I can find. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that this is an official USGS map, and that it's intended to be an accurate representation of Earth rather than a projection?

 

Where is South on this Map??  How is East and West Represented on this Map??

South is out from the center, East is counter-clockwise and West is clockwise.

 

http://www.abodia.com/fe/articles/flat-earth-around-antarticia.htm ...

 

In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of [/size]60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.â€[/size]

This is another thing that doesn't show up anywhere but flat earth sites. Do you have a primary source?

 

On October 5th, [/size]1839 another explorer, [/size]James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of [/size]4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “[/size]extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.†"[/size]In his book "South Sea Voyage," James Clark Ross reports a total voyage of over 60,000 nautical miles."[/size]

This appears to be legit, but I'm not sure what about it you think isn't adequately explained by the existence of the Ross Ice Shelf.

 

I didn't say or imply they fabricated anything; In Fact, it appears it was the TRUTH....

 

"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."

If they're saying they circumnavigated the globe by crossing both poles by the route on their website, and you say "westbound" means they didn't actually do that. If you're right, the path and timestamps posted on the site would seem to qualify as "fabricated".

 

And that "Flat Map" Above is an Official USGS MAP   :gigglesmile: and the Emblem for the United Nations.

It's the UN logo because it's a more or less politically neutral way of showing the entire world in a flat plane. See above for the USGS part.

 

Also why would you believe the UN or the USGS on this matter if you think NASA is part of a conspiracy to fool people?

 

Yes, the Lack of 'GPS' Flight Paths.  Ya see, the Burden is ON YOU and Piasan "The Claimers" to SHOW THESE FIRST!!

Lack of evidence for a proposition isn't evidence in favor of another proposition. There are lots of reason that data would be unavailable other than a flat earth conspiracy.

 

Also why would you accept evidence from a system that's designed based on Earth being a globe?

 

You are aware that All Flights are Tracked by 'GPS', right ??  **** Well... all that aren't flying over the Oceans in the 'Global' Southern Hemisphere anyways.  :funny:

Is that data always made available to the public? Is there somewhere that data should be that it isn't?

 

And, Can you please speak to how a Vacuum can be attached to Non-Vacuum...and still be a Vacuum? :blink:

Other people have already addressed this. We're talking about the transpolar flight right now. Don't deflect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I create logically technical posts then read them back and think, "nah, no-one will understand". :D

 

thumbsup.gif good one.   I just asked the Wife to pull the knife out of my back  ;)

 

 

I also don't want to take the position of being your opponent.

 

 

Iron Sharpens Iron. 

 

 

If you have taken a dogmatic position on this issue then really nothing I say can change your mind anyway.

 

 

I told you previously the Criteria then leads me to dogmatic positions.

 

You want to change my mind, why not start providing and refuting evidence. brightidea.gif

 

Start here:  How can a Vacuum be attached to a Non-Vacuuum and...still maintain the properties of a Vacuum??   :acigar:

 

This alone takes the whole Shangri-La Fairytale and Jettisons it into Oblivion!! 

 

 

Instead of debating then I will just ask you one question; do you think counter-intuitive things that defy common sense, are always going to be false?

 

 

1. Like for instance...?

 

2. Do you think Prima Facia Obvious things should be dismissed ONLY with OVERWHELMING evidence ??

 

 

It seems with your list, each proposal highlights something counter-intuitive as the reason we should reject a round planet earth.

 

 

Each, eh?  Like, for instance....?

 

 

I am just wondering then, does counter-intuitive = false, in your opinion?

 

 

Don't know, that's your LABEL you superimposed on me.

 

Each issue is to be Assessed on it's own Merits (Scientific, Logic, ect)

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, it is counter-intuitive to believe that the moon-light would have a lower temperature than the shade, I confess. It is counter-intuitive to believe that on a round earth we could see islands beyond the curve of the earth. (I am not sure that claim is true yet, I would need to know how far above sea level those shots were taken for starters).

 

With conspiracy theorists, (not you, but generally), they tend to make lists of things, obscure things, that it is hard for the average Joe to give an answer to. Sometimes there is no way to test, so because they state something counter-intuitive, this gives their arguments a rhetorical advantage

 

EXHIBIT A:

 

"if they had went to the moon they would have died from the radiation".

 

Now just how do I test that? Do I hire nasa-suits from the 60s and rebuild a space-craft and fly to the moon?

 

:P

 

So the true argument they are arguing is affirmation-of-the-consequent:

 

"if they had not went to the moon like we argue, then they wouldn't have died from radiation from space. Look here! They did not die from radiation from space, therefore they did not go to the moon!"

 

(If X then P, P ergo X).

 

So they pass off the conditional implication which is NOT sound, and HIDE the true conditional, only for clever mike to find it! :acigar:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All they said was "westbound". In the middle of talking about how they went around the Earth crossing over both poles.

 

Factually Incorrect...

 

"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."

 

 

In your usual style, you've fixated on one word taken out of context that you think agrees with you, and ignored the rest of the article.

 

 

Sure.  It's better than your Usual Style of Hammering the c4 Fire with every sentence.

 

 

I wouldn't think it was possible to quote mine from something that short, but I should know better than to underestimate your dishonesty by now.

 

 

Yes, the never ending appeal to "quote mine", which is a Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy. 

 

 

That image doesn't show up anywhere on Google image search other than flat earth sites or sites responding to flat earth claims.

 

 

Really?

 

1. "The azimuthal equidistant projection is an azimuthal map projection. It has the useful properties that all points on the map are at proportionately correct distances from the center point, and that all points on the map are at the correct azimuth (direction) from the center point. A useful application for this type of projection is a polar projection which shows all meridians (lines of longitude) as straight, with distances from the pole represented correctly. The flag of the United Nations contains an example of a polar azimuthal equidistant projection.

This projection is used by the USGS in the National Atlas of the United States of America... "

 

300px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_S

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

 

2. Genetic Fallacy --- is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

 

 

South is out from the center, East is counter-clockwise and West is clockwise.

 

 

Center??  What's the Center?

 

 

This is another thing that doesn't show up anywhere but flat earth sites. Do you have a primary source?

 

 

Another Genetic Fallacy.

 

 

This appears to be legit, but I'm not sure what about it you think isn't adequately explained by the existence of the Ross Ice Shelf.

 

 

Yes it's legit.  It just so happens to ECHO EXACTLY Captain Cook's Appraisal that you bumbled with a Fallacy.

 

Well since the Circumference of the "Ball" Earth is 'supposedly' 25,000 miles and the circumference of Antarctica is 60,000 Miles, Errr... you have some problems.  :rotfl2:

 

If they're saying they circumnavigated the globe by crossing both poles by the route on their website, and you say "westbound" means they didn't actually do that.

 

 

 

Post where they said the Circumnavigated The Globe from North to South...?

 

 

If you're right, the path and timestamps posted on the site would seem to qualify as "fabricated".

 

 

If they did circumnavigate the Globe from North to South to North then.... post their Flight Paths with 'GPS' Coordinates and not merely "Red Lines" and Destinations....?

 

 

Also why would you believe the UN or the USGS on this matter if you think NASA is part of a conspiracy to fool people?

 

 

I don't believe either, although I find it Quite Curious that if the Map is brought up in the context of "Flat Earth" it's ridiculed endlessly, but in a USGS and UN Context....it's all of a sudden Good To Go. :rolleyes:  

 

 

Lack of evidence for a proposition isn't evidence in favor of another proposition.

 

 

Lack of evidence is not proof that the contrary is true.  However, if evidence can reasonably be expected to be found, then lack of evidence is evidence to the contrary.

 

And since ALL FLIGHT'S are tracked by 'GPS' that ='s Reasonably Expected.

 

 

There are lots of reason that data would be unavailable other than a flat earth conspiracy.

 

 

Go ahead...?

 

Also why would you accept evidence from a system that's designed based on Earth being a globe?

 

 

Well I know it doesn't exist.  But since you believe the Fairytale then the Burden Of Proof is ON YOU. "duh"

 

 

Is that data always made available to the public? Is there somewhere that data should be that it isn't?

 

 

Yea, real time.  Start @ 1:32:00. ...

 

 

 

Other people have already addressed this.

 

:rotfl3:

 

Sure they did.  As mentioned...

 

Start here:  How can a Vacuum be attached to a Non-Vacuuum and...still maintain the properties of a Vacuum??    :acigar:

This alone takes the whole Shangri-La Fairytale and Jettisons it into Oblivion!! 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, it is counter-intuitive to believe that the moon-light would have a lower temperature than the shade, I confess. 

 

You haven't watched the Proofs (which I already surmised awhile ago ;)  ), So don't believe your lyin eyes, 1:16:27...

 

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

 

There are Literally Hundreds if not Thousands of these Types already documented.

 

Sunlight can't reflect off the Moon --- an 'alleged" Convex Surface, anyway.

 

 

It is counter-intuitive to believe that on a round earth we could see islands beyond the curve of the earth. (I am not sure that claim is true yet, I would need to know how far above sea level those shots were taken for starters).

 

 

That's not Counter-Intuitive.  It's only "Counter-Intuitive" if you're a Stage 5 Clinger to the Faulty Presupposition that you live on a "Ball".

 

I think it's 70 Feet Elevation where they were taken.

 

Hit that video above @ 1:20:47 and tell me how far you think that Buoy is away from the Beach....?  :gotcha:

 

With conspiracy theorists, (not you, but generally), they tend to make lists of things, obscure things,

 

 

Yea, I'm not really interested in Stereotypical Anecdotes regarding others and it has nothing to do with the PROOFS of my Arguments.

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Factually Incorrect...

 

"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."

What about the rest of the article?

 

Really?

 

1. "The azimuthal equidistant projection is an azimuthal map projection. It has the useful properties that all points on the map are at proportionately correct distances from the center point, and that all points on the map are at the correct azimuth (direction) from the center point. A useful application for this type of projection is a polar projection which shows all meridians (lines of longitude) as straight, with distances from the pole represented correctly. The flag of the United Nations contains an example of a polar azimuthal equidistant projection.

This projection is used by the USGS in the National Atlas of the United States of America... "

 

300px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_S

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

The use of the word "projection" should be a clue that it's not what that thing actually looks like. Note also that it says the USGS uses it for a particular purpose (the National Atlas of the United States of America). Do you have any evidence that the USGS uses that map in its entirety and thinks it's an accurate representation of the real structure of Earth?

 

Center??  What's the Center?

The center of the image. This deliberately obtuse bit is getting old.

 

Another Genetic Fallacy.

Ignore it then. Do you have a primary source or not?

    

Well since the Circumference of the "Ball" Earth is 'supposedly' 25,000 miles and the circumference of Antarctica is 60,000 Miles, Errr... you have some problems.  :rotfl2:

Source? I found the source of the quote, but it doesn't contain anything like the 60,000 miles figure. 

 

Post where they said the Circumnavigated The Globe from North to South...?

Literally the first sentence of the article piasan posted:

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.

 

If they did circumnavigate the Globe from North to South to North then.... post their Flight Paths with 'GPS' Coordinates and not merely "Red Lines" and Destinations....?

That data isn't available to me, as far as I'm aware.

 

I don't believe either, although I find it Quite Curious that if the Map is brought up in the context of "Flat Earth" it's ridiculed endlessly, but in a USGS and UN Context....it's all of a sudden Good To Go. :rolleyes:

USGS are using it for a specific purpose and are clear about how it differs from the actual planet. The UN context is entirely symbolic. It's as curious as the fact that Australia's flag isn't a completely accurate representation of the Southern Cross.

 

Lack of evidence is not proof that the contrary is true.  However, if evidence can reasonably be expected to be found, then lack of evidence is evidence to the contrary.

 

And since ALL FLIGHT'S are tracked by 'GPS' that ='s Reasonably Expected.

Can it? Where should I be able to find the flight data for this particular flight?

 

Yea, real time.

Show me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the rest of the article?

 

 

What about it?  Stop wasting my time!!  Can you read???, I asked you...

 

"If they did circumnavigate the Globe from North to South to North then.... post their Flight Paths with 'GPS' Coordinates and not merely "Red Lines" and Destinations....?"

 

GO......?

 

The use of the word "projection" should be a clue that it's not what that thing actually looks like.

 

:get_a_clue:

 

You're an imbecile, All maps are "Projections" or RESULT of them!!

 

Note also that it says the USGS uses it for a particular purpose (the National Atlas of the United States of America). Do you have any evidence that the USGS uses that map in its entirety and thinks it's an accurate representation of the real structure of Earth?

 

 

Well why would they have it as... The National Atlas of the United States of America ...if the didn't use it??  :laugh_point:

 

The center of the image. This deliberately obtuse bit is getting old.

 

 

Thanks.  I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer (Deuce-Seven Off Suit), that's why I went "ALL IN" !!  thumbsup.gif

 

Can it? Where should I be able to find the flight data for this particular flight?

 

 

:consoling:  Errr, I'm not here to prove "your" Case Counselor.

 

 

ps. You're obviously wasting time.  Please provide Coherent Substantive Arguments or I will not respond.  mmm K?

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Enoch: Yea, I'm not really interested in Stereotypical Anecdotes regarding others and it has nothing to do with the PROOFS of my Arguments.

 

According to logical rules, here are some things you have actually proven according to the correct meaning of, "proof";

 

- If the earth was flat it would follow that you could see distant objects.

- If the earth was flat Baikal lake would be pancake flat with no hump. 

- If the moon was not convex we might expect to see certain evidence we see.

 

I agree with those things you have proven, but to argue the converse is affirmation-of-the-consequent. showing evidence that would follow if the earth was flat is not proof the earth is flat any more than showing evidence superman exists would prove he exists.

 

 

 

Enoch: I think it's 70 Feet Elevation where they were taken.

 

I ask because it matters logically, what height you are at on a round earth, and what height the things are you are looking at are at, also, because of this:

 

 

 

(Corsica has an average height of 145 metres above sea level)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about it?  Stop wasting my time!!  Can you read???, I asked you...

 

"If they did circumnavigate the Globe from North to South to North then.... post their Flight Paths with 'GPS' Coordinates and not merely "Red Lines" and Destinations....?"

 

GO......?

Can you?

That data isn't available to me, as far as I'm aware.

 

Well why would they have it as... The National Atlas of the United States of America ...

if the didn't use it??  :laugh_point:

The question wasn't whether the USGS uses azimuthal equidistant projection for any purpose ever, it was whether they use the specific map you posted intending it to be an accurate representation of Earth.

 

:consoling:  Errr, I'm not here to prove "your" Case Counselor.

You've claimed repeatedly that the flight data is or should be available. If you have actual proof of that assertion, provide it. If not, it's another on the pile of unsupported assertions you've made in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to respond here (nobody did or can anyway) this is just consolidation for reference.

 

 

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: 
 
 

 

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.

 

Video @ 1:20:47....

 

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to logical rules, here are some things you have actually proven according to the correct meaning of, "proof";

 

- If the earth was flat it would follow that you could see distant objects.

- If the earth was flat Baikal lake would be pancake flat with no hump. 

- If the moon was not convex we might expect to see certain evidence we see.

 

Well they're both Logical and Scientific, and be more like this...

 

The Earth is either Flat or a Sphere (Spinning Ball with a 25,000 mile Circumference).

 

1. If the Earth is Flat, it follows that Objects will be seen @ great distances without obscurity from curvature.  (SEE List of Curvature and Distances)

2. If the Earth is Flat, Baikal Lake (395 miles long) will be Flat as a Pancake (which it is) with no hump.

3. If the Moon is Convex it cannot Reflect Light.

 

 

I agree with those things you have proven, but to argue the converse is affirmation-of-the-consequent. showing evidence that would follow if the earth was flat is not proof the earth is flat any more than showing evidence superman exists would prove he exists.

 

 

What on Earth? :blink:

 

Say What?

 

 

I ask because it matters logically, what height you are at on a round earth, and what height the things are you are looking at are at, also, because of this:

 

attachicon.gif round.jpg

 

(Corsica has an average height of 145 metres above sea level)

 

 

Yes it's a Player, BUT...

 

Corsica would also be leaning back away from you ( :lol: ) just like your Cartoon shows.  AND...

 

You forgot the other 3 ;) , I'm sure by pure accident...

 

1. Elba

2. Gorgona

3. Capraia

 

Yes, I checked @ all the Elevations before I made the initial post thumbsup.gif

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to respond here (nobody did or can anyway) this is just consolidation for reference.

 

 

 

http://flatearthwiki...rth's_Curvature

Ball Earth Curvature Chart - Imperial

Bluemarb.jpg

 

 

 http://mathcentral.u...2/shirley3.html ....

 
In April 2004 we received an message from Jerry, a retired Engineer, who pointed out an error in my solution above. What follows is a slightly edited version of what Jerry sent.
 
It is true that Harley showed quite correctly that the earth curves approximately 8 inches in one mile. The solution presented then goes on to find out over how many miles does the earth curve 72 inches or 6 feet. Then this distance is doubled which is required (and would be easy to forget), because each man looks this distance to his horizon, where the line of sight is tangent to the earth's surface midway between them. All of this reasoning is correct so far.
However, it turns out that while the earth does curve 8 inches in one mile, it does not take 9 miles to curve 72 inches.
 
To show this, let us return to the Pythagorean Theorem method used by Harley, but using 6 feet for the curvature. Here is a copy of Harley's diagram with the 1 in the diagram replaced by x, since in this case the distance is unknown.
shirley3.1.gif
Again, using the theorem of Pythagoras
Solving for x,
a2 = 39632 + x2 = 15705369 + x2
a must be 3963 miles + 6 feet (Let's say the men are actually 6'3", so their eyes are six feet above ground.). Thus
a = 3963.001136 miles
x2 = a2 - 15705369
 
Now, remember that each man looks 3 miles to the horizon, giving their distance from each other as 6 miles.
x2 = 15705378 - 15705369 = 9
x = 3 miles
This shows that at eye level of 6 ft. the horizon is 3 miles (at sea or on a level plain).
 
A rule-of-thumb for line of sight problems such as this, where the distance is small in comparison to the size of the earth is
c = (2/3) times x2, where x is distance in miles and c is curvature in feet.
 
For the problem at hand, we then have x2 = (3/2)c
 
This is the same result that the more lengthy solution yielded.
x2 = (3/2) multiply.gif 6 = 9
x = 3
 
--Jerry
 
 
Basically, to find the Curvature for a Sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference (In Feet) it's...
 
Distance in miles2 x 8" per mile /12... 
 
"They give their law for this fancied curvature, based on the world being 25,000 miles in circumference at the Equator, as being 8 inches for the first mile, 2 feet 8 inches for the second, 6 feet for the third, and so on, the rule being to square the number of miles between the observer and the object, then multiply that square by 8 inches and divide by 12 to bring it into feet, the quotient being the supposed curvature."
David Wardlaw Scott; Terra Firma; Cornell University Library, p. 123
 
"NASA and modern astronomers claim we are living on an oblate spheroid 25,000 statute miles in equatorial circumference with a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on.  Therefore, if we wish to prove or disprove the validity of their convexity claim, it is a fairly simple, straight-forward matter of measurements and calculations."
 
 
"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 (over a mile now)
100 miles - 6666 feet"

 

 

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 ?

 

 

Do you acknowledge that Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can't Author Technical Instruct Manuals/Blueprints and Something can't come from Nothing?

 

 

Can you tell us how a Vacuum can be attached to a Non-Vacuum... and still be a Vacuum??  :laugh_point:

Are you proud of this non response to my question ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made a Command Decision, this is: #1, Number 1, Numero Uno, The Big Kahuna, Crème de la crèmeAll the Marbles, The Big Cheese ect ...

 

:drums:  ....

 

How can a Vacuum (Space) be attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) and still retain the Properties of a Vacuum ??  

 

 

This ALONE dissolves the entire Shangri-La Fairytale IN TOTO and Jettisons it into Oblivion !!

 

Or 

 

How can a Non-Vacuum (Earth) be attached to a Vacuum (Space) and still retain the Properties of a Non-Vacuum ?? 

 

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the idea here that they went to the trouble of fabricating the entire journey, but they slipped up and revealed the true route in that quote?

I didn't say or imply they fabricated anything;

Well, so far, it certainly looks like you are, at a minimum, implying that they did not circumnavigate the Earth from pole to pole.... which is the essential aspect of their claim.

 

So, if you are not saying or implying that they fabricated anything, does that mean you accept they performed a polar circumnavigation of the Earth as claimed?  Or were you distorting the truth beyond recognition when you claim you have neither said nor implied they fabricated anything?

 

 

On the USGS MAP and UN MAP here....

 

Flat_earth.png

 

 

 

..... And that "Flat Map" Above is an Official USGS MAP   :gigglesmile: and the Emblem for the United Nations.

On that map, Asia with an area of 17.21 million square miles is presented as being smaller than Africa with an area of 11.67 square miles.  In fact, Asia is about the same size as Australia (2.99 million square miles).  North America (9.54 million square miles) is smaller than South America (6.89 million square miles) and Europe (3.93 million) is smaller than Australia (2.99 million).  Why are the sizes of these continents so distorted on this map if it's a true projection of a flat Earth?

 

As for it being an "Offical USGS map" .... so what?   There are lots of "official USGS maps" that use various projection techniques.  One of the most common is the Mercator map

 

300px-Mercator_projection_SW.jpg
 
Mercator projection of the world between 82°S and 82°N.

 

Notice, on the map, Greenland (836,000 sq mi) is larger than South America (6.89 million) and Antarctica (5.4 million) is about the size of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia combined (total 34.4 million).

 

My explanation is that when one tries to project a spherical object on a flat surface distortions occur.  What is the Flat Earth explanation?

 

Yes it's legit.  It just so happens to ECHO EXACTLY Captain Cook's Appraisal that you bumbled with a Fallacy.

 

Well since the Circumference of the "Ball" Earth is 'supposedly' 25,000 miles and the circumference of Antarctica is 60,000 Miles, Errr... you have some problems.  :rotfl2:

Do we?   What Cook said is he sailed 60,000 miles, not that the circumference of Antarctica is 60,000 miles.  If Antarctica measures 60,000 miles in any direction, how big do you claim the Earth is?  Certainly it would be much larger than Antarctica.  Please provide a reference supporting your claimed size of the Earth.

 

While you're at it, maybe you could explain how the Pan Am circumnavigation left San Francisco Northbound and returned to San Francisco, still flying North, in only 2 days.  In order to travel just 60,000 miles that plane would have to fly over 1,000 mph.  Hint.... a 747 doesn't fly near that fast.

 

"If they did circumnavigate the Globe from North to South to North then.... post their Flight Paths with 'GPS' Coordinates and not merely "Red Lines" and Destinations....?"

There is no GPS flight path of the 1978 Pan Am circumnavigation (the one with the red lines) .... GPS was not available to airlines until 1983.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made a Command Decision, this is: #1, Number 1, Numero Uno, The Big Kahuna, Crème de la crèmeAll the Marbles, The Big Cheese ect ...

 

:drums:  ....

 

How can a Vacuum (Space) be attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) and still retain the Properties of a Vacuum ??  

 

 

This ALONE dissolves the entire Shangri-La Fairytale IN TOTO and Jettisons it into Oblivion !!

 

Or 

 

How can a Non-Vacuum (Earth) be attached to a Vacuum (Space) and still retain the Properties of a Non-Vacuum ?? 

 

 

Thanks

Please explain why this is a problem for a spherical Earth but not a problem for a flat Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo said it in the early fifth century:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the
sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
 
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
 
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what theysay nor the things about which they make assertion.
 
Flat Earthers are a perfect example of exactly what St. Augustine was talking about.
 

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