Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

a reply to: mytquin

can you please list the 3 " best points " of the flat earth proponernts ? - because to be blunt - all i have everseen is utter twaddle from them

next - citation required for :

By the way, pilots have been asked if they occasionally have to dip the nose down to account for flying over a curved earth and they are on record as stating that they in fact don't ever have to do this.

i want to see what they actually say in context

and finally - to address your point :

if an aircraft is in neutral trim // COG and does not move any of its control surfaces - then [ at a give altutude - letsuse 5000m ASL ( and therefore given airpressure )] if the velocity of airflow across its wings remains constant - the lift generated by the wings will not change [ for simplicity - we are ignoring all eviromental variables wind , humidity etc etc etc - we are using an ideal homogenous atmosphere - with only one variable - airpressure decreasese with altitude ] ]

does everyone agree with the ^ premise [ if not - state why ]

now - if the lift generated - remains constant - then the aircraft altutude will remain static -

agree ? [ if not why ?????????????? ]

now flying over a spheroid earth - the air pressure at 5000m ASL = the same at every point on the planet

thus - as lift does not change - altitude will not change - it will fly level - maintianing 5000m ASL

the aircraft flies at a tangent to its CURRENT location above the centre of the earth - flatearth proponents have the delusuion that it should fly at a tangent to its starting location - which is utter bollox

ergo - level flight - with no adjustment

simples

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: Pandaram
Like a Maple bar without the filling.

I love those.

Great analogy. Reminds me of my girlfriends head. It has a flat spot on her forehead where I can set my beer. Like they say, the apple don't fall far from the tree... If it wasn't for flat earth it would raise the cost of building and the likely first people to notice would be business owners. Like Jack in the Box, which would in turn very likely raise the cost of their Tacos.

Additionally, more stores would have to increase the number of cosmetics to deal with the 'flat forehead' issue, thus eating up more room, leading to less space as a whole for the community. Less space would translate to a higher concentration of the areas to house homeless and higher piles of 'uh, you know'. Which would lead to ........... well, a variety of things. Like The cessation of 'rubber biscuit' attacks. Thusly, once thrown, without dipping the trajectory, would just loft out into outer space. A win-win for aliens stopping by to grab a biscuit or two.

And don't forget, Walking down the sidewalk would be less fun as the cracks would not form on a flat surface like the would on a curved surface. Hence" step on a crack, break your moma's back. But in these days of confusion who would know if it was in fact your moma or a cross dressing transvestite or perhaps transgender or lord forbid..... a straight person. A flat surface for a sidewalk would also be more likely to have dropped 'Tide Pods' land and remain, where a curved sidewalk would have some chance of them rolling into the overgrown weeds and grasses surrounding the sidewalks. I think you know the rest of the story. Soap Candy.

Anyone with a lick of sense knows the answer....... More Taxes.
Flatlanders unite.....

[off-topic]
Something big must be going on in the world because the OP's question is a diversion from something bigger.

Maybe its a diversion from the fact that Google & Twitter are like Nazi Brown#s now

a reply to: ignorant_ape

does everyone agree with the ^ premise [ if not - state why ]


Yea your' probably getting that information out of an old DC Comic book, likely Superman or Green Arrow. It's diss-information like this that has the world in the state it's in. If it weren't for my Pez dispenser , something, something........ I rest my case. Shame, Shame for spreading such blasphomous half truths to a vunerable audience such as ATS. We here have higher standards 'donchaknow. Feel free to stop by and let me explain, we'll do lunch, my people will get with your people, I'll send an e-mail. Oh and that lunch........ is Jack in the Box Taco's ok....?

a reply to: Jubei42

OP says if you fly ONLY with the reference to the artificial horizon. try this on a really calm night
Yes the auto pilot will maintain altitude when altitude mode is on

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: mytquin

The altimeter reads the ground level below it,why do people with no knowledge of anything throw in their 2 cents? because we have liberals teaching them,think I learned that about 7 yrs old,about a year ahead of college milleniums

The altimeter reads height above MSL

a reply to: Hyperboles
At night time.......... oh come on, at night were all busy doing the Macarena and having Real fun..... I'm always there, I should know. That is, except when I'm tending my Fedora shop in Katmandu.
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Jubei42

OP says if you fly ONLY with the reference to the artificial horizon. try this on a really calm night
Yes the auto pilot will maintain altitude when altitude mode is on

I'm not a pilot, but I'm guessing if a pilot is manually keeping his altitude the same, he/she is constantly making micro-dips. That pilot may not notice making these micro dips because it is all part of the constant manual input needed to keep the altimeter reading a constant altitude.

originally posted by: Plotus

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: Pandaram
Like a Maple bar without the filling.

I love those.

Great analogy. Reminds me of my girlfriends head. It has a flat spot on her forehead where I can set my beer. Like they say, the apple don't fall far from the tree... If it wasn't for flat earth it would raise the cost of building and the likely first people to notice would be business owners. Like Jack in the Box, which would in turn very likely raise the cost of their Tacos.

Additionally, more stores would have to increase the number of cosmetics to deal with the 'flat forehead' issue, thus eating up more room, leading to less space as a whole for the community. Less space would translate to a higher concentration of the areas to house homeless and higher piles of 'uh, you know'. Which would lead to ........... well, a variety of things. Like The cessation of 'rubber biscuit' attacks. Thusly, once thrown, without dipping the trajectory, would just loft out into outer space. A win-win for aliens stopping by to grab a biscuit or two.

And don't forget, Walking down the sidewalk would be less fun as the cracks would not form on a flat surface like the would on a curved surface. Hence" step on a crack, break your moma's back. But in these days of confusion who would know if it was in fact your moma or a cross dressing transvestite or perhaps transgender or lord forbid..... a straight person. A flat surface for a sidewalk would also be more likely to have dropped 'Tide Pods' land and remain, where a curved sidewalk would have some chance of them rolling into the overgrown weeds and grasses surrounding the sidewalks. I think you know the rest of the story. Soap Candy.

Anyone with a lick of sense knows the answer....... More Taxes.
Flatlanders unite.....

Best damn thing I've read this week.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Absolutely right

I mean, speaking of the Hollow Earth (which you can get a good jump start on, researching previous feeds on here), there is actually more evidence available for the Hollow Earth theory than for the Solid, looking at records from hundreds of years ago, right up to gravity, planetary formation, seismic models, etc.

However, Flat Earth is a different beast in itself. When your only evidence is that "Gravity pull DOWN! Telescope fixes disappearing ships! I don't see a curve!", then you really have to sit down and rethink your scientific process.

The Earth is a dodecahedron. Therefore gives the impression of being flat, but kind of spherical too.

originally posted by: dothedew
I mean, speaking of the Hollow Earth (which you can get a good jump start on, researching previous feeds on here), there is actually more evidence available for the Hollow Earth theory than for the Solid, looking at records from hundreds of years ago, right up to gravity, planetary formation, seismic models, etc.

I'm not sure what evidence you mean, but the value for gravity on Earth depends on the Earth having a certain mass, And I don't know how that mass could be achieved if the Earth is hollow.

In addition, seismic studies show that the Earth is NOT hollow. Seismographs that record earthquakes and similar events on the side of the Earth far from (even on the opposite side from) those events show that seismic waves traveling through the Earth's mantle, outer core, and inner core are traveling through a solid, semi-solid, or molten medium -- which is different than if the waves travel through a hollow medium.

a reply to: dothedew

I mean, speaking of the Hollow Earth (which you can get a good jump start on, researching previous feeds on here), there is actually more evidence available for the Hollow Earth theory than for the Solid, looking at records from hundreds of years ago, right up to gravity, planetary formation, seismic models, etc.

It seems the ancient Greeks knew something of the subject. "Geod" translated from ancient Greek "Earth like"



Then in more modern times one of the greatest scientists alive Sir Edmond Halley suggested the Earth was hollow.

Newton’s Lunar Density Estimate

Three hundred years ago in 1692, an article by Edmond Halley proposed that the Earth was hollow.(1) Its theory was based on the value of lunar relative density given by Isaac Newton. The first edition of Newton’s Principia (1687) found that “... the mass of the Moon will be to the mass of the Earth as 1 to 26, approximately”, citing the relative densities of Moon to Earth as 9 to 5.(2) This value of lunar relative mass was in excess by a factor of three, as the true mass ratio is 1:81. Arguably the most significant error in the Principia’s Book III, it left an ultra-dense Moon circling our Earth.(3) Edmond Halley simply invoked these figures: “Sir Isaac Newton has demonstrated the Moon to be more solid than our Earth, as 9 to 5; why may we not then suppose four ninths of our globe to be cavity?”(4) It is remarkable that so erroneous a figure, having such unlikely implications, could be thus presented without need for further justification. Halley’s theory appeared as the first significant deduction to be drawn from the Principia.

dioi.org...

As a side note both Edmund Hally and Issac Newton were Masons in Service to their King, in the Royal Society (Royal Secret). And, it was Edmund Hally who edited the Principia, and even paid for the publication of the book.

Then there were others of the time who agreed with Hally

Others assert that scientists and mathematicians followed on the coattails of Halley's idea of a hollow earth such as Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler and Scottish mathematician John Leslie. Though some of these assertions are hotly disputed, it can be sure that Halley's hard won scientific accomplishments throw a considerable weight behind his work, and his theory of the hollow earth is not to be lightly regarded.

hollowplanet.blogspot.com...

In as far as the "Flat Earth", well, if the earth is hollow, then it stands to reason, the only reason, for a "Flat Earth" theory to exist would be to: Copy and pasted from another thread;

The whole subject of "Flat Earth" was created as a side show distraction, started by an intelligence, that does not want current mankind that reside on the outer surface of this planet, to comprehend the true nature of this planet, and all others. They hide the true location of "Heaven". Not all left the "Garden".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, its the readers choice to debate, or debunk. It changes nothing in the end...

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

In addition, seismic studies show that the Earth is NOT hollow. Seismographs that record earthquakes and similar events on the side of the Earth far from (even on the opposite side from) those events show that seismic waves traveling through the Earth's mantle, outer core, and inner core are traveling through a solid, semi-solid, or molten medium -- which is different than if the waves travel through a hollow medium.

Seismology is a rather new science and is at present completely at the mercy of its interpreter. Certain assumptions have been made as to the consistency and layering of the crust that are used to calculate the results. As with a layer of Basalt rock that was "Assumed" to be at a certain depth, but was shown not to exist through direct scientific observation through the Kola Super deep Borehole. That assumed calculation itself is enough to call into question any results obtained by seismology. www.atlasobscura.com...

Then you have "Deep Focus Quakes".

“Deep earthquakes have long posed a problem for seismologists. Laboratory experiments indicate
that the pressures at a few hundred kilometers depth should prohibit brittle fracture and frictional
sliding processes. Yet earthquakes as large as (magnitude) 8.2 have occurred at 650 km
. The deep seismicity has many characteristics that are similar to those of shallow earthquakes
. Most important, the deep earthquakes have radiation patterns consistent with double couples, which
implies shear faulting.”
(Several other observations which defy accepted scientific theory are given by the author along with
attempts to explain them.) The search for deep focus quake mechanisms therefore seems to be far
from over. The problem may be more fundamental than scientists have appreciated so far.

www.otizvora.com...

So, Seismology is open to interpretation.

To be absolutely fair and honest one must study all the theories, not just the one that is pushed.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Hollow Earth

It is harder to debunk. There is no proof whatsoever except some legends. It is were true can you imagine a 4200 miles of atmosphere above you at the centre. the atmospheric pressure there will be close to 300lbs/sqin. Now what kind of flesh and blood can survive there, certainly not the surface dwellers who are used to 15lbs/sqin of atmospheric pressure.
So if there are inhabitants in the hollow earth, they cannot survive on the outer surface. The trees in the hollow earth will be certainly huge

Why not?

Life exists at the bottom of the Mariana Trench where the pressure is 15,750 psi

Not true.

Earth is closer to a flattened sphere, more so than even a sphere. It does not have 12 sides.

texture coordinates in a simulation... hollow , flat , round , whatever... Disassembling , information ... is not physical.. e=mc^2 ... energy mass and light... read it again Sam I mean the whole equotation. See the contruct it's information that rules reality .Maya , that's easy but for mediocre scientists unthinkable. 3 6 9... Numbers. Context rule not causality. ATS s could be science... Look at the perlin noise outside your window.... Just joking there is no outside in this muppetshow.

The earth is a uvsphere with perlin noise texture on it ... oh... love to know how many exabytes makes a society of 9 biljon slaves...

originally posted by: mytquin
I'm not convinced one was or the other. Both sides have very good points. Here's one on the Flat Earth side that I can't explain...
Why 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

By the way, pilots have been asked if they occasionally have to dip the nose down to account for flying over a curved earth and they are on record as stating that they in fact don't ever have to do this.

Because air density decreases as you gain altitude. That reduces lift, providing a ceiling on how high the aircraft can climb.

a reply to: Hyperboles

can you imagine a 4200 miles of atmosphere above you at the centre. the atmospheric pressure there will be close to 300lbs/sqin.

Since we are not privy to direct observations of this "Inner Sun", we are only left with imaginations. There is nothing base in theory about the atmosphere of the theoretical Hollow Earth, at least not that I have found.

But, I can imagine that if it is a reality, then the atmosphere is similar to ours, and that any remaining distance is comprised of the lightest gasses, and maybe even a vacuum at a distance from the "Inner Sun". It may actually be even less pressure than our own atmosphere.......