Flat earth theory?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I figured you were kidding . Lol

But if you were giving a real reply that's why I included the specs on the specific lens that was being used.

This approach gives them a little room to wiggle. But my earlier one with the sunset shuts them up every time .


If you ever argue with one of those doughnut heads give it a try .

a reply to: 14377

It doesn't matter about the truth with them you can't prove the camera didn't cause that effect.

That's why I stick to objective arguments, there is no defense against Sydney to Santiago and asking them to provide a roughly correct map of flat Earth.

There is no argument against that. They can personally verify flat Earth is impossible.

Your argument is correct, but it requires them to accept things they can't verify.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There are many examples that are valid. I just try to make it as simple as possible.

a reply to: 14377

Saw three cut-and-pasted photographs.
Is that 100% proof for you?
Should it be for anyone?

Are we to assume that: all, some, or no photographs are modified, shopped, nor altered in any way?
If we were to see, that even one photograph presented to the public, had been modified, shopped, or altered in any way,
then how are we to accept any forum-posted photograph as 100% authentic?

It would require belief, no?
If so: is belief equal to truth?
What is belief, and what is truth?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: oldcarpy

a reply to: Freeborn

" fundamentalist creationism " - still manages to cover a large slew of divergent delusions

and even under that umbrella - thier a quite a few who accept the spheroid model - and heliocentric solar system

some of the " ministry " sights evven address the isssue - which sends other fundies into mmeltdown

its fun to watch schisms in creationist " logic "

I don't know any creationist who believe in flat Earth. I don't know any fundamentalist who believe in flat Earth. Young Earth, yes, but not flat Earth. The Bible's description of Earth in Genesis is consistent with a spherical Earth, not a flat Earth. It's actually one of the many amazing things about the Bible, thousands of years before the Greeks determined the Earth was round.

Except the Bible was written after the Greeks proved the earth was round.

The problem is that curvature isn't accounted for on flights.

A plane at 35,000 feet altitude flies for 6 hours, at the same altitude, and lands to Earth from that altitude.

On a spherical Earth, the plane would have to account for about 1800 feet of curvature during the flight. That is not done, for any flights.


The plane's instruments measure the 35,000 feet altitude, by air pressure readings, above sea level. The VSI measures the ascent of the plane, at the same time, based of feet per minute. Both match up to confirm the altitude is correct.

The VSI also uses air pressure to measure the descent, ascent, and level flight of a plane, along the X axis.

The horizon, real and simulated, is used to measure level flight along the Y axis. The horizon is a level line.


It is a level flight, at the same altitude, over 6 hours.


Curvature is never accounted for on flights, because it doesn't exist.

a reply to: turbonium1

oh FFS - not this shiite again ?????????????

flying over a uniform spheroid - in level flight - your altitude [ distance from surface ] NEVER changes

your inability // refusal to grasp basic physics is utterly cringeworthy

a reply to: turbonium1

So... according to your ideas

Said plane would have to account for 300 feet per hour on a 6 hour flight... flying at 35k feet...

And some how you don't see that as possible...

Give it up man... You've shown repeatedly you know nothing about flight

Flat earthers.

Can’t live with them, can’t kick them over the edge.

The atmosphere above is also level, in various pressure gradients, or layers, of higher/lower pressure, based on higher/lower altitude.

Atmosphere seems directionless, because it is an invisible medium. Wind scatters in all directions, as well.

When a plane is in atmosphere, we understand that the atmosphere is perfectly level. If you don't fly level, it will not be in a stable flight path. Only at level flight it is stable. All pilots seek to fly level within the atmosphere, for that very reason. I

If Earth was a sphere, with a curved surface, a plane would fly a constant descent to maintain altitude. The VSI would measure the descent, in feet per minute. And the flight would never be level.


A flight is always level, of course, because the surface, and atmosphere, are both level.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

So... according to your ideas

Said plane would have to account for 300 feet per hour on a 6 hour flight... flying at 35k feet...

And some how you don't see that as possible...

Give it up man... You've shown repeatedly you know nothing about flight

What accounts for curvature on a flight, specifically?

It's not by sheer magic

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

oh FFS - not this shiite again ?????????????

flying over a uniform spheroid - in level flight - your altitude [ distance from surface ] NEVER changes

your inability // refusal to grasp basic physics is utterly cringeworthy

A spheroid is not level. A plane DOES fly level. Basic physics, indeed.

a reply to: Nothin

Sydney to Santiago. Flat Earth is now impossible.

a reply to: JameSimon

Iirc the qumran scrolls predate the Greeks. And that's just the oldest surviving scroll. The oral tradition went on for a long time before that.

a reply to: turbonium1

Minor adjustments made in flight. It's a very simple concept.

www.askcaptainlim.com... rth.html

Sydney to Santiago. Flat Earth is now impossible.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin

Sydney to Santiago. Flat Earth is now impossible.

You write that so often! This thread and others.
Perhaps if you continue, it will become more true?

a reply to: Nothin

So you dispute it? Please post your flat Earth map and tell me the distance between the two cities.

a reply to: Nothin

Keep reading .

originally posted by: 14377
We all know everything is fake .

Love this video..........it gets real good at 6.24.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

So... according to your ideas

Said plane would have to account for 300 feet per hour on a 6 hour flight... flying at 35k feet...

And some how you don't see that as possible...

Give it up man... You've shown repeatedly you know nothing about flight

What accounts for curvature on a flight, specifically?

It's not by sheer magic

The instruments on the plane.... perhaps even.... The Pilot??

moving at approx. 150–180 mph, 240–285 km/h to maintain flight.... at 35k feet, a 300 foot decent over an hour would be inconsequential