Suddenly, A Flat Earther Appears!

[abaddon]

<snip gibberish>

For starters, ALL of your links are broken, with the sole exception of the Metabunk horizon calculator which you even managed to get wrong in one of the three times you linked it. This clearly indicates that you have provided simple copypasta from elsewhere since you were too lazy to check the links.

Anyway, some choice nonsense from somebodies post that you plagiarised...

If there's a "Non Perfect" Vacuum surrounding the Earth's Atmospheric layers as we are 'TOLD', then there should be a colossal cascading chain of envelopment from the Exosphere to Thermosphere to Mesosphere down to your feet like dominoes faster than you can say "ENTROPY" until equilibrium is reached. Hard Stop!

There is no "hard stop". The atmosphere gets progressively thinner. It is simply a matter of where one draws the line and defines the end of the atmosphere. It is no different than the Karman line. It is a convention, not an actual "hard stop".

How can you have a Vacuum/Near-Perfect (Outer Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) and still retain the Properties of a Vacuum and a Non-Vacuum in the same system, simultaneously....?

That would be known as gravity. As for LoT2, Earth is not a closed system. You have been told this before, yet somehow you continue to ignore that fact.


On to #2. Coriolis Effect.

Suppose you are on a train travelling at 100 mph. You have a ball in your hands. You toss the ball in the air. Why does it not immediately travel backwards at 100 mph? Why would you expect aircraft to behave any differently?

How about #3. Navy Rail Gun

"The 6-inch guns that the Navy currently uses have a range of 15 miles; the 16-inch guns of World War II had a range of 24 miles, and could penetrate 30 feet of concrete. The 38-foot railgun, though, has a range of 125 miles, five times the impact, and can shoot through seven steel plates."

So by WW2 they had figured out "over the horizon" ballistics yet somehow you can't? Do you even know what ballistics is or how it works? Do you somehow fail to grasp that aiming systems must compensate for the Earth's rotation, otherwise they would miss? In fact, this was known in WW1 a whole century ago. Somehow, you missed all of that.

Why exactly is it that you think that the developers of the rail gun are concentrating their efforts on building self guiding projectiles?

 

[Daniel]

What separates you from them?

Common Sense.

"It wouldn't take much to notice the huge discrepancy between the two versions of the map when sailing in the south seas. Are you saying that only .001 percent of whaling captains would notice that the trip is thousands of miles farther than shown on the map?"

Straw Man (Fallacy); ahh, did I mention any maps?

how do you account for the fact that nobody has ever reported seeing the ice wall?

Really?? ...

Yet many people have been to Antarctica and even sailed around it.

"In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”


On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.” "In his book "South Sea Voyage," James Clark Ross reports a total voyage of over 60,000 nautical miles."
http://www.abodia.com/fe/articles/flat-earth-around-antarticia.htm

That's over 70,000 Statute Miles. With the Earth allegedly 24,901 miles in circumference....Lucy has some "Spainin to do"


How do you account for the fact that NOBODY has ever Measured a "Spinning Ball" rotating @ 1,000 mph, revolving around the sun @ 66,600 mph (axis 66.6 degrees from the ecliptic), with the sun traveling @ 500,000 mph around the Milky Way---which is itself moving @ 670,000,000 mph .....?
Yet, you 'believe' this mind numbing buffoonery without question

The tops of mountains from allegedly 125 miles away. Not quite what I was looking for.

I suggest an Eye Appointment @ your earliest convenience.

Vanishing Point? Hahaha hoo, Do you think that means when something gets a certain distance away it vanishes?

Yea, duh.

I will give you weather but will not allow you to pretend that there are so many reasons you need to say," etc, etc". What are the rest?

oh brother


regards

 

[Daniel]

For starters, ALL of your links are broken, with the sole exception of the Metabunk horizon calculator which you even managed to get wrong in one of the three times you linked it.

Yes, something happened with the client. No big deal...type the content into any search engine and Voila.

This clearly indicates that you have provided simple copypasta from elsewhere since you were too lazy to check the links.

oh brother

Anyway, some choice nonsense from somebodies post that you plagiarised...

1. Generalized Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

2. Genetic Fallacy -- is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

There is no "hard stop".

So "Na'ahh" is your argument, eh?

The atmosphere gets progressively thinner. It is simply a matter of where one draws the line and defines the end of the atmosphere. It is no different than the Karman line. It is a convention, not an actual "hard stop".

And how does this help your position?? This is tantamount to a defending yourself against a robbery charge by describing the bills caught in your possession... were progressively getting smaller (100's, then 10's, then 5's) the closer you got to your getaway.

That would be known as gravity.

Ahhh yes, The "One-Word" Savior

Show ONE Experiment where 'gravity' overcomes ENTROPY ....? (of course... first, you're gonna have to Validate "gravity" existing then it's CAUSE...? )...


Newtonian Gravity and (Gravitational Constant):

"Alright So, today we're gonna shoot down Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwell's Theory. We're like the Press, we build somebody up only to destroy them".
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.
Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality. (2:00 minute mark.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eFv7ne_Q

We can stop right here, since NEWTON'S 'speculations' (Mytho-matheMagics) have been Falsified by Experiment; but where's the fun in that...


Definition of terms: M = Mass, Fg = force of gravity, w (weight) = Mg (mass x force of gravity), G = Gravitational Constant, r = radius (distance).

Newton never calculated "G" and proposed this before he died: Fg ∝ m₁M₂/d², so the Force of gravity is "Proportional" ( ∝ ).

Big "G" in Modern 'Classical Physics' is the ANCHOR Point for just about everything (i.e., calculating weight of Earth/Moon/Sun/Galaxies; 'theoretically' to calculate the birth of the universe' ect ect)

The quest for the Gravitational Constant "G", enter Henry Cavendish ~120 years later: This "purported" gentleman was extremely rich (member of the Royal Society: read 'Freemason') and a contrary breeze away from cutting off his own ears. I personally found 8 different portraits of this gentleman i.e, apparently he was "conjured", but I digress.

The 'Torsion Bar' Experiment, which has NEVER EVER been Repeated Successfully, poofed into existence: "G" = 6.67408 × 10-11 m³ /kg s² .

So Cavendish said: weight = Fg (Mg) ; Ergo: mg = "G" m₁M₂/r² . Now he could calculate the Mass of Earth (M₂ is Mass of Earth, r² is radius of Earth)....

mg = "G" m₁M₂/r² so, mg = "G" m₁M₂/r² . So, M₂ = g r²/ G. Solving, for the Mass of Earth... 5.972 × 10²⁴ kg.


Ahhh, Questions...

1. Please VALIDATE "G" by Experiment; CITE Source.....?

2. Begging The Question Fallacy: where'd he get that "Radius" from ?? Then, VALIDATE the Radius of Earth....? (You'd have better chances of resurrecting Alexander the Great's Horse!!!). Please post Eratosthenes, Make MY DAY !!!

In summary, the Corner Constant "G" of Modern 'Classical Physics' is based on based on an Un-Verified Experiment (assumption) and a Logical Fallacy.

"There is no model of the theory of gravitation today other than the mathematical form."
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize Physics), The Character of the Physical Law. Page 39
http://people.virginia.edu/~ecd3m/1110/Fall2014/The_Character_of_Physical_Law.pdf

Wait...What, Huh? Richard Richard Richard... a Mathematical -- "Scientific Theory", eh? This is tantamount to having a "theory" of Married Bachelors!! If anyone needs me to explain "why", you have more "pressing issues" than Flat Earth or 'gravity'.
Richard should've turned in that Nobel and headed back to and passed 5th Grade General Science!!


Let's hammer this nonsensical Mytho-matheMagics into oblivion once and for all, mmm K? So let's go back to Newton, Fg ∝ m₁M₂/d² (and Cavedish: Fg = G m₁M₂/d² ) so the Force of Gravity is critically dependent on all the elements in these expressions, Right?

OK, let's assume that both equations above, including Big "G", is correct.

Let's look @ the relationship between "Centrifugal Force" (Fc) and (Fg) "Force of Gravity". Basically, we want to set them "Equal" ...that way, we can calculate "The Force" holding ANY planet in their "alleged" respective orbit around the Sun. So as before we'll define terms:

m₁ (Mass of 1 Body...I will be using the Earth here but it can be any mass), M₂ will be the Mass of The Sun, V = Velocity, r = Radius (distance between Earth and Sun) :

Fc = m ( V²/r )
Fg = G m₁M₂/d² or (r²)

Let's set them Equal:

Fc = mEarth ( V²/r ) = G mEarth MSun / r² = Fg . So a little Algebra...

Fc = m_Earth ( V2/r ) = G m_Earth M_Sun / r² = Fg ....

Fc = ( V²/r ) = G MSun / r² = Fg !!! We can Stop right here, See The Problem??

Fc and Fg are NO LONGER "FORCES" because we just Eliminated ( " m " ) from both sides of the Equation! Remember...

Fc = m ( V2/r ) and...... Fg = G m₁M₂/d² or (r²) !! D U N "DONE". When you cancel " m "...you cancel "The FORCE", simple. This is the epitome of Mytho-matheMagical Buffoonery.


Turn out the lights when you're D U N !


EinsHtein's Turn (relativity):


So Relativity, sr and gr via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME ??

Primary School Falsification:

Sir, TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions. Specifically, it's based on an "Alleged" single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day).
It's a "CONCEPT" (Non-Physical). It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location. You can't put some in a jar and paint in red.

I mean c'mon now, let's reason together....can you Dilate/Bend Warp Non-Physical "Concepts"??
Is it your contention that if you have Poison Ivy on the brain you could scratch it by thinking of Sand Paper??

That which you are using to measure....isn't the thing you're measuring.

** A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn't Yardsticks!! If I bend a Yardstick...does the Football Field Bend also? **

So if something affects say...Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern "Clock" for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth's "Alleged" rotation is Affected?
These Two Mytho-matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ recess, for goodness sakes.
IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids!!


Here's the Grown-Up Falsification:

"Non-Locality"--
(Einstein's, "Spooky Action @ a Distance", SEE: 'EPR Paradox' 1935) where Einstein et al floated a 'thought experiment' in an attempt to 'Debunk' Quantum Mechanics. Why? Well... he couldn't have anything traveling faster than the Speed of Light, cause his 'theories' would IMPLODE. (Side Note: He never published in Physical Review Letters again because he didn't appreciate the Paper being "Peer-Reviewed".)
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777)...


In the 1960's, John Bell explored Einstein et al thought experiment and proposed an Inequality (Bell's Inequality). If it was shown to be false, Einstein and his theories would take a dirt nap.
http://www.drchinese...l_Compact.pdf

Bell's Inequality was first Violated Experimentally in 1972 by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman:
http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Freedman.pdf

Then in 1982, Alain Aspect PhD Physics Jacked it Forever "Yard" !! Ergo....Einstein and his "theories" = Dirt Nap !! (He got "de-bunked")
http://www.qudev.ethz.ch/phys4/studentspresentations/epr/aspect.pdf

Ever since Aspect's Falsification, "Non-Locality" has been CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT roughly 500 times, Without Exception!!! See...

New Scientist "RealityCheck" 23 June 2007: "There is no objective reality beyond what we observe". Leggett's Inequality along with Bell's (again) have been violated. "Rather than passively observing it, WE IN FACT CREATE REALITY". {Emphasis Mine}
SEE: Landmark Parent Paper...

Gröblacher, S. et al; An experimental test of non-local realism Nature 446, 871-875 (19 April 2007) | doi :10.1038/nature05677.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html

AND, Validated/CONFIRMED AGAIN (for the 500th Time) here: Hensen, B et al: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686 (29 October 2015) doi:10.1038/nature15759
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/abs/nature15759.html


THEREFORE: There are 2 Doors that can be breached per the results of these Experiments:

Door # 1: Information (however they conjured that) can travel Faster than the Speed of Light. Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!!

Door # 2: Space and Time are Illusions. Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!!

Take your pick....?

Einstein himself after 30 years of attempting a Unified Field Theory finally reckoned with it prior to his death and was partial to the Latter Door (as am I)...

"I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is if that the objective description through the field as an elementary concept is not possible then one has to find a possibility to AVOID the continuum (together with SPACE and TIME) ALTOGETHER but I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory".--- Letter from Albert Einstein to David Bohm, 28 October 1954.

As for LoT2, Earth is not a closed system.

Yes, that's my point Go ahead...?

On to #2. Coriolis Effect.

Suppose you are on a train travelling at 100 mph. You have a ball in your hands. You toss the ball in the air. Why does it not immediately travel backwards at 100 mph?

Well Errr...remove the Roof and the Walls (lol) and see what happens.

How about #3. Navy Rail Gun


So by WW2 they had figured out "over the horizon" ballistics yet somehow you can't?

There is no such thing.

Do you even know what ballistics is or how it works?

Yes, I'm a retired Military Officer.

Do you somehow fail to grasp that aiming systems must compensate for the Earth's rotation

The Navy Rail Gun was not my example of the Coriolis Effect (However, it could be)....it was an example of FLAT distance; i.e., firing "a bullet" over an "alleged" curvature.

I even gave you two Viable Scientific Hypotheses, for goodness sakes. Go ahead...?

And...

Section VI. NAVAL SURFACE FIRE SUPPORT

5-27. GENERAL
When naval surface fire support is available and the general tactical situation permits its use, naval firepower can provide large volumes of devastating, immediately available, and instantly responsive fire support to combat forces operating near coastal waters. These fires may be in support of amphibious operations within range of naval aircraft and gunfire, but they also may be made available to support land operations.
5-28. MISSION
The general mission of naval surface fire support is to support maneuver force operations by destroying, neutralizing, or suppressing enemy targets that oppose our forces. Naval surface fire support may be provided by NGF and naval air power. Usually, it is delivered in concert with support fires from other arms.
5-29. NAVAL GUNFIRE CHARACTERISTICS
Naval gunfire:
Has a flat trajectory that makes it effective against vertical-face targets, but ineffective against rear-slope targets.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect6.htm

Why exactly is it that you think that the developers of the rail gun are concentrating their efforts on building self guiding projectiles?

Really?? Go ahead....?

Then next, explain how 2 inch RF Pencil Beams can penetrate water/earth curvature....?


regards

 

[frenat]

Really?? ...

[qimg]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t97/jstunja/The%20Wall_zpsrta1konc.jpg[/qimg]

Are you trying to look like a troll? Pics of the Ross ice shelf (and some cliffs that aren't even ice) are not an ice wall. People have been well beyond those locations many times.

"In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”


On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.” "In his book "South Sea Voyage," James Clark Ross reports a total voyage of over 60,000 nautical miles."
http://www.abodia.com/fe/articles/flat-earth-around-antarticia.htm

That's over 70,000 Statute Miles. With the Earth allegedly 24,901 miles in circumference....Lucy has some "Spainin to do"

You'd have a point ONLY if his route went directly around Antarctica and never diverted. It did not as you can see here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cook#/media/File:Cook_Three_Voyages_59.png

 

[jimbob]

Suddenly, A Flat Earther Appears!

In this thread they seem to be like buses. Three come along at once.

 

[Daniel]

Are you trying to look like a troll?

Appeal to Ridicule(Fallacy)

Pics of the Ross ice shelf (and some cliffs that aren't even ice) are not an ice wall.

So pics of Ice Walls by thousands of people (Disinterested Parties) aren't evidence of Ice Walls?

People have been well beyond those locations many times.

Sure. Your attention to Excruciating Detail is OCD like.

[qimg]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cook#/media/File:Cook_Three_Voyages_59.png[/qimg]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cook#/media/File:Cook_Three_Voyages_59.png

Ahh yes, the "WIKI" links. I can always stop in here if I ever need some.

Ahhh...

Harvard Guide to Using Sources:

"There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays."
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376


regards

 

[frenat]

Appeal to Ridicule(Fallacy)

Nope, serious question.

So pics of Ice Walls by thousands of people (Disinterested Parties) aren't evidence of Ice Walls?

Still not a wall.

Ahh yes, the "WIKI" links. I can always stop in here if I ever need some.

Ahhh...

Harvard Guide to Using Sources:

"There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays."
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376


regards

Just because it happens to be hosted on wikipedia doesn't mean it is false. But thanks for showing you'll ignore something that destroys your argument

 

[abaddon]

Yes, something happened with the client. No big deal...type the content into any search engine and Voila.

Umm...I am the client. Do you not know how the internet works?

And are you really claiming that the various servers you quoted all failed at the same time? Really?

How foolish.

oh brother

Not an answer to anything. Just an evasion.

1. Generalized Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

The "bare assertions are entirely yours, and you are unable to respond to the rebuttals. Tough luck for you.

2. Genetic Fallacy -- is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

Another fail. You are presented with a rebuttal which relies not upon the origin of the claim but on it's patent falsity.

So "Na'ahh" is your argument, eh?

Nope. You are wrong. The evidence demonstrates that you are wrong. Address the evidence, please.

And how does this help your position?? This is tantamount to a defending yourself against a robbery charge by describing the bills caught in your possession... were progressively getting smaller (100's, then 10's, then 5's) the closer you got to your getaway.

False analogy is false. If an amount of dollars comes to 1000.007 what happens?

Ahhh yes, The "One-Word" Savior

Show ONE Experiment where 'gravity' overcomes ENTROPY ....? (of course... first, you're gonna have to Validate "gravity" existing then it's CAUSE...? )...

Sure, no problem. Right after you demonstrate that the Earth is a closed system. You won't do that because you cannot.

Newtonian Gravity and (Gravitational Constant):

"Alright So, today we're gonna shoot down Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwell's Theory. We're like the Press, we build somebody up only to destroy them".

<snip>

And again, off you go with the plagiarised copypasta nonsense none of which you understand.

 

[Daniel]

Nope, serious question.

Nope. It's a Fallacy, Textbook.

Still not a wall.

What is it then, a Door?

Just because it happens to be hosted on wikipedia doesn't mean it is false.

It's not a Scholarly Reference. Hard Stop!

But thanks for showing you'll ignore something that destroys your argument

Ignore?? This... frenat ---"People have been well beyond those locations many times." ?? ahhh, There's nothing here.


And, How on Earth does your appeal to Unsupported Ambiguous Speculations destroy my arguments here, Pray Tell?? ...


#1. If there is no physical barrier between Earth's Atmosphere and Space, which there isn't...

"There's no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space, says Dr Kevin Pimbblet, lecturer in astrophysics at the University of Queensland."
www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/01/13/2791372.htm

"There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space."
www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/e/Earth%2527s_atmosphere.htm

"Some experts believe a definition of the boundary of space is impossible to create. Hans Haubold, senior program office at the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs (OOSA), noted that the atmosphere is too “fuzzy for a physics-based definition to ever be established” (Kois 2004)."
commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=stm


Ergo...

How can you have a Vacuum/Near-Perfect (Outer Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) and still retain the Properties of a Vacuum and a Non-Vacuum in the same system, simultaneously....?

Can you explain this in a Law of Entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics --"Pillar of Science") context?

If there's a "Non Perfect" Vacuum surrounding the Earth's Atmospheric layers as we are 'TOLD', then there should be a colossal cascading chain of envelopment from the Exosphere to Thermosphere to Mesosphere down to your feet like dominoes faster than you can say "ENTROPY" until equilibrium is reached. Hard Stop!

So @ a minimum, How are you still breathing...?


#2. Coriolis Effect: any object FIXED to the ROTATIONAL FRAME OF REFERENCE will immediately "Slip Out" of that frame of reference when it's no longer Physically Fixed/Restrained to that Rotational Body and is compelled to a direction contrary to that of the Center of Rotation, Hard Stop!!
(If you're unsure of this phenomenon, grab: a friend, merry-go-round, and a ball then have a passerby spin you around.... then play catch.)

So with the unproven "presupposition" of the Earth spinning from West to East @ roughly 1,000 mph, How on Earth can you have a Plane Take Off (NOT FIXED to the ROTATIONAL FRAME OF REFERENCE) from New York to Los Angeles (~5hrs 45 min) --- traveling in the opposing direction of rotation, have the same Flight Time as a the return trip (LA to NY) -- traveling with the rotation??

The westbound flight from NY to LA, say @ 500 mph typical cruising speed, would have a higher relative speed --- i.e., you need to add the speed of the opposing ROTATIONAL FRAME OF REFERENCE of the Earth 1,000 mph to the Plane's Speed; i.e., 500 mph + 1000 mph = 1500 mph.

The eastbound flight from LA to NY will immediately "Slip Out" of the ROTATIONAL FRAME OF REFERENCE upon Take Off/climbing to cruising altitude --- and @ the same 500 mph ---which has to be subtracted from the ROTATIONAL FRAME OF REFERENCE since that's the same direction; i.e., 1000 mph (Earth's Rotational Speed) - 500 mph (Plane's Speed) = 500 mph, will not only "Conceptually" take 3 TIMES as long, but Practically, "In Reality"..... NEVER CATCH UP to it's Destination (NY) before it gets BUM RUSHED by said Destination @ 500 mph!!!

Furthermore, why couldn't East Coasters not just hop in a Air Balloon or a Helicopter and hover (Not FIXED to the ROTATIONAL FRAME OF REFERENCE) for 3 hours and catch a Dodger Game...?


If I'm making a north-south shot @ 1,000 meters on a Calm Day with a Muzzle Velocity of 1,000 m/s ...with the Earth allegedly "Spinning" @ 1,000 mph ( 447 m/s ) from west to east beneath the bullet ( "Slipping Out" of that Reference Frame when Fired ), then my windage adjustment should be 447 meters to the east of center mass of the target.
That's scenario is a Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher, to be quite frank.

ps. I was in Combat Arms (Reconnaissance) for 8 years and cross-trained with an Elite Sniper Platoon...which was right down the hall, on numerous occasions. I've personally made shots @ 1100-1500 meters. The 'Coriolis Effect' was never brought up ONCE much less practiced!
I have a Naval Weapons Instructor, US Army Artillery Radar Operator, US Army Master Gunner, and a US Army Navigator and Ground Training Combat Expert not only Corroborating my Testimony but extending it by Tens of Miles!


#3. Navy Rail Gun: "Projectile" (Bullet) travels @ 5,600 mph (Mach 7!!)...

"The 6-inch guns that the Navy currently uses have a range of 15 miles; the 16-inch guns of World War II had a range of 24 miles, and could penetrate 30 feet of concrete. The 38-foot railgun, though, has a range of 125 miles, five times the impact, and can shoot through seven steel plates."
rare.us/story/the-navy-just-unveiled-the-first-video-of-their-new-railgun-in-action-and-it-is-awesome/

This is a "Line of Sight" (LOS) Weapon. With a more than 'Generous' Deck/Rail Height of 100 Feet above Sea Level, a target @ 125 miles on our 'alleged' "Spinning Ball" with a radius of 3959 miles will be hidden behind 8476 Feet (1.6 MILES!) of Water/Earth Curvature!
The Horizon @ 100 ft elevation is @ 12.25 Miles.
The 'Bulge' height is 2604 feet.
Target Hidden Height is 8,476 feet.
Calculator: www.metabunk.org/curve/

Ergo, Please explain how a Non Self-Propelled 25 lbs "Projectile" ( A "BULLET") can negotiate a "Bulge Height" of 2604 feet (ascent then descent) traveling @ Mach 7 (lol) and hit a target that's hidden behind 8,476 feet of curvature without violating every Ballistics/Physical Law (and common sense) known to mankind ....?


Your charge is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) on steroids.

regards

 

[Kid Eager]

I stopped reading at the point where rail guns were declared a LOS weapon, as if that proved the consequent. Fail.

 

[frenat]

Nope. It's a Fallacy, Textbook.

Nope, still a serious question. YOU made yourself look like a troll and you continue to do so. The question is why?

What is it then, a Door?

What part of cliff do you not understand? Two of the four pictures don't even show ice.

It's not a Scholarly Reference. Hard Stop!

never claimed it was. Are we in a scholarly situation?

Ignore??

yes, you did.

This... frenat ---"People have been well beyond those locations many times." ?? ahhh, There's nothing here.

If you want more, you can look for it yourself. It is still a true statement either way.

And, How on Earth does your appeal to Unsupported Ambiguous Speculations destroy my arguments here, Pray Tell?? ...

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You know very well that the map of Cook's voyages was for your argument about the distance of his travels around Antarctica.

Regarding #2 though, airplanes and balloons don't magically lose the momentum they had on the ground simply by taking off.

 

[frenat]

if the world is flat, then how do stars rotate around the Southern celestial pole when all those looking South would be looking in a different direction?
How does the sun rise due East for all observer on the equinoxes when it should be off int he North East? How does the Sun light clouds from underneath during sunrises and sunsets? How does Antarctica get days with 24 hours of sun?

 

[abaddon]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You know very well that the map of Cook's voyages was for your argument about the distance of his travels around Antarctica.

Regarding #2 though, airplanes and balloons don't magically lose the momentum they had on the ground simply by taking off.

Funny enough, he is not being obtuse. He is simply sopypastaing what his pastor instructed him to like an obedient sheeple.

Take any phrase from his posts and google it. You will rapidly find that it is spammed all over the intertubes verbatim.

 

[AcesHigh]

Daniel, explain to me how an australian and a brazilian can both look their respective "souths" at the SAME MOMENT OF THE SAME NIGHT, and both see the Southern Cross constellation near their south. If an Australian was seeing the Southern Cross, shouldn´t a brazilian need to look almost northward to be able to see that Constellation?



Explain to me how is it possible the flight time São Paulo - Johanesburg is 8:30 hours, while Johanesburg - Dubai is 8:00 hours, when in a Flat Earth map the São Paulo - Johanesburg distance is frigging 4 times longer?

 

[Daniel]

I stopped reading at the point where rail guns were declared a LOS weapon, as if that proved the consequent. Fail.

It most certainly DOES prove the consequent, IN TOTO That's why you have no coherent argument.

Do you think the 'Rail Gun' is an Indirect Fire Weapon?? If so, (ROTFLOL, hysterically).

Can you go ahead and SUPPORT your 'Implied Claim', by chance...?

You missed this, obviously...

Section VI. NAVAL SURFACE FIRE SUPPORT​

5-27. GENERAL
When naval surface fire support is available and the general tactical situation permits its use, naval firepower can provide large volumes of devastating, immediately available, and instantly responsive fire support to combat forces operating near coastal waters. These fires may be in support of amphibious operations within range of naval aircraft and gunfire, but they also may be made available to support land operations.
5-28. MISSION
The general mission of naval surface fire support is to support maneuver force operations by destroying, neutralizing, or suppressing enemy targets that oppose our forces. Naval surface fire support may be provided by NGF and naval air power. Usually, it is delivered in concert with support fires from other arms.
5-29. NAVAL GUNFIRE CHARACTERISTICS
Naval gunfire:
Has a flat trajectory that makes it effective against vertical-face targets, but ineffective against rear-slope targets.
fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect6.htm

If you can't understand this, have you ever taken a Flight?? If so...

Flight: Since the Earth is, as we're TOLD, a 'Sphere' 25,000 miles in circumference ---radius 3959 miles, then Pilots traveling @ a typical cruising speed of 500 mph --- to simply maintain altitude, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards, (to Compensate for the Curvature) and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!

500 miles² x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet of curvature ---Total Drop needed in one hour to Maintain Altitude.
flatearthwiki.com/index.php?title=Earth%27s_Curvature --- "AutoCAD" 2015

166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 feet per minute altitude descent to Maintain Altitude.

A flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity in comparison. The nose of the plane on a typical flight would never get above horizontal, save for takeoff.

If this is too difficult then


regards

 

[AcesHigh]

What is it then, a Door?

you have to prove

1 - that wall goes all around Antartica

2 - that beyond that wall lies nothing.

3 - that nobody can go over that wall.

look, a Qantas flight over Antartica! And that is NOT the Ross Ice shelf, which is just ice over sea. This is really a continent. And NO WALL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxgYnTKkvyg

 

[frenat]

If you can't understand this, have you ever taken a Flight?? If so...

Flight: Since the Earth is, as we're TOLD, a 'Sphere' 25,000 miles in circumference ---radius 3959 miles, then Pilots traveling @ a typical cruising speed of 500 mph --- to simply maintain altitude, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards, (to Compensate for the Curvature) and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!

500 miles² x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet of curvature ---Total Drop needed in one hour to Maintain Altitude.
flatearthwiki.com/index.php?title=Earth%27s_Curvature --- "AutoCAD" 2015

166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 feet per minute altitude descent to Maintain Altitude.

A flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity in comparison. The nose of the plane on a typical flight would never get above horizontal, save for takeoff.

no descent needed as a flight maintaining altitude would remain the same distance from the center. No drop of the nose needed as the plane self adjusts as the direction towards down changes.

 

[Daniel]

Daniel, explain to me how an australian and a brazilian can both look their respective "souths" at the SAME MOMENT OF THE SAME NIGHT, and both see the Southern Cross constellation near their south. If an Australian was seeing the Southern Cross, shouldn´t a brazilian need to look almost northward to be able to see that Constellation?

I don't explain contrived "Hypothetical" scenario's. Can you explain this "Documented Occurrence" on a 'Sphere'..

Both Polaris and the Southern Cross seen @ the same time from 23.5 degrees South Latitude:
www.zaslike.com/files/zqumw2ph80a6jojd60y.jpg

The distance from the Equator to the Tropic of Capricorn (23.5 degrees South Latitude) is ~ 1630 miles. How on Earth can Polaris be seen through 319 Miles of Curvature??

Explain to me how is it possible the flight time São Paulo - Johanesburg is 8:30 hours, while Johanesburg - Dubai is 8:00 hours, when in a Flat Earth map the São Paulo - Johanesburg distance is frigging 4 times longer?

I'm sorry, I don't remember posting a "Flat Earth Map"; Ergo, Straw Man (Fallacy).


regards

 

[Daniel]

no descent needed as a flight maintaining altitude would remain the same distance from the center.

What?? From the Center of what? So you live on a Sphere, that's Flat...?

No drop of the nose needed as the plane self adjusts as the direction towards down changes.

I thought you just said above no descent is needed, ahh, which is it?

Self Adjusts, eh? So it "Self Adjusts" downward 2777 feet (166,666 feet/60 minutes) per minute altitude to Maintain Altitude??

regards

 

[frenat]

What?? From the Center of what? So you live on a Sphere, that's Flat...?

I never said anything about flat. Center of the globe. Following a constant altitude around a globe would not constitute a descent.

I thought you just said above no descent is needed, ahh, which is it?

Self Adjusts, eh? So it "Self Adjusts" downward 2777 feet (166,666 feet/60 minutes) per minute altitude to Maintain Altitude??

regards

Yes.

I used to live on the gulf coast of Florida. From the Bay/Gulf county line in Mexico Beach, FL, if you look directly South, you can see Cape San Blas.
From the beach at the water line you can see the trees on the cape but not the beach. No magnification with a telescope or binoculars will bring it into view. I've tried. And this is on days with perfectly calm water as that area gets from time to time. However, if you climb up to the road about 15-20 feet up, the beach on the cape is visible. This is because the Earth is curved.

Also demonstrated here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFxaGiF3Pk