Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.

  • 36 Replies
  • 6968 Views
Re: Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2010, 09:19:37 AM »
Do you guys smell that... smells like..... owned.

Re: Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2010, 06:51:13 PM »
Birds fly at high altitudes for the same reason jetliners do. Let's say a bird can fly with a maximum 1 cubic meter of air passing over it per second (otherwise the air would blow the bird to bits). The bird wants to fly faster, and since the air is thinner, and therfore more spread out at higher altitudes, by flying higher up, the same amount of air passing over it can allow the bird to still fly faster, with the same amount of oxygen. Plus V-formations compensate for the extra energy required to maintain the speed of the bird.

Now the spoke hypothesis makes sense in both FE and RE theories. If the earth is round, the bird obviously cannot fly through the earth, and so flies over it. Same with flat earth theory. Sure, flying at higher altitudes in RE theory seems ridiculous, but why do you think jetliners fly so high? The speed benefits of high altitude far outweigh the slower speeds of the thicker air below.

Re: Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.
« Reply #32 on: June 01, 2010, 09:29:22 AM »
Birds fly at high altitudes for the same reason jetliners do. Let's say a bird can fly with a maximum 1 cubic meter of air passing over it per second (otherwise the air would blow the bird to bits). The bird wants to fly faster, and since the air is thinner, and therfore more spread out at higher altitudes, by flying higher up, the same amount of air passing over it can allow the bird to still fly faster, with the same amount of oxygen. Plus V-formations compensate for the extra energy required to maintain the speed of the bird.

Now the spoke hypothesis makes sense in both FE and RE theories. If the earth is round, the bird obviously cannot fly through the earth, and so flies over it. Same with flat earth theory. Sure, flying at higher altitudes in RE theory seems ridiculous, but why do you think jetliners fly so high? The speed benefits of high altitude far outweigh the slower speeds of the thicker air below.
Add to that that as birds fly and "lighten their load" through excretion, they're able to fly up higher. Once they get at the right altitude, they can glide for long periods of time before needing to exert much energy again. Or when going to land, can glide for considerable distances, especially if there's a tailwind or up drafts.

However, I still fail to see how any of this proves a flat Earth in any way shape or form. It doesn't matter which would be more efficient (flying at high altitudes on a flat surface or a curved one), the only thing that matters is the most efficient way of flying on that surface. For both round AND flat Earth models, flying at higher altitudes is more efficient for traveling long distances. It doesn't matter if flying at high altitudes on a flat Earth is more efficient than on a round Earth, because either way, that migratory path is more efficient than others for their respective models. You can't say the Earth is flat because it's (slightly) more efficient for a single variable, and completely disregard that a round Earth is far more efficient in many other ways.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.
« Reply #33 on: June 01, 2010, 12:45:52 PM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.0
It seems you have ignored this picture in that very thread:


I did ignore this post and I find it astounding that people think it's proof of anything more than The Question1 knows how to use MS Paint.  It is hardly damning evidence.  It is a crudely drawn depiction of my concept with no numbers on lengths of the blue or red lines.  Perhaps if it showed lengths, the curved lines curved in proportion to the assumed curve of the earth, the lines were straight (or more accurately mimicked migration paths including all the stops along the way and time lost continuously going up and down), and if it didn't look like it was finger-painted by a 3 year-old, then maybe we could glean some meaningful information from it.  As of now, all you did was draw 4 lines and and say, "Look!  FET DEBUNKED!!!!  Owned." 

Hardly a compelling argument.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.
« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2010, 01:30:58 PM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.0
It seems you have ignored this picture in that very thread:


I did ignore this post and I find it astounding that people think it's proof of anything more than The Question1 knows how to use MS Paint.  It is hardly damning evidence.  It is a crudely drawn depiction of my concept with no numbers on lengths of the blue or red lines.  Perhaps if it showed lengths, the curved lines curved in proportion to the assumed curve of the earth, the lines were straight (or more accurately mimicked migration paths including all the stops along the way and time lost continuously going up and down), and if it didn't look like it was finger-painted by a 3 year-old, then maybe we could glean some meaningful information from it.  As of now, all you did was draw 4 lines and and say, "Look!  FET DEBUNKED!!!!  Owned." 

Hardly a compelling argument.

It is a simplistic representation because that is all that is required in this case.

The argument in words if you prefer: Birds fly high in both FE and RE models, which represents a similar deviation from the shortest possible path in either case. Birds do not fly the shortest possible path in either model, therefore your entire argument falls apart.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.
« Reply #35 on: June 01, 2010, 01:35:32 PM »
Yeah, I hound Pongo on his "Birds push commercial airliners" comment every chance I get.

He stole it off Parsifal.

The time the vessels took to cover that distance is striking evidence that if the Earth is flat, then fish nudge boats.

Remember you don't have to be original to be a troll.

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.
« Reply #36 on: June 01, 2010, 05:57:01 PM »
the definition of a planet (i think) is that it is:

a celestial body with a near-circular orbit
has cleared all objects in its orbit
and has hydrostatic equilibrium

earth is a planet, and hence has hydrostatic equilbrium


dont know what hydrostatic equilibrium is? search it up, im too lazy to type it here
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy