It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: occrest
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So am in to infer from your post that whatever assumptions NASA made for their model are true?
originally posted by: occrest
a reply to: WP4YT
I have flown a few times, and never saw a curve.
Even NASA, in their document "Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model", on page 30, concludes their study 'Flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth." Link to NASA pdf.
The first assumption is "stationary atmosphere". This means there's no wind, no tornadoes, no hurricanes. Do you think that's what they are trying to infer?
It also strikes me as odd you'd cite a NASA reference when NASA is the first one to tell you the Earth isn't flat. You can't see the curvature from a crop duster but you can see it from 40,000 feet so whether you saw the curvature depends on how high your plane went.
I think this is them doing a study on flight dynamics over a flat earth. The stationary atmosphere they speak of is without the wind shear one would get if the the earth were a globe with a spin of 1000 mph at the equator, which is what we are told.
I do not pretend to understand everything about the dynamics of a flat earth, and all that it entails. I have over 40 years of being inundated with globular thinking and indoctrination to overcome. There have been many physical experiments completed which point to a flat, geostationary earth. Airys' Failure, for one. Another is the Bedford level experiment. Here is a video for you containing 200 profs that the earth is not a spinning ball. Enjoy!
originally posted by: cantsee4looking
then dont use suspect photos...then i cannot claim cgi....do it...a reply to: OccamsRazor04
From the video description--
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Please do. AS if true and we live on a flat earth planet then with all the sink holes opening up I am beginning to believe we are being attacked from underneath. Sorry Australia I didn't mean you.
We really do think it is all for us don't we. If there is a god he must find our arrogance very amusing.
Show me how time zones are possible in a flat Earth.
This little animation shows a point light inside a sun sphere, going around the circle of the Flat Earth Azimuthal Equidistant (United Nations) map. In it, we can see how night and day (and timezones) are still possible. I did not include the moon in this model, but it would essentially follow a similar path, giving less light and moving at a different pace. From what I understand about the Flat Earther's perspective, the sun and moon will also deviate in their path for the different seasons. The Book of Enoch gives us tremendous detail explaining the course of the luminaries that rule the day and the night.
originally posted by: occrest
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
At this particular time....I'm questioning EVERYTHING!
originally posted by: cantsee4looking
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
where is my wild acusation please?
originally posted by: cantsee4looking
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
the video show nothing....what was the video posted for?..to show what??
originally posted by: angryhulk
originally posted by: occrest
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So am in to infer from your post that whatever assumptions NASA made for their model are true?
originally posted by: occrest
a reply to: WP4YT
I have flown a few times, and never saw a curve.
Even NASA, in their document "Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model", on page 30, concludes their study 'Flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth." Link to NASA pdf.
The first assumption is "stationary atmosphere". This means there's no wind, no tornadoes, no hurricanes. Do you think that's what they are trying to infer?
It also strikes me as odd you'd cite a NASA reference when NASA is the first one to tell you the Earth isn't flat. You can't see the curvature from a crop duster but you can see it from 40,000 feet so whether you saw the curvature depends on how high your plane went.
I think this is them doing a study on flight dynamics over a flat earth. The stationary atmosphere they speak of is without the wind shear one would get if the the earth were a globe with a spin of 1000 mph at the equator, which is what we are told.
I do not pretend to understand everything about the dynamics of a flat earth, and all that it entails. I have over 40 years of being inundated with globular thinking and indoctrination to overcome. There have been many physical experiments completed which point to a flat, geostationary earth. Airys' Failure, for one. Another is the Bedford level experiment. Here is a video for you containing 200 profs that the earth is not a spinning ball. Enjoy!
How do you explain the Lunar Eclipse? I'll give you a hint... the shadow
How do you explain Time Zones? (Day and Night). The fact that you cannot see the sun 24 hours a day? Remember if the earth was flat you would see the sun all day, it would just travel further away and act like a spot light.
That's a different question than your original question in the other thread, which was this:
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur
but if we assume for a moment that the earth is stationary in space, can the rest of the universe's movement be effectively expressed mathematically based on that?
geocentrism is valid, but so is every other frame. This is the very basis of relativity! One of the guiding principles used by Einstein in formulating it is that there is no One True Frame. If there were, the Universe would behave very, very differently.
That’s where Geocentrism trips up. Note the upper case G there; I use that to distinguish it from little-g geocentrism, which is just another frame of reference among many. Capital-G Geocentrism is the belief that geocentrism is the only frame, the real one.
Geocentrists, at this point, fall into two cases: those who use relativity to bolster their claim, and those who deny it.
Those who use relativity say that geocentrism can be right and is just as valid as heliocentrism or any other centrism. That’s correct! But the problem is that using relativity by definition means that there is no One True Frame. So if you use relativity to say geocentrism can really be Geocentrism, you’re wrong. You’re using self-contradictory arguments.
Fail.
The other flavor of Geocentrist, those who deny relativity wholesale, are wrong as well. Relativity is one of the most well-tested and thoroughly solid ideas in all of science for all time. It is literally tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators. We see it in every cosmological observation, every star that explodes in the sky, every time a nuclear power plant generates even an iota of energy. Heck, without relativity your GPS wouldn’t work.
Relativity is so solid, in fact, that anyone who denies it outright at this point can be charitably called a kook†.
So — you guessed it — either way, Geocentrism is wrong.
originally posted by: occrest
originally posted by: angryhulk
originally posted by: occrest
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So am in to infer from your post that whatever assumptions NASA made for their model are true?
originally posted by: occrest
a reply to: WP4YT
I have flown a few times, and never saw a curve.
Even NASA, in their document "Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model", on page 30, concludes their study 'Flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth." Link to NASA pdf.
The first assumption is "stationary atmosphere". This means there's no wind, no tornadoes, no hurricanes. Do you think that's what they are trying to infer?
It also strikes me as odd you'd cite a NASA reference when NASA is the first one to tell you the Earth isn't flat. You can't see the curvature from a crop duster but you can see it from 40,000 feet so whether you saw the curvature depends on how high your plane went.
I think this is them doing a study on flight dynamics over a flat earth. The stationary atmosphere they speak of is without the wind shear one would get if the the earth were a globe with a spin of 1000 mph at the equator, which is what we are told.
I do not pretend to understand everything about the dynamics of a flat earth, and all that it entails. I have over 40 years of being inundated with globular thinking and indoctrination to overcome. There have been many physical experiments completed which point to a flat, geostationary earth. Airys' Failure, for one. Another is the Bedford level experiment. Here is a video for you containing 200 profs that the earth is not a spinning ball. Enjoy!
How do you explain the Lunar Eclipse? I'll give you a hint... the shadow
How do you explain Time Zones? (Day and Night). The fact that you cannot see the sun 24 hours a day? Remember if the earth was flat you would see the sun all day, it would just travel further away and act like a spot light.
The lunar eclipse? I don't really know.
I posted video describing the night/day cycle and time zones. You are under the assumption that the Sun is 400 times larger than the earth and 93m miles away. I am under the assumption that the sun is approx 32 miles in diameter and only 3000 miles above the surface of the earth. Photographs of sunbeams thru the clouds tell me the sun is close, and not far away. Follow the light rays to where they converge above the clouds and you will see what i mean.