Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

So...

What keeps us on the earth in your world?

And why do celestial bodies like the moon and the sun... and the "lights" go "around" said earth?

We don't need any 'force' to keep us on a flat surface, that's the point. A 'force' is only needed to keep us on a ball.

Objects have density, that's why we are on the surface. Some objects can overcome their specific density using air to rise above the surface, as birds and insects do.

We can prove objects hold to a flat surface anywhere, not just Earth itself. A glass on a table, for example. Density holds the glass on the table, nothing else. The surface of Earth doesn't pull the glass to its surface, the table holds it above the surface, without a problem.

No ball works, though. Objects don't hold around a ball, anywhere, no matter how large the ball. No matter how dense the ball is. Show me any other ball that holds objects around it, to prove everyone can hold around your Earth ball.


Look at the stars above. Why are they always the exact same stars above us, then?

Look at Polaris, the North Star. Why is it always in the same place, which is the reason it's called the 'North Star'?

If Earth is rotating in space, there cannot be one star in the North all the time, right? But it is, which means the Earth cannot be rotating in space. The North Star would be moving around, just like any of the other stars.

What does a planetarium use to represent our universe? A giant dome, right?

A dome would only show us half, at most, of the visible universe - if Earth was a sphere.

And it wouldn't be the exact same half of the visible universe we always see, either.


We'd have thousands of images taken from space that show the OTHER side of the visible universe, wouldn't we?

Nobody has ever seen any stars in half the visible universe, even though we can take images from space showing the other half of the visible universe, and you actually believe that makes any sense?


All the stars we see are above us, and that is it. The North Star never moves, it is always True North of the Earth, which is the exact center of Earth. The stars move around the North Star, above Earth. All night, and all day, forever. The Sun and Moon move above the Earth, as well. The Sun and Moon will often be seen at the same time, above Earth, in daylight.

Planetariums are not shaped like a dome for nothing. Space is represented within, and below, a large dome.. because space IS within a large dome, of course.

What should planetariums show us to represent YOUR idea of the universe, which would be seen all around a globe? Not a dome, that's for sure.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

So...

What keeps us on the earth in your world?

And why do celestial bodies like the moon and the sun... and the "lights" go "around" said earth?

We don't need any 'force' to keep us on a flat surface, that's the point. A 'force' is only needed to keep us on a ball.

Objects have density, that's why we are on the surface. Some objects can overcome their specific density using air to rise above the surface, as birds and insects do.

We can prove objects hold to a flat surface anywhere, not just Earth itself. A glass on a table, for example. Density holds the glass on the table, nothing else. The surface of Earth doesn't pull the glass to its surface, the table holds it above the surface, without a problem.

No ball works, though. Objects don't hold around a ball, anywhere, no matter how large the ball. No matter how dense the ball is. Show me any other ball that holds objects around it, to prove everyone can hold around your Earth ball.


Look at the stars above. Why are they always the exact same stars above us, then?

Look at Polaris, the North Star. Why is it always in the same place, which is the reason it's called the 'North Star'?

If Earth is rotating in space, there cannot be one star in the North all the time, right? But it is, which means the Earth cannot be rotating in space. The North Star would be moving around, just like any of the other stars.

What does a planetarium use to represent our universe? A giant dome, right?

A dome would only show us half, at most, of the visible universe - if Earth was a sphere.

And it wouldn't be the exact same half of the visible universe we always see, either.


We'd have thousands of images taken from space that show the OTHER side of the visible universe, wouldn't we?

Nobody has ever seen any stars in half the visible universe, even though we can take images from space showing the other half of the visible universe, and you actually believe that makes any sense?


All the stars we see are above us, and that is it. The North Star never moves, it is always True North of the Earth, which is the exact center of Earth. The stars move around the North Star, above Earth. All night, and all day, forever. The Sun and Moon move above the Earth, as well. The Sun and Moon will often be seen at the same time, above Earth, in daylight.

Planetariums are not shaped like a dome for nothing. Space is represented within, and below, a large dome.. because space IS within a large dome, of course.

What should planetariums show us to represent YOUR idea of the universe, which would be seen all around a globe? Not a dome, that's for sure.

The North Star does move. It 'rotates' slightly in the sky.
Get some better material, you're slipping.

a reply to: turbonium1

o...k?



Glad thats on the top of the page

No ball works, though. Objects don't hold around a ball, anywhere, no matter how large the ball. No matter how dense the ball is. Show me any other ball that holds objects around it, to prove everyone can hold around your Earth ball.

just for fun

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

So...

What keeps us on the earth in your world?

And why do celestial bodies like the moon and the sun... and the "lights" go "around" said earth?

We don't need any 'force' to keep us on a flat surface, that's the point. A 'force' is only needed to keep us on a ball.

Objects have density, that's why we are on the surface. Some objects can overcome their specific density using air to rise above the surface, as birds and insects do.

You cant overcome density it never changes. We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object that is dropped, we could use it to let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, and even how much energy it will take to pick it up again. Thing float because of gravity a helium balloon floats because gravity pulls air down making its density higher then helium.

We can prove objects hold to a flat surface anywhere, not just Earth itself. A glass on a table, for example. Density holds the glass on the table, nothing else. The surface of Earth doesn't pull the glass to its surface, the table holds it above the surface, without a problem.

This idea is just stupid but easy for you to test. Create a vacuum and drop an object in your world it should float. www.wired.com...

No ball works, though. Objects don't hold around a ball, anywhere, no matter how large the ball. No matter how dense the ball is. Show me any other ball that holds objects around it, to prove everyone can hold around your Earth ball.

For this I want you to do some research why does dust collect on the underside of an object instead of just on top of it? ID be interested to see why we have to dust the sides of things instead of just the top?

Look at the stars above. Why are they always the exact same stars above us, then?

Look at Polaris, the North Star. Why is it always in the same place, which is the reason it's called the 'North Star'?

If Earth is rotating in space, there cannot be one star in the North all the time, right? But it is, which means the Earth cannot be rotating in space. The North Star would be moving around, just like any of the other stars.

Why would the stars change? Not following you here at all. However again you can verify the earth spins just lime the ancients. Simply track stars across the sky. North star does move just not as much because earth axis points near it.

What does a planetarium use to represent our universe? A giant dome, right?

A dome would only show us half, at most, of the visible universe - if Earth was a sphere.

And it wouldn't be the exact same half of the visible universe we always see, either.

You seem to be unaware that the northern and southern hemispheres see different stars. Someone living in Australia never sees Polaris.

We'd have thousands of images taken from space that show the OTHER side of the visible universe, wouldn't we?

Nobody has ever seen any stars in half the visible universe, even though we can take images from space showing the other half of the visible universe, and you actually believe that makes any sense?

I'm not sure making sense is a priority for you. I suggest visiting hubbles website maybe you'll learn something.

[Quote]
All the stars we see are above us, and that is it. The North Star never moves, it is always True North of the Earth, which is the exact center of Earth. The stars move around the North Star, above Earth. All night, and all day, forever. The Sun and Moon move above the Earth, as well. The Sun and Moon will often be seen at the same time, above Earth, in daylight.

Planetariums are not shaped like a dome for nothing. Space is represented within, and below, a large dome.. because space IS within a large dome, of course.

What should planetariums show us to represent YOUR idea of the universe, which would be seen all arounnd a globe? Not a dome, that's for sure.

Planetarium was designed to show the stars from our viewpoint. So they are a representation of the sky above us though when I was a kid a planetarium showed us what it would be like from the dark side of the moon. They could have just as easily created the stars as seen from another solar system say alpha centauri because we have star locations plotted.

a reply to: turbonium1

Educate yourself:

celestia.space...

stellarium.org...

www.worldwidetelescope.org...

Or don't. Your call.

a reply to: Hyperboles

You don't have to pivot the nose down for the love of God! No Matter where you are relative to the surface of the earth, DOWN IS ALWAYS DOWN!

That 1 degree shift in "down" every 69 miles absolutely does not need compensated for!

originally posted by: turbonium1
The fact that gravity is nothing more than a non-existent, non-proven, ever-revised, THEORY?

No. Gravity is an observable phenomenon, reproducible and testable.

Quite clearly, your intelligence is not.

I'd point our some really interesting links online, like HERE, but I know you won't read them because they don't fit your own insane narrative.

Do you actually tell people in real life that you think the Earth is flat and that gravity is non-existent? Or is that kind of bravery reserved for the warm cozy anonymity of being behind a computer screen?

a reply to: turbonium1


NO, I need that food for myself

originally posted by: Hyperboles

So does anyone still believe that the aircraft can fly a curved path above the surface, without pivoting the nose, progressively, downward, about the COG?

Hyperboles, it depends on what you mean by “pivoting the nose.” Do you mean that a manual or automated control input is required, or that the aircraft accomplishes such movement un-commanded? Do you suggest that such a flightpath cannot be flown hands-free? Something else?

This has come up before, and been answered thoroughly, but at least your newest post has a fresh twist--phrases like “dipping the nose” and “pushing the nose down” have been now replaced by a better description of the nose pivoting about the CG, which is actually a valid description of a self-contained movement which works in any frame of reference. Ten brownie points, buddy. (Side note: gravity is required, of course.)

It might help to explain now what it means to “configure” and “trim” an aircraft, because I think these terms have caused confusion before. Configure means to combine one or more settings of pitch (nose up or down), power (thrust), weight distribution and aerodynamic variables (lift or drag devices, such as slats, landing gear, spoilers, etc.), in order to achieve a desired flightpath. The flightpath may be steady-state (unaccelerated) such as a climb, descent or level, or else non-steady-state. The most important point to make about configuring an aircraft for a particular flightpath is that it is not, as many non-flyers wrongly suppose, merely a matter of pointing the nose. The aircraft does not simply go where the nose is pointed.

“Trimming” an aircraft means to use a trim device (e.g. trim tab) in order to eliminate control forces which would otherwise be required to hold an aircraft is a particular configuration. In other words, it allows flying “hands/feet-free”. For example, in a long climb a pilot trims the aircraft for that exact climb, to avoid having to hold back-pressure on the stick/yoke for an extended period of time. Likewise with descents, and of course level flight. In fact, an aircraft can be trimmed for nearly any maneuver which it can perform at all, so any insistence that a particular flightpath requires a pilot to push or pull in order to maintain it, is mistaken.

An aircraft traversing the globe in level flight (constant altitude*), would certainly be trimmed, unless there were a mechanical problem or the pilot was a glutton for muscle fatigue. As such, this curved flightpath would be flown hands/feet-free, save for certain adjustments made necessary by other factors—turbulence, fuel burn-off, weight shifts, and other perturbations. But no adjustment are ever needed for the curvature itself, which also explains why no related, display instrument exists**. (Some flatEarthers, when told by pilots that no such “curvature” instrument exists, have tried twisting that fact into proof that the Earth is flat.)

But even the un-trimmed aircraft requires no control input to follow the Earth’s curvature, because an aircraft configured for level flight is actually configured for an atmospheric condition called “density altitude”, which itself is a product of barometric pressure. The aircraft simply hunts the density altitude for which it’s been configured, completely un-commanded, and because the Earth’s atmosphere and its pressure gradient follow the curvature in proportion, so too will the aircraft configured for a specific DA.

Yes, yes, in answering the latest post, I just broke my vow not to repeat myself. But the question was asked anew, and earnestly too, so I thought I’d try a simpler type of explanation this time.


*This is the official, aeronautical definition of “level”, not the flatEarthers’ preferred level-is-the-same-as-flat definition.

**An INS will account for curvature, but does not display such isolated information to the pilot, as it is not needed.

originally posted by: Rollie83
The aircraft does not simply go where the nose is pointed.

That's what boggles my mind about this whole discussion regarding tilting the nose down, because everybody who flies knows the nose is always tilted up during final descent and landing, and the rear wheels touch the ground first, so as you say there are many more variables to flying than just the attitude. There are more extreme examples too where the aircraft can ascend and descend, all with the nose tilted up, so attitude is just one factor among many that you listed which determines if a plane will ascend, descend or maintain altitude.

originally posted by: dragonridr
You seem to be unaware that the northern and southern hemispheres see different stars. Someone living in Australia never sees Polaris.

I've been trying to understand the world view of flat-earthers, by watching some of their videos and reading some of their forums.

So far, I have yet to see any coherent explanation of the stars in the southern hemisphere by flat-earth proponents. I did hear second-hand about an incoherent explanation that didn't make any sense. Apparently any pictures of stars in the southern hemisphere online are considered "fake". In one forum, a poster in the southern hemisphere offered to go outside and take some time exposure shots of the southern hemisphere stars at night, but he couldn't seem to get a straight answer about whether his photos would also be considered fake. Apparently southern hemisphere stars really destroy the flat earth model, but since apparently no evidence except their own eyes is adequate proof for a flat earther, all you can do is suggest they travel to the southern hemisphere to see the southern cross and other southern hemisphere stars for themselves.

Of course many other things destroy the flat earth model too, like why would sunshine only strike the earth in a spotlight-like fashion, when the sun apparently radiates in all directions? That one doesn't make any sense either, so even the flat earth explanation of day and night doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Never mind the change in elevation of stars with a change of latitude. It happens with all stars, but Polaris is the most dramatic example since its elevation corresponds very closely to latitude. That can only happen on a round world. That's why the world's roundness has been known for a very long time.

I have yet to hear a rational counter to this, from a flatty. The claim is generally that stars are closer than claimed but when the math (simple trig) is requested, they seem to lose interest.

a reply to: turbonium1

Here is a list of stars that take it in turn to be the pole star

Pole Stars

From the link

Of late it has been noted that the ancients were not only aware of the slow precession[2] but also of a series of seven pole stars which would each successively become the North Star over the 26,000 cycle.

As for stars not appearing to move that seems to be real problem for flattards understanding scale.

For example if I was 1 mile away from you and move 3 inches in any direction do you think you would see it

Another example if I was 10 feet from you and move 0.25 mm do you think you would see that ?

Stars are very far away that's why in our lifetime we wont see any movement just by using your eyes.

As for stars any star you see in the night sky is in OUR galaxy the Milky Way if you rotate and look in all directions guess what shape it is a sphere as we cant see through the Earth a dome ie hemisphere represents what we see.

It's just as well breathing is automatic or some people would be in real bother.

Were you even educated

a reply to: wmd_2008

I can not ever recall any FE believer answering this very question. How is it that Polaris in not visible from Oz?

a reply to: Rollie83

THANK YOU

I've tried explaining this to him over and over even bringing up Bernoulli's principle since the way lift is generated definitely has an effect on what you would or wouldn't need to adjust for.

I've built and flown RC's etc for years and years too so I understand trim, but at these scales and speeds trimming for something like that just wouldn't come up even if it was a real factor in say 737's. I've likewise been in control of actual aircraft human beings fit inside too, but I don't have a pilots license and the actual stick time I have was long ago, strictly limited to VFR, and involved having a real pilot right there to take over at any point. (One aircraft i briefly got to fly was an OV-10 owned by a local air museum when I was very young which is one of my fondest memories. They were taking it up on a check flight and I got invited to come along. Next thing you know as we're flying more or less along the Columbia River the pilot comes over the intercom and asks me if I want to take a turn flying. Obviously I said yes!)

So density altitude is what this is actually called?

This is a good thing to know if so because this concept is a helluva hard one to explain to people!

That's very frustrating too because many times this will lead the other person to say see you don't know you just believe it because it's what you've been told!

You wind up in a situation where You really do know the answer and you really aren't taking it on faith, but at the same time you really do probably legitimately seem like you don't actually understand to the other person... Everyone walks away unhappy and it sucks!

Gyroscopes, attitude indicators, and some other things also tend to create similar crappy situations. In both cases though a substantial part of the issue is that you're having to try to prove something with language in lieu of the math that should probably be used to prove it.

Edit: Unfortunately for many people including myself even if the people asking the question would accept the math... I frankly don't know how capable I'd be of providing the mathematical proof! I definitely couldn't do it off hand that's for sure!

originally posted by: roguetechie

(One aircraft i briefly got to fly was an OV-10 owned by a local air museum when I was very young which is one of my fondest memories. They were taking it up on a check flight and I got invited to come along. Next thing you know as we're flying more or less along the Columbia River the pilot comes over the intercom and asks me if I want to take a turn flying. Obviously I said yes!)

Wow! Funny you should mention the OV-10…of all the aircraft I wanted to fly but never did, that’s #1 on my list. To me it looks like an eager greyhound, just aching to stretch itself out. There are a few in private hands by now, and boy, am I jealous of their owners. You’re a lucky cuss for having ridden in one, and you got stick time too! Awesome.

Yeah, a fair amount of flying technique is actually counter-intuitive, and this where a lot of flatEarthers get hung up. They think they can judge flying matters from their sofas as well, or even better than those in cockpits can. (RC pilots such as yourself are NOT in the sofa category, and must understand principles of flight to be successful.) If flatEarthers actually had the chance to control an aircraft, they’d be pretty shocked to learn that aircraft don’t behave as they’d assumed.

This goes for other areas of knowledge too. The sticking point isn’t inexperience or inexpertise, because we all display those in one area or another, and there’s no shame in it. The problem is flatEarth dogmatism, whereby any contrary view, no matter how objectively expert, is considered false, a lie, and probably part of the cover-up. Conversely, having the “correct” view by itself confers all the expertise one needs, and so a high-schooler hepped up on flatEarth videos can tell a physics professor that gravity doesn’t exist, and keep a perfectly straight face while doing so. I admire gumption, but when it stops short of seeking real answers, then it becomes an exercise in self-gratification. And tell you what, these flatEarthers seem pretty happy with themselves and their movement…

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Whoa, it's been a while since I checked on this thread (I honestly forgot all about it).

Our current seismology graphs and models show waves passing through mediums with additional theories and hypothesis built up to answer to the way seismic waves behave: notably, why they suddenly (and for no specific reason) change their behavior when traveling through the inner layers of the planet; the link below shows in summary how a simple Hollow Model makes infinitely more sense than the revised, redone, hypothesis ridden solid model.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

This is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence for the hollow model. Notes and reports dating al the way back to Viking excursions tell of pollen and frozen fauna on the ice of the far northern region, not to mention Bird migration patterns above the arctic circle have them traveling North instead of South to find warmer climates, everything the Nazi's reported, the Journal of Karl Unger detailing routes and findings of the inner Earth in the South pole, Virtually every early civilization on the planet speaking of beings coming up form the inner earth; even our single computation that we rely on for gravity and a planets total mass is based on the assumption that electricity has no effect on the gravitational pull of a celestial body..... Which is something that we haven't touched on since the experiment was established.

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: Hyperboles

You don't have to pivot the nose down for the love of God! No Matter where you are relative to the surface of the earth, DOWN IS ALWAYS DOWN!

That 1 degree shift in "down" every 69 miles absolutely does not need compensated for!

So you haven't even worked out the curvature yet? Go back to school and learn some physics

a reply to: Hyperboles

I love how you say that to my posting of an actual number...

Hey genius 69*360=24840

Circumference of the Earth according to Google:

24901

Earth being an oblate spheroid and having a known equatorial bulge... Huh... That's just about.... Right!

What was that you were saying about physics classes again?

P.s. the actual result is actually 1 degree every 69.1 something miles, but rounding to the nearest whole mile result gives you plenty accurate results. (For those who prefer metric the value is 110 kilometers per degree, really 110 point something if you want to be a metric pedant instead of an imperial pedant, and in case you ever need to do conversions there's 1.6 or so km in a mile)

a reply to: seagull

Seagull, they have an answer now... It's stupid but it's an answer!

They say it's because you can only see so far so why would you be able to see the stars over London if you're in Perth?!

Incidentally this is also why you can't see new Jersey from England and etc.

Many of us have taken to colloquially labelling their entire basket of visual ad hoc explanations as "flerspective".

It's like the law of perspective on a round earth except without the mathematical model, consistency, well defined effects, limitations, and predictive power of course.

originally posted by: roguetechie

Many of us have taken to colloquially labelling their entire basket of visual ad hoc explanations as "flerspective".

Excellent.