Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

The middle image shows two sweeping lines, close to each other. In the lower half of the image.

Such lines are not at all natural - it reveals airbrushing. There are many more examples, beyond that.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The middle image shows two sweeping lines, close to each other. In the lower half of the image.

Such lines are not at all natural - it reveals airbrushing. There are many more examples, beyond that.

....
0/10.
Get some better lines, you're no longer as amusing as you used to be. Are you ill or something?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Earth is a gigantic ball, which sticks all objects to it, around the ball. It also holds oceans, which curve around the ball, and holds an entire atmosphere in place. And it spins everything, at 1000 mph, too!

You keep saying 1000 mph which is close to the equator, it's less than that on most of the earth and the speed of rotation is not really impressive if you figure out how long it takes for the earth to make one revolution:

23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, a sidereal day.

So imagine a top spinning such that it takes almost 24 hours to make 1 revolution. You might say that's the slowest spinning top you ever saw. Of course the earth is larger so that's why the surface speeds are greater, but when I think about how slowly it's really rotating, all your objections about things not sticking to it seem unjustified.

While Earth holds all objects to it's surface, and holds the atmosphere in place, it doesn't hold birds to the surface, or within air. It moves the entire atmosphere, where birds fly anywhere they choose.

Nothing at all crazy, here!

So why did you mention it if it's not crazy? Things that have wings can fly, usually, except some flightless birds like the ostrich and it should be obvious why that can't fly. Things that don't have wings usually can't fly though there may be a few exceptions to that. Is that really hard for you to understand?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Rockets don't have wings.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
The middle image shows two sweeping lines, close to each other. In the lower half of the image.

Such lines are not at all natural - it reveals airbrushing. There are many more examples, beyond that.

....
0/10.
Get some better lines, you're no longer as amusing as you used to be. Are you ill or something?

Yet another fine contribution from the round Earth side.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Things that have wings can fly, usually, except some flightless birds like the ostrich and it should be obvious why that can't fly. Things that don't have wings usually can't fly though there may be a few exceptions to that. Is that really hard for you to understand?

I understand it, in terms of a flat Earth, where gravity doesn't exist. Since it doesn't.

A valid force acts consistently, or it is not a valid force. Wings would not overcome such a great force. The fact is, wings do not even NEED to overcome any force at all. That proves the force does not exist. Wind is a valid force, that acts on all objects, including birds, and balloons, and humans. A powerful wind force may be impossible for birds to overcome, which means they are unable to fly within air, during the time. Lesser wind forces have challenges, too, but may be overcome. Wind is in effect for all objects, air and ground. Massive objects usually overcome wind forces, unlike lighter objects.


Suppose Earth's force was magnetic, and birds, humans, etc. had magnetic properties.
So, Earth's strong magnetic force pulls humans down to its surface, and holds them.

What about birds? Wouldn't they also be pulled down to Earth, by magnetic force?

Even if they tried to oppose the magnetic force, it would still act on them, right?

Replace magnetic force, with gravitational force, now..

See the problem?

a reply to: turbonium1

Replace magnetic force, with gravitational force, now..

Why? They are not equivalent.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Suppose Earth's force was magnetic, and birds, humans, etc. had magnetic properties.
So, Earth's strong magnetic force pulls humans down to its surface, and holds them.

What about birds? Wouldn't they also be pulled down to Earth, by magnetic force?

Even if they tried to oppose the magnetic force, it would still act on them, right?

Replace magnetic force, with gravitational force, now..

See the problem?

Well, birds just don't float.

They actively flap their wings and/or ride air currents to keep afloat while gravity is always trying to pull them downward. If they stop actively doing those "bird things" to stay aloft, gravity brings them crashing to the ground.

So, yeah...gravity still acts upon a bird in flight.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Replace magnetic force, with gravitational force, now..

Why? They are not equivalent.

That's obvious.

I'm comparing two forces which 'pull', or 'attract', other objects towards them.

The same principle applies to both forces.

originally posted by: mytquinWhy doesn't a pilot ever have to tip the nose of the plane down to keep from gaining altitude...if said pilot never dipped the nose of the plane down while flying over a globe, logic dictates that as the plane kept flying level he would fly right out into space... wouldn't it

You might of the Earth was 100 miles around. Otherwise you don't have to because the "curve" is very slight. And yes, I'm a pilot. And no, I do not understand how otherwise intelligent people can take this idea seriously. Look at the Moon. Look at the Sun. Get a telescope and look at Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. I'd like to think this is just a tongue-in-cheek joke with people, but I fear it is not. Apparently a lot of people still live in the Dark Ages. Please refrain from reproducing.

a reply to: turbonium1

The same principle applies to both forces.

I don't suppose you can show the math?

But magnetism also repels. Does gravity do that?

Another comparison -

A more powerful magnetic force will attract weaker magnetic forces to it. So if the Earth was a giant magnet, it would attract lesser magnetic forces to it. However, another strong magnetic force, say, a boulder, will still attract lesser magnetic forces to it, as well.


A force is consistent.

Now, look at 'gravity'. A boulder supposedly has gravitational force, therefore, it should attract objects of lesser gravitational forces towards it. Same as magnetic forces.

Again, this proves gravity does not exist at all. A force has to be consistent, and gravity fails, once again.


Wind and magnetic forces are valid, and consistent, in their actions.

It's not hard to understand why 'gravity' is a theory, which doesn't work, and is continually revising itself because it doesn't work. It piles on even MORE theories, because proven facts and laws can't solve for fairy tale theories, created out of necessity. An invention to fit everything, proving nothing, yet claiming as fact!

a reply to: turbonium1

A more powerful magnetic force will attract weaker magnetic forces to it.

Please show the math.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

The same principle applies to both forces.

I don't suppose you can show the math?

But magnetism also repels. Does gravity do that?

It seems gravity can do anything, so why not add it to the ever-growing laundry list of its superpowers?

Anyway, you are avoiding the comparison I'm made.

Gravity should be consistent, or it's not a valid force. Done.

a reply to: turbonium1

Your comparison, as I said, is invalid. Gravity is not equivalent to magnetism.

Gravity is quite consistent. Thus we are able to send probes from planet to planet and out of the Solar System.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Space doesn't exist.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

A more powerful magnetic force will attract weaker magnetic forces to it.

Please show the math.

I prefer real world examples, since math, by itself, will not show us the actual forces in play.

That's why you want to veer off into the math, instead of comparing real world examples.

Nice try.

a reply to: turbonium1

Yeah.

Math only makes it possible for you to "talk" to me, right now. Math only makes it possible to send probes from planet to planet and then out of the Solar System.

Math sucks. Math is hard.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Your comparison, as I said, is invalid. Gravity is not equivalent to magnetism.

Gravity is quite consistent. Thus we are able to send probes from planet to planet and out of the Solar System.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Space doesn't exist.

Gravity doesn't exist. Space exists, only it's not NASA-land's idiotic claim of Space - Version 50.0. Revision 453.

The main reason many people think gravity is a proven fact, is largely because of people like you, who constantly drone on about gravity, like it's a well-established fact. It is not.

You are clearly, intentionally, deceptive in referring to gravity as if it was an established fact - over and over again.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Yeah.

Math only makes it possible for you to "talk" to me, right now. Math only makes it possible to send probes from planet to planet and then out of the Solar System.

Math sucks. Math is hard.

No, math is an excuse you use to avoid the comparison I described.

That's what sucks for you, and is too hard to deal with.

a reply to: turbonium1

Your comparison is invalid. Gravity is not the same as magnetism.