Flat Earth Planes in The Sky

If the earth was flat how would the vapor trail. We have all looked up and seen a plane flying and its appeared to be flying to the moon! but we know a plane can't do that, so how do you  explain the plains appear to be flying straight into the atmosphere?

Plus theirs never any picture evidence of a flat earth, like a picture from space or from and aircraft that even gives the least bit of a flat earth appeal.

The only thing we ever get as evidence of a flat earth here are people proving pictures wrong with its a conspiracy "its nasa's cover up". My all time favourite "Look outside".

Also how do you explain plate tectonics, and continental drift? Not only does the map of the round earth match this theory due to prehistoric fossils found in only east south american and west africa? There are also animals found there too. Now this wouldn't possibly be possible if the earth looked like it did in the flat earth as continental drift wouldn't work either as we would eventually (and already) have drifted of the earth. Their's mountain ranges that are a perfect match for age and material on two different continents. Look it up.

Here comes a comment saying (conspiracy NASA myth) or some way that wouldn't be possible for it to work with a flat earth.

I can't explain how the 'plains' appear to be flying straight into the atmosphere or to the moon because I'm utterly at a loss as to what it means.

My conclusion is therefore that the earth is planiform.

If the earth was flat how would the vapor trail. We have all looked up and seen a plane flying and its appeared to be flying to the moon! but we know a plane can't do that, so how do you  explain the plains appear to be flying straight into the atmosphere?

This does not make sense. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Plus theirs never any picture evidence of a flat earth, like a picture from space or from and aircraft that even gives the least bit of a flat earth appeal.

We have multiple pictures of the flat Earth. I can not post pictures on this computer. Another user may post them or I will post them once I get home.

The only thing we ever get as evidence of a flat earth here are people proving pictures wrong with its a conspiracy "its nasa's cover up". My all time favourite "Look outside".

The conspiracy is not necessarily a part of FET.

Also how do you explain plate tectonics, and continental drift? Not only does the map of the round earth match this theory due to prehistoric fossils found in only east south american and west africa? There are also animals found there too. Now this wouldn't possibly be possible if the earth looked like it did in the flat earth as continental drift wouldn't work either as we would eventually (and already) have drifted of the earth. Their's mountain ranges that are a perfect match for age and material on two different continents. Look it up.

Continental drift is in no way inherent to the Earth's shape. We have a lot of threads based on that subject. You claim we do not do research, yet you come here having done none of your own. You should not be so quick to judge when your knowledge is so obviously lacking in both quality and quantity.

Your enthusiasm is admirable. Your powers of reasoning are atrocious.

Also can I ask, when you make a thread, make it about one topic. IE ask one question. If you have two separate questions, make 2 threads.

Because the aircraft vapour trail question is so stupid it doesn't deserve a response, I'll answer the plate tectonic question and make the thread about that.

There are two schools of thought on this. The first is that continents do not move. This seems to be the most widely accepted theory. However I side with the view that the continents float on molten rock much as they do in RET and move around the surface in a similar fashion. I don't see how the earth being round is a prerequisite for plate tectonics. You only need solidified rock on top of molten rock. If a flat earth has a layer of molten rock in the middle, there is no issue.

Thork is correct on the general nature of continental drift. However, he mentioned Plate Tectonics. FET (as in most FE'ers) currently does not incorporate the idea of Plate Tectonics. Only continental drift is widely accepted.

never considered that the continents would have the potential to drift off the edge. maybe this has already happened?
new earth may have a new theory for atlantis! 

The molten rock layer is likely held in place where the ice wall is.
This means that the world shifts and moves in a circular pattern but can crash into the ice wall.

Also, plate tectonics are not impossible on a flat Earth. They simply operate in a circular motion instead of a straight one.

I would suggest that plate tectonics could only happen on a Flat Earth.

On a round Earth, if the solid bits were floating around on the molten bits, all the land mass would be collected round the equator.

Can you imagine the effects of a mass the size of Pangea at the equator of a globe?

Can you imagine the effects of a mass the size of Pangea at the equator of a globe?

i fear that this is going to make me sound stupid. but does water have a lot less mass than rock? a big rock isnt much heavier than a big bucket of water is it?

Quote from: Ski on September 07, 2012, 08:20:52 AM

Can you imagine the effects of a mass the size of Pangea at the equator of a globe?

i fear that this is going to make me sound stupid. but does water have a lot less mass than rock? a big rock isnt much heavier than a big bucket of water is it?

The density of water is 1000 kg/m³. The density of basalt is 3011 kg/m³

Source.

Being the only person on this site than can use a search engine puts me at a considerable advantage when debating.

Can you imagine the effects of a mass the size of Pangea at the equator of a globe?

I suppose I could imagine just about anything I felt like.  What is your point?  What do you imagine the effects would be?  Among the supporters of Pangea in the scientific community do you suppose anyone has calculated what the effects would be? 

Quote from: squevil on September 07, 2012, 08:59:52 AM

Quote from: Ski on September 07, 2012, 08:20:52 AM

Can you imagine the effects of a mass the size of Pangea at the equator of a globe?

i fear that this is going to make me sound stupid. but does water have a lot less mass than rock? a big rock isnt much heavier than a big bucket of water is it?

The density of water is 1000 kg/m³. The density of basalt is 3011 kg/m³

Source.

Being the only person on this site than can use a search engine puts me at a considerable advantage when debating.

oh i want debating and i was too lazy to look. thank for letting me suckle on you fine breast again thork, a spoon will be ok next time.
so yes it would be bad if a whole continent was at the equator, perhaps thats why the land mass shifted and the earth has a tilt.
mind blown 

Quote from: Ski on September 07, 2012, 08:20:52 AM

Can you imagine the effects of a mass the size of Pangea at the equator of a globe?

i fear that this is going to make me sound stupid. but does water have a lot less mass than rock? a big rock isnt much heavier than a big bucket of water is it?

Haven't you ever dropped a rock in water.

Quote from: squevil on September 07, 2012, 08:59:52 AM

Quote from: Ski on September 07, 2012, 08:20:52 AM

Can you imagine the effects of a mass the size of Pangea at the equator of a globe?

i fear that this is going to make me sound stupid. but does water have a lot less mass than rock? a big rock isnt much heavier than a big bucket of water is it?

Haven't you ever dropped a rock in water.

no i sit at my computer all day! i did say it was going to sound a bit silly. do you think the difference in mass would matter that much though? its a small fraction compared to whats beneath the crust. i dont really know. its an interesting idea all the same though. the earth is said to wobble already. this maybe the cause.

Imagine a car's wheel. Now imagine you put a few cents stuck together onto the wheel on the rim to add a mass. The wheel is no longer in balance and will noticeably shake the car at higher speeds.

Putting an uneven mass on a spinning object makes it wander from its axis and vibrate, often to destruction. If RErs want to argue for an uneven mass distribution, I'd like explanations on earth's stable orbit and stable and smooth rate of rotation.

Imagine a car's wheel. Now imagine you put a few cents stuck together onto the wheel on the rim to add a mass. The wheel is no longer in balance and will noticeably shake the car at higher speeds.

Putting an uneven mass on a spinning object makes it wander from its axis and vibrate, often to destruction. If RErs want to argue for an uneven mass distribution, I'd like explanations on earth's stable orbit and stable and smooth rate of rotation.

The coins will not noticeably shake the car at high speed. Especially since you bolt the tire down so it can wobble.

The mass of all the continents is so small compared to the Earth and it's distributed over a large enough area (on Pangea) that the planet will not wobble because of it.

The Moon is more likely to make it wobble and all it does is move water.

Quote from: Thork on September 08, 2012, 01:24:50 AM

Imagine a car's wheel. Now imagine you put a few cents stuck together onto the wheel on the rim to add a mass. The wheel is no longer in balance and will noticeably shake the car at higher speeds.

Putting an uneven mass on a spinning object makes it wander from its axis and vibrate, often to destruction. If RErs want to argue for an uneven mass distribution, I'd like explanations on earth's stable orbit and stable and smooth rate of rotation.

The coins will not noticeably shake the car at high speed.^{[citation needed]} Especially since you bolt the tire down so it can wobble. ^{[citation needed]}

The mass of all the continents is so small compared to the Earth and it's distributed over a large enough area (on Pangea) that the planet will not wobble because of it..^{[citation needed]}

The Moon is more likely to make it wobble and all it does is move water..^{[citation needed]}

Do you know how to provide sources? Also your renewed interest in the upper fora, I'm hoping will be short-lived. The vacuum created by the absence of perpetual noobs should entice new posters. Not awaken old RErs from their slumber.

As for your doubting whether a few coins would make a difference, might I then ask you what wheel balance weights are for? Because I was under the impression they were used for rebalancing your wheels when your car starts to shake the fillings out of your head.
http://www.wheelweightsdirect.co.uk/startshopping/prod_1631367-100-strips-of-60g-Adhesive-Weights-510g-weights-for-Alloy-Wheels-Standard-Quality.html
Look how little they weigh ... 5-10g each. Its easy to put a spinning object out of balance or in this case, back into balance.

A difference between water and a pangea sized lump with 3 times the density is going to have a profound effect on a spinning planet. The earth spins (allegedly at 1,000 mph). Adding a few 'wheel weights' is going disrupt stability and yet RET has no mention at all of this.

A company that specialises and tells you about wheel weights
and from their .pdf

The results of endurance tests clearly show the consequences of failed wheel weights. Imbalance
affects driving comfort, safety and wear. For the driver, the effect of imbalance is most noticeable by
the deterioration in comfort. Vibration can be felt to a greater or lesser extent depending on the
degree of imbalance and the type of vehicle. The steering wheel and the interior can be felt to shake
from a speed of approximately 50 mph. This shaking is accompanied by a monotone rumbling
sound. The maximum resonance range is reached at approximately 80mph and shaking begins to
subside at higher speeds. The effect on the vehicle, however, can be felt in all speed ranges.

Quote from: Thork on September 08, 2012, 01:24:50 AM

Imagine a car's wheel. Now imagine you put a few cents stuck together onto the wheel on the rim to add a mass. The wheel is no longer in balance and will noticeably shake the car at higher speeds.

Putting an uneven mass on a spinning object makes it wander from its axis and vibrate, often to destruction. If RErs want to argue for an uneven mass distribution, I'd like explanations on earth's stable orbit and stable and smooth rate of rotation.

The coins will not noticeably shake the car at high speed. Especially since you bolt the tire down so it can wobble.

The mass of all the continents is so small compared to the Earth and it's distributed over a large enough area (on Pangea) that the planet will not wobble because of it.

The Moon is more likely to make it wobble and all it does is move water.

LordDave, I think that you need to research your position a little better before this gets too much more painful to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble

*sigh. I'm sure you'd make a fine FEr.

An interesting link none-the-less.

Quote from: Lorddave on September 08, 2012, 04:33:00 AM

Quote from: Thork on September 08, 2012, 01:24:50 AM

Imagine a car's wheel. Now imagine you put a few cents stuck together onto the wheel on the rim to add a mass. The wheel is no longer in balance and will noticeably shake the car at higher speeds.

Putting an uneven mass on a spinning object makes it wander from its axis and vibrate, often to destruction. If RErs want to argue for an uneven mass distribution, I'd like explanations on earth's stable orbit and stable and smooth rate of rotation.

The coins will not noticeably shake the car at high speed.^{[citation needed]} Especially since you bolt the tire down so it can wobble. ^{[citation needed]}

The mass of all the continents is so small compared to the Earth and it's distributed over a large enough area (on Pangea) that the planet will not wobble because of it..^{[citation needed]}

The Moon is more likely to make it wobble and all it does is move water..^{[citation needed]}

Do you know how to provide sources? Also your renewed interest in the upper fora, I'm hoping will be short-lived. The vacuum created by the absence of perpetual noobs should entice new posters. Not awaken old RErs from their slumber.

As for your doubting whether a few coins would make a difference, might I then ask you what wheel balance weights are for? Because I was under the impression they were used for rebalancing your wheels when your car starts to shake the fillings out of your head.
http://www.wheelweightsdirect.co.uk/startshopping/prod_1631367-100-strips-of-60g-Adhesive-Weights-510g-weights-for-Alloy-Wheels-Standard-Quality.html
Look how little they weigh ... 5-10g each. Its easy to put a spinning object out of balance or in this case, back into balance.

A difference between water and a pangea sized lump with 3 times the density is going to have a profound effect on a spinning planet. The earth spins (allegedly at 1,000 mph). Adding a few 'wheel weights' is going disrupt stability and yet RET has no mention at all of this.

A company that specialises and tells you about wheel weights
and from their .pdf

Quote from: http://www.perfectequipment.com/

The results of endurance tests clearly show the consequences of failed wheel weights. Imbalance
affects driving comfort, safety and wear. For the driver, the effect of imbalance is most noticeable by
the deterioration in comfort. Vibration can be felt to a greater or lesser extent depending on the
degree of imbalance and the type of vehicle. The steering wheel and the interior can be felt to shake
from a speed of approximately 50 mph. This shaking is accompanied by a monotone rumbling
sound. The maximum resonance range is reached at approximately 80mph and shaking begins to
subside at higher speeds. The effect on the vehicle, however, can be felt in all speed ranges.

Ummmm.... That link said each strip was 60g. (though they say it's 5 10g weights) a penny is 2.5g a nickel is 5g.
10 nickels? Sure. It'll have an impact. But only up and down. I should note that wheel weights for the whole tire, not just minor adjustment weights, weigh a good 18lbs(about 8kg). Those strips are just to rebalance it. And I suspect you need more than one.

I'll do the math when I'm not on my phone.


As for the wobble, I was unaware of it. But I would guess that Pangea would wobble the Earth by what? 20m?

it is an interesting subject, i would love to talk to a specialist about it and find their answers too. this is actually pretty good flat earth evidence and appears quite strong. is this in the wiki at all? it was a while since i read it.

Quote from: Thork on September 08, 2012, 01:24:50 AM

Imagine a car's wheel. Now imagine you put a few cents stuck together onto the wheel on the rim to add a mass. The wheel is no longer in balance and will noticeably shake the car at higher speeds.

Putting an uneven mass on a spinning object makes it wander from its axis and vibrate, often to destruction. If RErs want to argue for an uneven mass distribution, I'd like explanations on earth's stable orbit and stable and smooth rate of rotation.

The coins will not noticeably shake the car at high speed. Especially since you bolt the tire down so it can wobble.

The mass of all the continents is so small compared to the Earth and it's distributed over a large enough area (on Pangea) that the planet will not wobble because of it.

The Moon is more likely to make it wobble and all it does is move water.

The wheel is fixed. The earth is allegedly freely spinning about in space like a top. If you spin a top with pennies taped to the side, it doesn't wobble at a rate. It becomes more and more unstable. Nothing like this is alleged to have occurred to the earth to my knowledge in Orthodox cosmology. I'd love to see your math for the 20m figure.