The flat earth conspiracy

a reply to: turbonium1

where is the sun - and what is its size in your argument ?????????????

if you wish to claim the std heliocentric solar system model is wrong - fine - thats your perogative

but you must propse an alternate model - with sun size and distance - that fits all observations

so - go ..................

distance above the alledged " earth plane " =

solar diameter =

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
heavier than air powered flight for idiots :

all heavier than air powered flight craft - have a mass

all heavier than air powered flight craft have a set of " aerodynamic lifting surfaces "

these " aerodnamic lifting surfaces " generate lift when they pass through air at a velocity

the greater the velocity and ambient pressure of the air passing over the lifting surface - the greater the lift

this is why fixed wing take of lengths increase at altitude

in the ansence of other forces or air pressure changes - an craft that maintains constant airspeed over its lift surfaces - will fly " level " - assuming its COG [ centre of gravity is neutral ]

as the atmosphere around a spheroid earth - is [ in the ansence of weather events ] - the same pressure at the same altitude anywhere on the globe - an aircraft [ ignoring fuel capacity ] - will fly at the same altitude [ same pressure ] indefinitly - in level flight .

no adjustment needed - and this explainer is congruent with the reading of the VSI

everyone - but turbo troll comprehends this - i bet " mini freeborn " will too

so - hear we are - back to explaining basic physics to a troll

A plane measures level flight BY air pressure readings, coupled to their altitude readings. A plane finds level, at any altitude, and if it wanted to follow a curved surface, it must descend all the time, and it would not be a level flight.

To fly a curved path is not the same as flying a level path, obviously.

To fly along a curved surface, a plane must fly in a curved path. A plane will follow along a flat surface in a flat, or level, path, of course.

In your argument, a plane flies level over a curved surface, at altitude, which would not work. A curved surface is not level, of course. To follow that surface, which is not level, cannot follow a non-level surface with a level path. Impossible.


It's a good thing the Earth is NOT curved, too! A plane would never fly level, nor would it want to. If the surface wasn't level, flights would not seek to be level, anytime, anywhere, in fact.

a reply to: turbonium1


Why pray tell has the size of the light source got anything to do with it? does the flat earth model also dispute the sun and its size?

jesus you grasp at so many straws

a reply to: turbonium1

Your stupid questions have been answered many times. You have never been able to provide answers to any of the ones put to you. Very obvious to anyone reading that tou have deflected away from answering any points raised and gave now gish galloped back full circlevto some ridiculous claim about how planes fly.

Had you bothered to vist some spaceflight forums, such as the ones here that took all of 2 seconds to find

forum.nasaspaceflight.com...

you would find a wealth of detail about launches and their orbital trajectories. You won't do that, because you're too lazy.

Remember when you didn't know how planes worked out their altitude? Now you're trying to act as though you're telling people something you had no clue about. Here's a question you ahould have no problem answering: what is the degree of curvature beneath a plane? Say a jumbo jet. Tell us how air pressure changes over the length of a jumbo jet and how much the ground curves beneath one. Teach us oh wise one, with the wealth of facts ar your fingertips. If that's too much of problem, prove to me that what I filmed in Vietnam wasn't the ISS. Prove that people's claims about seeing curvature from concorde aren't true. Prove that the Dutch photographer didn't photograph the Falcon rocket launched yesterday from Florida as it passed over the Netherlands.

Prove the software on this page doesn't allow you to find and track satellites in orbit:

langbrom.home.xs4all.nl...

a reply to: turbonium1

You are hilarious trying to prove you are right by refusing to answer any questions. refusing to provide any proof of anything you claim.


A simple Question we should all ask you every time you post.

Hey turbonium1, where's the edge?

because nothing anyone else here says makes any difference so it's now up to you to provide evidence of an edge.

a reply to: turbonium1

wow - you manage to not only avoid addressing anything i wrote - crafted an entire reality free reply

now - as you are incapablke of discussuing aeronautics

lets have the flat erth distance to and size of the sun

the distant to the sun [ on a flat eart ] for idiots .

amazingly - an variant of the Eratosthenes experiment " prooves " that the earth is a flat plane - with the sun 5000km above the surface

or at least it does if you are an idiot - and ignora ALL OTHER observations

hey we know someone just like that ..........................

but i digress

on the vernal equinox - at local noon in the democratic republic of congo [ for an observer standing on the equator ] - the sun is directly over head - and alledgedly 5000km away

at that exact time - ovservers in ecuador and indonesia - [ both also stod on the equator ] - can also see the sun

its apparent magnitude and apparent size = identical to all 3 observers - that folks is magic

ooops - no its not its science - and it just demolished the flat earth claim

ergo - the earth is a spheroid

And again, because turbo can't seem to use any kind of internet search engines, this site is tracking SpaceX's Dragon CRS-20

www.n2yo.com...

It docks with the ISS tomorrow.

If turbo was to follow the links on that site, he would see that you can track all manner of objects in orbit. Think that wraps up that dumb line of argument he was trying to score points with.

As he thinks planes fly higher than rockets, I'm wondering what kind of mental gymnastics he will require to explain this:

www.axios.com...

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

where is the sun - and what is its size in your argument ?????????????

if you wish to claim the std heliocentric solar system model is wrong - fine - thats your perogative

but you must propse an alternate model - with sun size and distance - that fits all observations

so - go ..................

distance above the alledged " earth plane " =

solar diameter =

Since the guy who brought up this issue in the first place, hasn't answered those questions, why don't YOU tell me? I'm not the one making the claim here, YOUR side is.

The Sun is obviously an important part of your argument, so when your side doesn't include what size you think the Sun is, or what distance you think it is from Earth - you're either forgetting an important part of your argument, or you do know, and hope that I accept your argument, as is, while the most important factor is not mentioned at all....

I don't know, and don't care, why your side didn't mention it. And once again, I've had to ask for important parts you leave out of it.


I've already seen how a question I ask has never been addressed, once, by anyone of your camp. If you can't even answer that, how valid can your whole argument be? Every piece of your argument DEPENDS on one, single claim - that rockets fly into 'orbit', into 'space'. Everything else relies on that claim being true.

When I tell you that we've never seen a rocket after seeing it at the launch site, from Earth, you think it has been, or something, and show videos of rockets from the launch site, again, or faked rockets flying into 'space' - which are from the 'rocket' camera, of course. And when you show a two-angle video of a rocket - one from Earth, one from the 'rocket' - you've shown it's a fake. The rockets don't match, in any way. The rocket shown from Earth is flying at airplane altitudes, and horizontally, like planes fly, and it's all seen in a blue sky above.

The other rocket? At the same time as the rocket shown from Earth, essentially flying like an airplane, the other rocket is flying almost straight up from Earth, it's nose pointed up, directly away from Earth, which is shown below the rocket.

This was supposed to be 'proof', that's why you showed it. (Whether or not it WAS a video you showed, it's part of your claim, so you have to answer for it, as well.

Look at the rocket flying almost horizontally above Earth, and look at the other 'rocket', flying almost straight up from Earth. Nobody can see this, and believe it is the same, single rocket here. That's why your side had never addressed it.

I've asked at least 3 different questions about rockets, and none of you have addressed them, or put something else in, as if it DID address it.

Why have they never told us where to see a rocket from Earth, after seeing it on the launch site?

That question has been asked so many times now, I've lost count. And none of you have ever answered it, or replied to it,

Why none of your side has answered it, when I've asked it over and over again, which means you all have SEEN the question, is not my concern. However, if you really believe rockets fly into 'orbit', you should be able to answer this question, right?

When I was like you, and believed it was true, I had never known about such things as a rocket never seen from Earth after launch, and no video of it from Earth after launch, and never would have considered the question of whether or not NASA, etc. has told us where to SEE a rocket from Earth, after launch. I would have just assumed they did tell us, like you probably did when I mentioned it.

When you already believe the moon landings are true, you would not even consider that rockets don't fly into space. We all see them launch off, and fly up, and veer off to a horizontal path (because they need to, of course), and we see them fly over towards the ocean, and out of all sight.

The most obvious reason I had never considered this before now, after years of studying it from both sides, what evidence claimed for both sides, is because nobody spoke about it, or I never saw it, anyway.

I'm sure none of you, or most of you, have never considered the question. I didn't consider the issue before, and nobody ever has, or rarely.

And now that we all know that fact, which we had never knew about before, it is not good, if you believe it is all true.

How can such a simple thing become overlooked, is because they HAD to make us overlook it, and they did. With all of the other distractions, and illusions, and heroic astronauts on parade floats. Who would consider it. They see rockets launch, and fly out of sight, and later see them in 'space', filming Earth from above, and so forth.


You cannot even see there are two, completely different rockets, flying at completely different angles to Earth, in a video you hold up as 'proof'.


Rockets are the key issue, which holds up everything else. 'Space' itself cannot exist, as they claim, unless rockets fly into 'orbit' and 'space'. The Earth as a ball in space depends on rockets flying into 'orbit'. So many things depend on it, beyond that.

So when they don't even tell us where to see a rocket, like the famous Saturn V, or any other rocket, after seeing it at the launch site, it is all kept as a secret.

Anything in 'space' is a fake, and makes it very hard, if at all, something anyone could prove is a fake.


But rockets are on Earth, and fly above Earth, so they cannot fake a rocket along the way to 'orbit', because we would see it fly above Earth, and crash to Earth, instead of going into 'orbit'. That's why they must always keep it a secret.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

where is the sun - and what is its size in your argument ?????????????

if you wish to claim the std heliocentric solar system model is wrong - fine - thats your perogative

but you must propse an alternate model - with sun size and distance - that fits all observations

so - go ..................

distance above the alledged " earth plane " =

solar diameter =

Since the guy who brought up this issue in the first place, hasn't answered those questions, why don't YOU tell me? I'm not the one making the claim here, YOUR side is.

The Sun is obviously an important part of your argument, so when your side doesn't include what size you think the Sun is, or what distance you think it is from Earth - you're either forgetting an important part of your argument, or you do know, and hope that I accept your argument, as is, while the most important factor is not mentioned at all....

I don't know, and don't care, why your side didn't mention it. And once again, I've had to ask for important parts you leave out of it.

93 million miles away and 435000 miles across. Next.

I've already seen how a question I ask has never been addressed, once, by anyone of your camp. If you can't even answer that, how valid can your whole argument be? Every piece of your argument DEPENDS on one, single claim - that rockets fly into 'orbit', into 'space'. Everything else relies on that claim being true.

When I tell you that we've never seen a rocket after seeing it at the launch site, from Earth, you think it has been, or something, and show videos of rockets from the launch site, again, or faked rockets flying into 'space' - which are from the 'rocket' camera, of course. And when you show a two-angle video of a rocket - one from Earth, one from the 'rocket' - you've shown it's a fake. The rockets don't match, in any way. The rocket shown from Earth is flying at airplane altitudes, and horizontally, like planes fly, and it's all seen in a blue sky above.

The other rocket? At the same time as the rocket shown from Earth, essentially flying like an airplane, the other rocket is flying almost straight up from Earth, it's nose pointed up, directly away from Earth, which is shown below the rocket.

This was supposed to be 'proof', that's why you showed it. (Whether or not it WAS a video you showed, it's part of your claim, so you have to answer for it, as well.

Look at the rocket flying almost horizontally above Earth, and look at the other 'rocket', flying almost straight up from Earth. Nobody can see this, and believe it is the same, single rocket here. That's why your side had never addressed it.

I've asked at least 3 different questions about rockets, and none of you have addressed them, or put something else in, as if it DID address it.

Why have they never told us where to see a rocket from Earth, after seeing it on the launch site?

That question has been asked so many times now, I've lost count. And none of you have ever answered it, or replied to it,

Why none of your side has answered it, when I've asked it over and over again, which means you all have SEEN the question, is not my concern. However, if you really believe rockets fly into 'orbit', you should be able to answer this question, right?

When I was like you, and believed it was true, I had never known about such things as a rocket never seen from Earth after launch, and no video of it from Earth after launch, and never would have considered the question of whether or not NASA, etc. has told us where to SEE a rocket from Earth, after launch. I would have just assumed they did tell us, like you probably did when I mentioned it.

When you already believe the moon landings are true, you would not even consider that rockets don't fly into space. We all see them launch off, and fly up, and veer off to a horizontal path (because they need to, of course), and we see them fly over towards the ocean, and out of all sight.

The most obvious reason I had never considered this before now, after years of studying it from both sides, what evidence claimed for both sides, is because nobody spoke about it, or I never saw it, anyway.

I'm sure none of you, or most of you, have never considered the question. I didn't consider the issue before, and nobody ever has, or rarely.

And now that we all know that fact, which we had never knew about before, it is not good, if you believe it is all true.

How can such a simple thing become overlooked, is because they HAD to make us overlook it, and they did. With all of the other distractions, and illusions, and heroic astronauts on parade floats. Who would consider it. They see rockets launch, and fly out of sight, and later see them in 'space', filming Earth from above, and so forth.


You cannot even see there are two, completely different rockets, flying at completely different angles to Earth, in a video you hold up as 'proof'.


Rockets are the key issue, which holds up everything else. 'Space' itself cannot exist, as they claim, unless rockets fly into 'orbit' and 'space'. The Earth as a ball in space depends on rockets flying into 'orbit'. So many things depend on it, beyond that.

So when they don't even tell us where to see a rocket, like the famous Saturn V, or any other rocket, after seeing it at the launch site, it is all kept as a secret.

Anything in 'space' is a fake, and makes it very hard, if at all, something anyone could prove is a fake.


But rockets are on Earth, and fly above Earth, so they cannot fake a rocket along the way to 'orbit', because we would see it fly above Earth, and crash to Earth, instead of going into 'orbit'. That's why they must always keep it a secret.

Read.

The.

Links.

You.

Have.

Been.

Given.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: turbonium1

You are hilarious trying to prove you are right by refusing to answer any questions. refusing to provide any proof of anything you claim.


A simple Question we should all ask you every time you post.

Hey turbonium1, where's the edge?

because nothing anyone else here says makes any difference so it's now up to you to provide evidence of an edge.

Nobody can even travel over ice planes that are thousands of miles long, before the edge would ever be reached beyond it, so we cannot prove an edge exists, unless we can reach it, and we cannot reach it, afaik.


Rockets are not like that, however. We can see them fly above Earth, and would see them fly along the way to 'orbit', from Earth. We would see a rocket fly around Earth before it goes into 'orbit', but we don't. That's the problem here.

a reply to: turbonium1

Read.

The.

Links.

You.

Have.

Been.

Given.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Read.

The.

Links.

You.

Have.

Been.

Given.

All links you've posted are worthless. All videos you've posted are worthless, or prove MY argument.

Saying 'look at the links' isn't going to help you.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Rockets are not like that, however. We can see them fly above Earth, and would see them fly along the way to 'orbit', from Earth. We would see a rocket fly around Earth before it goes into 'orbit', but we don't. That's the problem here.

In addition to the advice above, which you would do well to follow, I posted an image of the current CRS-20 mission 23 minutes after lift off over the Netherlands. That is not in orbit. Your claim is as false today as it as always been.

Read.

The.

Links.

You.

Have.

Been.

Given.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1
Rockets are not like that, however. We can see them fly above Earth, and would see them fly along the way to 'orbit', from Earth. We would see a rocket fly around Earth before it goes into 'orbit', but we don't. That's the problem here.

In addition to the advice above, which you would do well to follow, I posted an image of the current CRS-20 mission 23 minutes after lift off over the Netherlands. That is not in orbit. Your claim is as false today as it as always been.

Assuming it IS a rocket, assuming only one person saw it, and took a picture of it, assuming they never tell us where to see a rocket because they keep forgetting to tell us, assuming they have no documents of flight paths for rockets flying around Earth after launch, because they have enough documents already, so why would they bother to make more, assuming nobody has ever seen them because they didn't look up to the sky, when they flew around the world, thousands of times, in 50 years,.....

Anything would work, after that.

a reply to: turbonium1

Nobody can even travel over ice planes that are thousands of miles long, before the edge would ever be reached beyond it, so we cannot prove an edge exists, unless we can reach it, and we cannot reach it,

We can't fly planes or helicopters that far?
Staging posts?
Maybe fly drones?

We have crossed Antarctica but we can't walk that far even without planning and almost unlimited resources?

What distances are we talking about here?

How long is this flat earth from one side to another?
How much of it is covered in this ice perimeter?
What caused this ice perimeter?
What maintains this ice perimeter?

How do you know there is an edge to it if no-one has been there?
You yourself just stated that its unprovable.
Blind faith?

On what information do you blindly believe in this flat earth theory?

Hi.

I am sorry i just can't read through 38 pages now, this must have been addressed before. But, since the thread title is "The flat earth conspiracy" then who conspired this? For what gain?

If the earth was flat, why just not tell us "regular" people that and teach that at every school

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: turbonium1

Nobody can even travel over ice planes that are thousands of miles long, before the edge would ever be reached beyond it, so we cannot prove an edge exists, unless we can reach it, and we cannot reach it,

We can't fly planes or helicopters that far?
Staging posts?
Maybe fly drones?

We have crossed Antarctica but we can't walk that far even without planning and almost unlimited resources?

What distances are we talking about here?

How long is this flat earth from one side to another?
How much of it is covered in this ice perimeter?
What caused this ice perimeter?
What maintains this ice perimeter?

How do you know there is an edge to it if no-one has been there?
You yourself just stated that its unprovable.
Blind faith?

On what information do you blindly believe in this flat earth theory?

I know there is a firmament above Earth, as Von Braun knew very well, too. The man who created the Saturn V knew the firmament existed, better than anyone else would have. But there is much more evidence to support the firmament existing, which I won't get into here.

From knowing there is a firmament above Earth, and knowing the Earth is flat, then there would surely be an edge, around Earth, too. But knowing the other things are true, does it really matter if we cannot reach/prove there is an edge?

It would certainly be nice to know it, and see it, but it's not relevant to the issue, anyway.

originally posted by: Finspiracy
Hi.

I am sorry i just can't read through 38 pages now, this must have been addressed before. But, since the thread title is "The flat earth conspiracy" then who conspired this? For what gain?

If the earth was flat, why just not tell us "regular" people that and teach that at every school

I've already explained the reasons for it, so again...

The round Earth lie removes the Bible, stating God created Earth, all life on Earth, the firmament above Earth, and the heavenly objects below the firmament.

Removing God is a powerful thing, to become our 'real' Gods, of all knowledge.

If people knew the firmament existed, they would KNOW that God created Earth, and all life on Earth, as the Bible states.

Liars who tried to become our Gods would have no power over us, could not create fears that don't exist, in 'space'.

And billions of dollars go to those who lie about Earth being round, at NASA, and others.

'Aliens' are a massive lie that creates fear, and uncertainty in people. Meteors and asteroids also create fear in people.


Pretty good reasons, no?

a reply to: turbonium1

Simply saying that you know doesn't actually make it a reality.
Far from it......

You can't even say how big this flat earth of your's is or why with all the technology at 'our' disposal we can't somehow measure this ice perimeter and go to its edge.

But we are expected to believe this theory that flies in the face of provable scientific fact and data just because you 'know'.

Of course its relevant......the only thing you have to support any of this is blind faith and a closed mind.