« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

What about high altitudes?

  • 65 Replies
  • 17755 Views
?

non__believer

  • 48
  • +0/-0
What about high altitudes?
« on: August 12, 2008, 02:00:11 PM »
Let's just pressume that the earth actually is flat, then how come it isn't terrebly easy to see the end? all you would have to do is get above the closest house, and I who live in sweden (the center of the world) should be able to see the Ice wall. Now, to try this, I climbed up a tower, at the ocean, and guess if I was supriced when I saw an horizon!  :o

What could possibly cause this I must ask?

One possibility that must be disregarded in this line of thought, is that the earth is round. But, we're working from the point where we assume that the world is flat. Then we have light bending, this is very real, and is proven by many astrophysicists  (spelling?). However, this phenomena is due to gravitational pull, and damnit, Earth doesn't have one of those!

I'm stuck. Could someone help me believe in this theory?
// Sque

P.S

I tried to make this as fair as possible, that's why I didn't mention that the early romans proved that the earth is round and meassured it's size, this with the very same methods as you prove it isn't, the "ship comes up from the horizon" thing.

D.S
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2008, 02:02:09 PM »
Lurk moar.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

non__believer

  • 48
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2008, 02:10:01 PM »
wow, that was fast.. still, I doubt 'lurking' at the horizon 'moar' would make, say mount everest (wich btw should be VERY easy to spot) show up.
Logged
?

LOL conspiracy

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2008, 01:43:49 AM »
lurk more is is the same as " i dont know".  or when they do give an answer it makes no sense at all.  dont worry about it these people are the dumbest people on the planet (which is round, btw LOL) i still cant figure out if its one big level, or they are just retarded.  hard to tell.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2008, 01:52:05 AM »
Quote from: LOL conspiracy on August 13, 2008, 01:43:49 AM
dont worry about it these people are the dumbest people on the planet

At least we understand how relativity works.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

non__believer

  • 48
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2008, 02:08:29 AM »
What.. You're just dumb relativly to everyone else..? Or what does that have to do with my question?
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2008, 02:11:47 AM »
Quote from: non__believer on August 12, 2008, 02:10:01 PM
wow, that was fast.. still, I doubt 'lurking' at the horizon 'moar' would make, say mount everest (wich btw should be VERY easy to spot) show up.

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

Quote
this with the very same methods as you prove it isn't, the "ship comes up from the horizon" thing.

The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth.

Hulls of ships on the Pacific restored by telescopes proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

Hulls of ships restored by telescope on Lake Michigan proves not really behind a 'hill of water'
« Last Edit: August 13, 2008, 02:14:52 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2008, 03:35:39 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2008, 02:11:47 AM
Quote from: non__believer on August 12, 2008, 02:10:01 PM
wow, that was fast.. still, I doubt 'lurking' at the horizon 'moar' would make, say mount everest (wich btw should be VERY easy to spot) show up.

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

Quote
this with the very same methods as you prove it isn't, the "ship comes up from the horizon" thing.

The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth.

Hulls of ships on the Pacific restored by telescopes proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

Hulls of ships restored by telescope on Lake Michigan proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

You are yet to disclose any modern photographic evidence which supports these ancient accounts from the "Flat earth fan-club"

Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

lolz at trollz

  • 501
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2008, 04:49:34 AM »
Yea!  Pics or it didn't happen! 
Logged
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!
?

FELUNATIC

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2008, 05:13:08 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2008, 02:11:47 AM
Quote from: non__believer on August 12, 2008, 02:10:01 PM
wow, that was fast.. still, I doubt 'lurking' at the horizon 'moar' would make, say mount everest (wich btw should be VERY easy to spot) show up.

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

Quote
this with the very same methods as you prove it isn't, the "ship comes up from the horizon" thing.

The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth.

Hulls of ships on the Pacific restored by telescopes proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

Hulls of ships restored by telescope on Lake Michigan proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

blah blah blah, you do know we can see farther than 4.7km (horizon line on sea). If the earth was flat we could see objects about 20km away in good weather conditions. but we can't (on sea)
Logged
?

oldsoldier

  • 183
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2008, 09:31:14 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2008, 02:11:47 AM
The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth.

Hulls of ships on the Pacific restored by telescopes proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

Hulls of ships restored by telescope on Lake Michigan proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

This kinda blows me away.
Firstly, it seems apparent that we need to set some ground rules of Logic here.
If an RE'er says "I can explain X in a way that's consistent with RE" AND an FE'er says "I can explain X in a way that's consistent with FE" then both sides MUST agree that X doesn't conclusively prove either RE or FE. So "Tom Bishop" your statement above should be re-phrased as "The sinking ship effect is actually consistent with the flat earth view."

The other thing that blows me away about that statement is... as I understand it... the lack of a sinking ship effect is the original motivation for the FE hypothesis in the first place. So if you now claim that ships do sink then you've contradicted FE's original reason for being. What gives?
Logged
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2008, 05:27:59 PM »
Tom has claimed to do quite a few experiments to show the earth is flat.  Yet he has never taken a picture or written anything down. 
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
?

airwingmarine

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2008, 11:56:52 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2008, 02:11:47 AM
Quote from: non__believer on August 12, 2008, 02:10:01 PM
wow, that was fast.. still, I doubt 'lurking' at the horizon 'moar' would make, say mount everest (wich btw should be VERY easy to spot) show up.

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

Quote
this with the very same methods as you prove it isn't, the "ship comes up from the horizon" thing.

The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth.

Hulls of ships on the Pacific restored by telescopes proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

Hulls of ships restored by telescope on Lake Michigan proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

I've been high enough to see the curvature of the earth.  You can do it on a few mountain tops in the US as well.  But anywase, most of you all get a little port hole on the side of the airplane, but when you get a panoramic view from up front at as low as 30,000 feet you can see the curvature of the earth.
Logged
?

SteveY19

  • 29
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2008, 12:16:31 PM »
Quote from: Robosteve on August 13, 2008, 01:52:05 AM
Quote from: LOL conspiracy on August 13, 2008, 01:43:49 AM
dont worry about it these people are the dumbest people on the planet

At least we understand how relativity works.

How does Realitivity work?
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45116
  • +87/-130
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2008, 12:30:47 PM »
Quote from: SteveY19 on August 14, 2008, 12:16:31 PM
Quote from: Robosteve on August 13, 2008, 01:52:05 AM
Quote from: LOL conspiracy on August 13, 2008, 01:43:49 AM
dont worry about it these people are the dumbest people on the planet

At least we understand how relativity works.

How does Realitivity work?

Quite well from what we've been able to test.   ;D
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2008, 09:35:23 PM »
Quote
I've been high enough to see the curvature of the earth.  You can do it on a few mountain tops in the US as well.  But anywase, most of you all get a little port hole on the side of the airplane, but when you get a panoramic view from up front at as low as 30,000 feet you can see the curvature of the earth.

Nope.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from the air.

Quote:

    "I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."
Logged
?

airwingmarine

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2008, 10:21:43 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2008, 09:35:23 PM
Quote
I've been high enough to see the curvature of the earth.  You can do it on a few mountain tops in the US as well.  But anywase, most of you all get a little port hole on the side of the airplane, but when you get a panoramic view from up front at as low as 30,000 feet you can see the curvature of the earth.

Nope.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from the air.

Quote:

    "I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

Your friend tom is either very oblivious or never sat up front.  And cesna citations can't go above 10,000ft MSL if it's a standard model by FAA rules.  I have over 2000 hours in an aircraft, 95% of which are spent above 20,000 feet.  Up front in control, not "free flights" or in a cessna.  I have also seen the curvature of the earth from the top of Mountains south of Enis Montana while elk hunting......
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2008, 10:36:26 PM »
Quote
Your friend tom is either very oblivious or never sat up front.

Do pilots sit in the rear of the plane now?  ???

Quote
I have also seen the curvature of the earth from the top of Mountains south of Enis Montana while elk hunting......

Then why can't we see the curvature of the earth from the summit of Mt. Everest?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0207/everest_mackenzie.jpg
Logged
?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6229
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2008, 10:45:33 PM »
Quote from: airwingmarine on August 14, 2008, 10:21:43 PM

  And cesna citations can't go above 10,000ft MSL if it's a standard model by FAA rules. 


 ??? What FAA rule is that?
Logged
?

airwingmarine

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2008, 10:46:28 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2008, 10:36:26 PM
Quote
Your friend tom is either very oblivious or never sat up front.

Do pilots sit in the rear of the plane now?  ???

Quote
I have also seen the curvature of the earth from the top of Mountains south of Enis Montana while elk hunting......

Then why can't we see the curvature of the earth from the summit of Mt. Everest?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0207/everest_mackenzie.jpg

his quote said nothing about being a pilot in anythign but a cesna (below 10,000 ft MSL) and thats what i'm going off of.  Free flights and dead heading don't put you in the front of plane especialy since 9/11.  Working for an airline is not the same as being a pilot.  Not trying to criticise him, just going off of the quote.

And this o so famous pictures of yours Tom is a composite of several pictures on a normal camera (not panoramic) basicly glued together in a spectacular fasion. A normal lense only gives you about 45 degrees of view, depending on the lense thus not enough of a view to display the bend of the earth.  At 10km (higher than mount everest) the earth has a curvature of about .05.  This makes it faint but still visable to the naked eye.  Also the curviture is masked by the topography and the atmospheric bending of light (water vapor and such) which actualy makes it less visable.  Now go find some facts to argue my points about navigation...i've been waiting all day....

In other words i'm using your argument, it was photo shoped (just not in a malicious intent).  I've seen it with my own eyes atleast 220 times....
Logged
?

airwingmarine

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2008, 10:47:24 PM »
Quote from: Mrs. Peach on August 14, 2008, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: airwingmarine on August 14, 2008, 10:21:43 PM

  And cesna citations can't go above 10,000ft MSL if it's a standard model by FAA rules. 


 ??? What FAA rule is that?

Non preasurized aircraft can not exceed 10,000ft msl.  Cessna citations are not preasurized.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2008, 10:50:03 PM »
Quote
his quote said nothing about being a pilot in anythign but a cesna (below 10,000 ft MSL) and thats what i'm going off of.  Free flights and dead heading don't put you in the front of plane especialy since 9/11.  Working for an airline is not the same as being a pilot.  Not trying to criticise him, just going off of the quote.

I've been on international flights at 45,000 feet. I've never seen curvature to the earth.

Quote
And this o so famous pictures of yours Tom is a composite of several pictures on a normal camera (not panoramic) basicly glued together in a spectacular fasion.


The images may be stitched together at the edges, but the earth seen in them still isn't curved. If the earth was curved then the edges of the pictures wouldn't seamlessly fit together.

Quote
Now go find some facts to argue my points about navigation...i've been waiting all day....

North is Hubward, South is Rimward, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins.
Logged
?

airwingmarine

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2008, 10:54:42 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2008, 10:50:03 PM
Quote
his quote said nothing about being a pilot in anythign but a cesna (below 10,000 ft MSL) and thats what i'm going off of.  Free flights and dead heading don't put you in the front of plane especialy since 9/11.  Working for an airline is not the same as being a pilot.  Not trying to criticise him, just going off of the quote.

I've been on international flights at 45,000 feet. I've never seen curvature to the earth.

Quote
And this o so famous pictures of yours Tom is a composite of several pictures on a normal camera (not panoramic) basicly glued together in a spectacular fasion.


The images may be stitched together at the edges, but the earth seen in them still isn't curved. If the earth was curved then the edges of the pictures wouldn't seamlessly fit together.

Quote
Now go find some facts to argue my points about navigation...i've been waiting all day....

North is Hubward, South is Rimward, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins.

Your little porthole that is smaller than a toilet seat in the back with half inch glass 3 inches of air and a piece of plexi glass distort your view about as much as you guys distort facts and science.  When you see it form up front or hike ur ass up a mountain then say "you can't see it"

And i can take 10 pictures and form a 385 degree view and show no curvature or distortion.

And I'm still waiting for a real answer on navigation, or is this one of the 100s of achilies heals of FE.  I'm betting it's something no one who believes in FE has done reaserach on or had any expeirence in so none of you can bull shit your way through an answer.
Logged
?

airwingmarine

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2008, 10:56:16 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2008, 10:50:03 PM
The images may be stitched together at the edges, but the earth seen in them still isn't curved. If the earth was curved then the edges of the pictures wouldn't seamlessly fit together.

And you missed the whole camera lense thing.  The 45 degree view dosn't alow for the .05 curvature to be visable.  So if you stitch several of them together it removes the curve.

And I'll go to your level.  If they can photo shop in a curve, they can photo shop out a curve.....
Logged
?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6229
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2008, 10:57:40 PM »
Quote from: airwingmarine on August 14, 2008, 10:47:24 PM
Quote from: Mrs. Peach on August 14, 2008, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: airwingmarine on August 14, 2008, 10:21:43 PM

  And cesna citations can't go above 10,000ft MSL if it's a standard model by FAA rules. 


 ??? What FAA rule is that?

Non preasurized aircraft can not exceed 10,000ft msl.  Cessna citations are not preasurized.

I must not be thinking of the same airplane.  I was thinking of the little twin engine business jet.
Logged
?

airwingmarine

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2008, 10:58:12 PM »
I'm guessing king air probably...
Logged
?

airwingmarine

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2008, 10:59:29 PM »
Also Tom, I just did a little expierment with your photo.  Take a piece of paper and stick it on your tiny picture.  Put each end of the page on the ends of the photo and you'll se the curvature in the middle.  Very slight, less than a milimeter, but it's till there. 

here is a closer view of the same picture
http://images.quickblogcast.com/69589-61000/mteverest.jpg

it's even more evident on this one.

Great way to disrpove your own theorey! LOL
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 11:01:49 PM by airwingmarine »
Logged
?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6229
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2008, 11:01:26 PM »
Logged
?

airwingmarine

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2008, 11:04:37 PM »
Quote from: Mrs. Peach on August 14, 2008, 11:01:26 PM
Quote from: airwingmarine on August 14, 2008, 10:58:12 PM
I'm guessing king air probably...

Well, no.  This one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation

I'll have to bow down to that.  I was just getting ready to look up the different cessna's cause I wasn't 100% sure of this.  That one most deff goes above 10,000ft

But back to my argument he would have to be oblivous not to see it.  I've seen it over the US, over Asia, over Europe, Africa, And australia, Along with over the pacific, atlantic and indian oceans.  I'm gona bet I have more hours up front than that guy does....
Logged
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: What about high altitudes?
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2008, 11:10:27 PM »
Turns out that 10000 feet is the altitude limit in non-pressurized vessels for Ipods too.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 11:22:20 PM by Robbyj »
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »