Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

Reality and your position are polar opposites.
Please stop lying.

It's not me that's lying, better look in the mirror.

You have have done nothing but lie, obfuscate, blur reality and manipulate facts for your entire participation in this thread. You are a joke, a laughing stock, someone to point at and pity.
Please seek mental health now. No-one supports your insane position. Seek help.

In total honesty, it does make me sad that our education system is failing this badly. We have access to almost every printed work available and we have people that just fail to understand even the basics of science. What makes me sad is you can check these things on your own all it requires is a globe and a map. Look at flights between two points on a map and two points on a globe. You can look at the distances and tell a map is wrong. There is no way to put the landmasses accurately on a map that's proof the world is round if it was flat all the distances would work They do on a globe that's how Google maps can give you distances between two places but it has to show a curved path.

Try it on google you will see the curve in the path. This is easy to verify by looking at fights

The map is based on the globe Earth, and extended out on a flat map, that's why it's not accurate.

But planes measure with instruments, based on the flat Earth, and that's why they are always accurate on flights, of any distance.

When planes reach altitude, their instruments measure for LEVEL flight, at that altitude, and remain at LEVEL flight, and the same altitude, for most of the flight, and then descend and land down again.

It's actually measured as a level flight, not 'curved' flight. Level flight alone, proves the Earth is flat.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The map is based on the globe Earth, and extended out on a flat map, that's why it's not accurate.

But planes measure with instruments, based on the flat Earth, and that's why they are always accurate on flights, of any distance.

When planes reach altitude, their instruments measure for LEVEL flight, at that altitude, and remain at LEVEL flight, and the same altitude, for most of the flight, and then descend and land down again.

It's actually measured as a level flight, not 'curved' flight. Level flight alone, proves the Earth is flat.

Try to match those distances on a flat earth map should be easy take a fight from say the US to Australia on a flat earth map show us the scale. If you can get distances to match flat earth I will gladly say your right. However, if you find flight times to be impossible on your map you will have to concede the earth is round. By the way, every map has an error because you can't place a globe on a flat surface without a distortion somewhere.

Do you even realize everywhere on the globe uses GPS and you cant get these positions correct on a map unless you include the earth curvature? I look forward seeing your map please let me know when your done and we can check it out.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The map is based on the globe Earth, and extended out on a flat map, that's why it's not accurate.

But planes measure with instruments, based on the flat Earth, and that's why they are always accurate on flights, of any distance.

When planes reach altitude, their instruments measure for LEVEL flight, at that altitude, and remain at LEVEL flight, and the same altitude, for most of the flight, and then descend and land down again.

It's actually measured as a level flight, not 'curved' flight. Level flight alone, proves the Earth is flat.

Holly crap? This &hit again.

Please cite what instrument actually measures “level” flight.

Aircraft measure altitude by converting air pressure. To gain altitude, the aircraft must manipulate flight surfaces and increase power. If a pilot / auto pilot is maintaining the aircraft to an atmospheric pressure band that corresponds to a desired altitude, and does not change flight control surfaces and power, why would the aircraft gain altitude. In either model.

The desired pressure band that corresponds to the desired altitude follows the curve of the earth. And most aircraft are not flown perfectly “level”. Aircraft can fly with a “pitch” and maintain altitude.



Another example

Ask the Captain: Nose up or down? It depends

Question: When an aircraft is descending toward landing, it seems some planes fly down nose pointed downward, and some seem to float down with the nose pointed up. Is this true, and if so, why the difference?


Answer: When configured for landing, the position of the nose is determined by whether there are leading edge slats installed. Airplanes with leading edge slats (movable panels on the front of the wing) approach the runway with the nose up, while airplanes without slats approach with the nose down. Examples of the former include the Boeing 737, while the Bombardier CRJ-200 approaches nose down (later-model CRJs have slats).

Good question.

www.usatoday.com...

As usual. You have an idiotic confusion of misconceptions.


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

The proof that planes fly level,

Again.....

Flat Earth Insanity

Flat Earth Follies: Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!

flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

Conclusion

I think that about wraps it up for this Flat Earth Folly.

Planes are not 'dropping' 8 inches every mile (per se), they are flying along the constant curvature of the gravity equipotential, while constantly adjusting pitch ever-so-slightly by means of the elevator trim setting which controls the pitch RATE of the airplane. ANY deviation from that rotation results in the plane climbing or descending which immediately shows up in the Vertical Speed indication and power settings would be adjusted accordingly. This constantly rotates their 'tangent' so there is no 8" to drop at the end of each mile, it's a constant, smooth, and VERY SLIGHT curve that presents no problems for pilots, and would be virtually undetectable in the face of other forces acting on the airplane, even at 500 mph. The plane is simply tweaked for near zero vertical speed and that's all that is required.

The Attitude Indicator is very clearly compensating for all kinds of precessional forces acting up on it and to remain accurate over the longer term must be tied to the gravity potential as well (so it remains vertically aligned over time, reacting only to sharper movements of the airplane over the short term).

a reply to: turbonium1

Your BS is debunked again.

You “question” was addressed and explained. Again.

Now. Time for you to be intellectually honest. And answer the below.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

It has nothing to do with your BS


The horizon physical blocks from view an ever increasing amount of the towers as they go an increasing distance beyond the horizon. Which would be impossible on a flat earth.

Then you have documented failures by flat earther’s because flat earth is the lie.

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion the earth does not rotate with their own ring laser gyroscope.

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion The earth does not curve with their own laser pointer experiment over water.


Flat earth is the lie.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Every video of Saturn, by telescopes or cameras, unedited and raw footage, proves it spins and wobbles constantly, rapidly, endlessly. This cannot be excused as an 'effect' of some sort, or cameras 'out of focus', it's all pure nonsense.

Your insistence that something is happening does not mean it is happening. You have not answered the question I asked: if it is only Saturn 'wobbling', why is the moon wobbling with it?

The atmosphere does have effects on our view of objects, but it's mainly on Earth-bound objects, where atmosphere is thicker, and effects our view much more than it does on viewing objects higher above the Earth, than it does on or near the surface. We know that from flying in airplanes. The worst effects of atmosphere which limit visibility are at low altitudes, below clouds, not higher altitudes, above clouds. The atmosphere is far thinner at high altitudes, than at lower altitudes, and that's why any effects of atmosphere - ACTUAL effects, not fantasyland ones - are greater at low altitudes, and obscure views of distant objects, and often those very CLOSE to us, as we all know.

So when you're looking up at the stars and planets, what exactly do you think you're looking through? Why does the distortion of features in the night sky get worse when looking towards the horizon than looking straight up? Why is the atmosphere thinner at altitude? How much more atmosphere is ther ebetween the moon and Saturn? You really, really don't think things through, do you.

You've invented magical effects within our atmosphere, which don't exist, except in your own fantasy-land world, but that's not reality, which is what we're actually dealing with here.

Nothing has been invented. The effects of atmospheric interference have been proven and described in terms even small children could understand. Anyone who has ever looked through a telescope knows about them. This still does not include you.

If you prefer magical effects instead of reality, it's your choice. I choose reality, it's much better in the end.

Just like your observations of Saturn through a telescope, reality is something you've only ever heard of. It is not a state you inhabit.

originally posted by: dragonridr
[Try to match those distances on a flat earth map should be easy take a fight from say the US to Australia on a flat earth map show us the scale. If you can get distances to match flat earth I will gladly say your right. However, if you find flight times to be impossible on your map you will have to concede the earth is round. By the way, every map has an error because you can't place a globe on a flat surface without a distortion somewhere.

Do you even realize everywhere on the globe uses GPS and you cant get these positions correct on a map unless you include the earth curvature? I look forward seeing your map please let me know when your done and we can check it out.

Because GPS takes ball-Earth positions as their base, why wouldn't it match up? You could make a football shaped Earth map, set the coordinates for a football Earth, and it ALSO match up perfectly! Why? Because over the entire Earth, it's almost the same coordinates for ANY sort of Earth, ball, flat, or football shaped,

Every continent on Earth, lies within the central area of Earth, to north, to east, and to west of all the continents, except in the south. There, Australia, and the south points of Africa, and South America, are closer, though hundreds of miles away, still. But closer than elsewhere. And these areas would also be very, very close to each other, on a ball Earth, while further away on a flat Earth, and if you wish to compare any distance between two points on Earth, you must compare where they have the greatest DISCREPANCIES in distance between two points, which makes sense, right?

You cannot make comparisons that would NOT be very different, with flights that do NOT go in a direct path from point A to point B, like from the US to Australia aren't direct flight paths to each other. That instantly invalidates such comparisons, like yours.


The fairest, most obvious comparisons are the lowest Southern points, where it differs in hundreds of miles, for each Earth, and so, would leave no doubt as to which Earth is true, and which Earth is not true.

And of course, it would prove if Antarctica really exists as claimed, or is a foul lie, once and for all, if we had flights that went directly over it, and that's never going to happen, a ball Earth doesn't exist, so they make up ridiculous excuses for not having flights over Antarctica, which are all lies, yet again.

This article goes over it....

Why don’t planes fly over Antarctica?
The White Continent does not have much in the way of infrastructure and herein lies why planes do not fly over it.

Something called ETOPS (Extended Operations) governs how far from an emergency diversion airport certain aircraft are allowed to fly, according to its model. For example, an Airbus A350 has been awarded a higher ETOPS value than a Boeing 737, meaning it can fly further from land towards its destination, and therefore on a straighter, more efficient route.

The restrictions placed on aircraft previously - at first 60 but now usually up to 180 minutes - meant that Antarctica was off-limits as it had no registered diversion airports, so planes would have to divert a considerable distance to safety. However, this changed in 2011, when regulators introduced ETOPS 330, making it possible for aircraft to fly pretty much anywhere in the world.

No airline has yet taken it upon themselves to put such freedom to the test in and around the South Pole, but many come near.

Air New Zealand’s service from Auckland to Buenos Aires comes relatively close, as does the Qantas flight from Sydney to Johannesburg. Sydney to Santiago de Chile, also operated by Qantas, currently holds the title for the most southerly Polar route,

But there is not a service that rides roughshod over Antarctica. Yet.


Will Norwegian be the first to fly over Antarctica?
It will if the low-cost, long-haul airline has its way. Norwegian’s Argentinian off-shoot, Norwegian Air Argentina, has applied and been granted permission by the South American country’s regulators to fly south across the White Continent to Perth.

The route, likely flown on one of the carrier’s 787 Dreamliners, would practically bisect Antarctica before arriving at the west coast of Australia. The 7,839-mile route from Perth to Buenos Aires would, however, probably not head straight for the South Pole and would instead skirt the shore and take advantage of the strong easterly winds that circle the continent.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


They've always made excuses for no flights crossing over Antarctica, and the 'South Pole', and there is only ONE reason for that - it cannot be done, and never COULD be done, because it's all a lie.

This route would be the shortest distance between Santiago/Buenos Ares to Sydney, or Perth, on your BALL Earth, and they will NEVER have such flights, because it is impossible.

They cannot claim it is not the shortest distance between these points, on their ball Earth, but they have to conceal a continent that doesn't even exist, which they are still doing now, and always will in future.


Notice their last excuse, after they say some flights MAY soon fly over Antarctica?

They first say it 'would cross the heart of Antarctica', but they 'probably will take advantage of the winds on the coastline of Antarctica instead'! That's the latest BS excuse, so far. But it won't be the last one, that's for sure.

So here's the point - you ask me to compare some points on each map of Earth, which aren't valid, for reasons I've explained here, while you have claimed an entire continent is 'off limits' to any flights, which is complete nonsense.

You have to hide a continent, what does THAT tell you about the ball Earth claim? The specific PLACE on Earth, which would settle this whole debate, once and for all, is held as 'off limits' for flights, by YOUR ball Earth side.

Only those who lie, must hide the truth. Rocket flights seen 100's of miles off the coast, would prove if they really DO fly up into space, or prove it is faked. Those who say rockets fly into space forbid us seeing if it is true or a lie, while making up ridiculous excuses for it. Same as they do with Antarctica, which would ALSO settle this debate once and for all.

Hiding the very specific things that either prove true, or prove false, the ball Earth claim, is done by the ball Earth side. Look at the reality here, it's right in front of you.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Your insistence that something is happening does not mean it is happening. You have not answered the question I asked: if it is only Saturn 'wobbling', why is the moon wobbling with it?

Since we always see Saturn wobbling and spinning constantly in every video of it, we know it is wobbling and spinning - that is simply based on all the valid evidence to conclude it is a fact, and no valid evidence against it as being a fact.

It does not mean that any OTHER stars, 'planets', Sun, or moon, do, or do not, spin and/or wobble also, I never claimed Saturn alone spins and/or wobbles, just that it is the only one I sknow of, for a fact. My argument is about Saturn's movements, nothing else.

As for the moon 'wobbling', do you always see it wobble like that, or only in that video, or a few videos, but not in most videos, or many of them? If all the videos showed it 'wobbling', like with Saturn, that would support this claim as true, same as it does for Saturn.

Claiming the moon ALSO wobbles, is another argument itself. It has absolutely nothing to do with Saturn, or Saturn's movements, being true. Nice try, anyway

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Why don’t planes fly over Antarctica?
The White Continent does not have much in the way of infrastructure and herein lies why planes do not fly over it.

Have proof of that ice wall yet...


Anyway...

ANTARCTICA AIR CRUISE
Experience Antarctica without crossing the stormy Drake Passage on this classic 8-day cruise. A 2-hour flight from Punta Arenas to King George Island allows guests to arrive in Antarctica by plane and explore by ship without the torment of too many days on rough seas.

www.adventuresmithexplorations.com...

www.polarcruises.com... arctica+Cruises+-+Exact&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=7813866700&hsa_cam=64119620&hsa_grp=120328594558&hsa_ad=506923057118&hsa_g&hsa_tgt=d sa-1202236655436&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=b&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIv-Cbt9Df8AIVD2xvBB3p_g6JEAAYASAAEgJYAvD_BwE

Experience the ultimate destination - the South Pole - where all 360 lines of longitude meet and in a few steps you can walk around the world

One of the greatest stories in Antarctic exploration is the race to reach the Geographic South Pole. The heroic journeys of Amundsen and Scott and Shackleton still fascinate and inspire us to travel to the end of the Earth.

Using ski aircraft we fly to the pole, covering in several hours the distance that took those early explorers years of planning and months of hardship to achieve. History comes alive as we stand at 90 South and imagine how they felt heading out across the frozen continent and into the unknown 100 years ago. We feel the spirit of determination and discovery that has inspired a century of Antarctic exploration and scientific research. And we sense that a journey to the South Pole is as significant today as it was so many years ago.

Join us to celebrate this historic achievement!

A person can fly to “ the South Pole - where all 360 lines of longitude meet and in a few steps you can walk around the world”. And there is no ice wall in the way?

originally posted by: turbonium1
The map is based on the globe Earth, and extended out on a flat map, that's why it's not accurate.

But planes measure with instruments, based on the flat Earth, and that's why they are always accurate on flights, of any distance.

When planes reach altitude, their instruments measure for LEVEL flight, at that altitude, and remain at LEVEL flight, and the same altitude, for most of the flight, and then descend and land down again.

It's actually measured as a level flight, not 'curved' flight. Level flight alone, proves the Earth is flat.

This crap again? You've been debunked into oblivion on this again and again that it's not even funny. You are now so desperate that you are bringing up your old material, which was demolished before, in the hope that we've all forgotten it somehow? Are you joking???

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
So when you're looking up at the stars and planets, what exactly do you think you're looking through? Why does the distortion of features in the night sky get worse when looking towards the horizon than looking straight up?

Because it's where more atmosphere is, near the ground of Earth, and close above it, so that's where the horizon will obscure views of objects near it, more than our view of those same objects seen straight up.

That's what I'm 'looking through' when I see stars and 'planets' above me, on a clear night. The atmosphere has no effect, or very little effect, when viewing stars and 'planets'.

You asked me...

"Why does the distortion of features in the night sky get worse when looking towards the horizon than looking straight up?"

You've had the answer to that all along - because of the Earth's atmosphere being greater at or near the surface, than high above Earth. That is what the actual effects of atmosphere do - obscure, blur, 'distort' our view of objects in the distance, and the effects are greater on or near the surface of Earth, and that's where the horizon is seen, when the stars above it look 'distorted' compared to viewing stars directly above you. Since there is far less atmosphere present, it obviously will have far less effects on viewing objects above, from the surface, and why it's even better to view them from higher altitudes, for the very same reasons, of less atmosphere at higher altitudes, less effects of it.

Two ways it's proven the atmosphere has effects that obscure and blur our VIEW of stars, as with ANY object, when seen on. or close above, the surface of Earth, and THAT is what it's effects did with your stars near the horizon, but not with the stars directly above you. And our most powerful telescopes are set upon mountains, or hills, to see stars WITHOUT atmospheric effects to obscure their view of stars, as you know.

When you claim stars and 'planets' look so unique, move so uniquely, and have different shapes and colors on them, but all of it is caused by atmospheric effects....simply remember that you DID see the ACTUAL effects of our atmosphere, on stars, seen near the Earth's surface, and that you saw far less of its effects, when viewing stars directly above you....

I think you know this is true, but say it in a very roundabout way...

a reply to: turbonium1

Just stop it and seek help at once. You're making a fool out of yourself with your endless nonsense and untruths.

originally posted by: neutronflux
A person can fly to “ the South Pole - where all 360 lines of longitude meet and in a few steps you can walk around the world”. And there is no ice wall in the way?

They have never allowed FLIGHTS across Antarctica, and this is NOT at the 'South Pole', they just say it is, and you believe it's true, from nothing but what believing whatever they say, is the truth.

Flights across the entire 'continent' would prove it isn't made up, but only if a flight goes from Santiago or Chile, to the direct south, and straight over Antarctica in the same path, until it reaches the other side of it, over the seas, until it first approach another continent, from it's southern tip, or somewhere from south, as that would prove Antarctica really existed.

Maybe Santa lives at your 'South Pole' in the summertime, if they ever tell you he does, you'll obviously believe it must be true, same as you always do. Nobody needs to prove Santa is real, and goes to the South Pole in the summer, if they say he does! Maybe they WILL say something really stupid like that, and watch you defend it as the truth for them, as they laugh over it with a few beers, and make up more BS you'll believe is true, and defend as true, and they could do it, over and over again, because that's what NASA does, over and over again.

a reply to: turbonium1

I didn't know that NASA was around in the days of Scott and Amundsen and Shackleton. Oh wait, they weren't and you keep on bleating nonsense.

I really like the story about some newly discovered, mysterious 'object' of an astronomer in Hawaii, who named it 'Oumuamua', which means 'scout' in Hawaiian, and shaped almost like a giant dildo, that's a funny one.

But then a Harvard astronomer says he believes it's an alien scout ship, which came over for a visit. I wonder where he got the idea it was an alien 'scout' ship? Right, the other astronomer named it 'scout', only in Hawaiian, before that!

They get paid a lot of money for all this - sounds like a dream job! Make up idiotic BS and get rich from it! Sweet!

I really like the story about some newly discovered, mysterious 'object' of an astronomer in Hawaii, who named it 'Oumuamua', which means 'scout' in Hawaiian, and shaped almost like a giant dildo, that's a funny one.

But then a Harvard astronomer says he believes it's an alien scout ship, which came over for a visit. I wonder where he got the idea it was an alien 'scout' ship? Right, the other astronomer named it 'scout', only in Hawaiian, before that!

They get paid a lot of money for all this - sounds like a dream job! Make up idiotic BS and get rich from it! Sweet!

a reply to: turbonium1

Your nonsense was repeated in a double post old fuitcake.

Just pad it with impressive sounding, absolutely nonsensical techno gibberish, and they'll eat it all up!

originally posted by: turbonium1
Just pad it with impressive sounding, absolutely nonsensical techno gibberish, and they'll eat it all up!

So, they should just copy you then?

a reply to: turbonium1

Shrugs..

So hard to keep all your lies straight.

Any proof of that ice wall?

Anyway

THE ULTIMATE NORTH POLE TOUR

North Pole Deluxe takes you to the top of the world in style and comfort. Two jet flights, two helicopter flights and a night at Barneo Ice Camp give you the deluxe version of North Pole travel.

icetrek.com...