Potential Addition to FAQ

  • 11 Replies
  • 6691 Views
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Potential Addition to FAQ
« on: November 22, 2010, 11:30:25 AM »
Thork and EnglshGentleman have sent me a possible additionto the FAQ. I thought I should put it up here and see what other Believers think of it, and if they have any suggestions or criticisms:


Quote
Aerospace and flying ...

Q: As a passenger on an aircraft, how is it I can see the curvature of the earth?

A: Quite simply you cannot. It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. 36,000ft might be typical.

Q: What about Concorde? That flew at 60,000 ft.

A: It did, but Concorde also had incredibly small windows as a design concession, to prevent passengers seeing enough of the horizon  and building up a picture of earth's shape for themselves. Only 6 inches across. As even that was deemed risky, Concorde has since been decommissioned.

Q: So what about flight times then? How can FEr's calculate times with the distorted map above?

A: Quite simply RErs can't do that either. There are two many variables. Performance is effected by fuel loads, ambient temperatures and pressures, engine models, the list goes on. Depending on what is happening with other traffic you might be in a hold, or routed out of your way to avoid other traffic or storms. The pilots do not fly direct to their destination either. Depending on the wind they might take off in the opposite direction to the intended route. They then fly SIDS (Standard Instrument Departures) onto a route, follow some beacons, get onto an Oceanic Highway on the way their, follow a STAR (STandard ARrival) on approach, and again go right round the back of an airport to land in the right direction. When pilots are following routes like the typical ones below, how can anyone make a simple straight line DST comparison to ascertain shape? Only the aircraft's Flight Management System really knows how far that trip is. The pilot just uses the data it provides. However FMS source code is closely guarded.

Below is a SID example. Note how the pilots fly curves and loops. They do not go direct.


Q: Well what about flying in the Southern 'Hemisphere'? Surely that would take much longer than times we have.

A: No. Pilots make use of jet-streams in both directions.
Quote
Jet streams are undulating bands of strong, high-altitude winds, associated with cold fronts. They have an average altitude of 10 km and may occasionally exceed 400 km/h. Pilots often seek out a jet stream to speed their jet planes along.
http://www.moriartey.ca/wd/wxfacts1.php

Q: What about balloon flights? I see lots of amateur videos on the internet of high altitude camera shots.

A: They do not show ball-like curvature. The horizon curves all the way around, but what do you expect? Look at the map in the geography section above. The earth is flat and round like a plate. It is this curvature you see. Not the earth falling away at the edges.

Q: How come the sun takes longer to set when flying west?

A: Again look at the FE map above. You are following the spotlight of the sun for longer, when you fly west.

Q: What about Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles? You said there was no space flight.

A: Correct. ICBMs fly just below what would be deemed space. Orbit is not possible.


"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

bullhorn

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 622
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2010, 09:39:59 PM »
I think it is a great addition, I would ask others, but I think it would do well as part of it.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2010, 03:41:26 PM »
Thork and EnglshGentleman have sent me a possible additionto the FAQ. I thought I should put it up here and see what other Believers think of it, and if they have any suggestions or criticisms:


Quote
Aerospace and flying ...

A: Quite simply you cannot. It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. 36,000ft might be typical.

Q: What about Concorde? That flew at 60,000 ft.

A: It did, but Concorde also had incredibly small windows as a design concession, to prevent passengers seeing enough of the horizon  and building up a picture of earth's shape for themselves. Only 6 inches across. As even that was deemed risky, Concorde has since been decommissioned.

Both of these responses are pathetic in my opinion because they sound as if they were concocted by globularists in order to make the flat earth position appear weak and unconvincing.  In both the case of a window too small for a view as well as planes that fly too low for a good view an implication is made by these answers that flat earth theory cannot face reality.

40,000 feet is a completely arbitrary number, and Rowbotham's answer to the same question was far more satisfactory.  Rowbotham addressed the same issue in the context of hot air balloons and actually reported that passengers witnessed concavity!  Although available technology has changed since the early nineteenth century, the shape of the earth has not and his logic is just as applicable now as it was at that time.  

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za15.htm#page_38



Quote
Q: As a passenger on an aircraft, how is it I can see the curvature of the earth?

A: Quite simply you cannot.

This much is correct.


The discussion about flight times and the accompanying diagram is a better argument.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2010, 04:00:08 PM »
I agree with my noble colleague that Rowbotham's concavity argument merits inclusion in the FAQ. However, alerting globularists to the deviances of the aerospace Conspiracy is a high priority, and it is my firm belief, and the belief of many of my zetetic allies, that aircraft window design, as well as the "altitude appeal" are staples of the deception, and should therefore be included.

The rest of the material is fantastic, my commendations go out to those contributors.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2010, 07:59:17 PM »
The undisputed fact that the horizon is always at the observers eye-level makes the myth of globularism apparent.

The reason for small windows on the Concorde given is insulting to the reader. The fact that such a small window may inhibit Field of View (FOV) which makes detecting alleged curvature possible is, however, relevant.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2010, 05:55:02 PM »
The reason for small windows on the Concorde given is insulting to the reader. The fact that such a small window may inhibit Field of View (FOV) which makes detecting alleged curvature possible is, however, relevant.


This is the one criticism I would share. Aside from that however, I think it neatly deals with several questions which appear time and time again in debate and discussion on this forum. The ultimate purpose of the FAQ is to anticipate such questions, so I think that most of this will make an excellent addition to the FAQ.


Frther additions have also been suggested:


Quote
I think it helpfully answers questions about UA. Thanks for your consideration!


Physics

Q: "What about gravity? Wouldn't a Flat Earth eventually form a sphere if gravity existed?"


A: In the Finite Earth model, the Earth does not have any gravity of its own.

Q: "But wait, why then do I see objects fall?"

A: Good question. The phenomenon that you recognize as being gravity is actually the effects of Universal Acceleration, also known as UA.

Q: "How exactly does UA work?"


A: It is quite simple. The Universe is accelerating upwards. The Earth shields us from being affected by UA directly, though we are still indirectly affected by this since the Earth is pushing us upwards.

Q: "How is that I can jump and then come back down then?"

A: This is another good question. Since the Earth is pushing you upwards, you are moving at the same speed as the Earth, much like when you are sitting in a car, the car is pushing you along. When you jump, your upward velocity is for a moment, greater than the Earth's so you rise above it. But after a few moments, the Earth eventually catches up.

Q: "But when I throw a ball, it "falls" down in a parabolic path. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't the ball be moving in a straight diagonal line?"

A: The ball indeed does move in a straight line in the direction you threw it. However, you must also remember that the Earth is moving upwards. Because of this, you eyes mistake the distance between the ball and the Earth changing for the ball moving in a curved path. For the upward part of the arc, the ball's acceleration is greater than the Earth', and for the downward part of the arc the ball's velocity acceleration is no longer greater than the Earth's and thus the Earth catches up.

Q: "It is just too hard to think that an Earth accelerating upwards will simulate the same affects that we see gravity do every day."


A: When you look at Einstein's Equivalence Principle, you will find that it is not only quite possible, but true that they will locally appear to be the same.

Q: "Oh wait! I just remembered that nothing can reach the speed of light, and if the Universe was accelerating upwards at a constant rate, wouldn't this end up happening?"


A: When you look at equations from Special Relativity, you will find this will never happen. The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). Since tanh(at/c) is always less than 1, you can never reach the speed of light.

Q: "Even if that were true, it would create a gigantic amount of energy to do so wouldn't it?"

A: Universal Acceleration requires energy to move objects no more than gravity does. In Round Earth Theory a good example of gravity constantly accelerating objects without outputting energy would be an orbit.



I think that although the above contribution is good, there is a good deal of overlap between it and other sections. I think some kind of revision of the FAQ might be in order, and we should collaborate on it. These and other revisions can then be made, and can be posted and pinned by various mods/members.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2011, 11:28:26 PM »
Thork and EnglshGentleman have sent me a possible additionto the FAQ. I thought I should put it up here and see what other Believers think of it, and if they have any suggestions or criticisms:


Quote
Aerospace and flying ...

A: Quite simply you cannot. It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. 36,000ft might be typical.

Q: What about Concorde? That flew at 60,000 ft.

A: It did, but Concorde also had incredibly small windows as a design concession, to prevent passengers seeing enough of the horizon  and building up a picture of earth's shape for themselves. Only 6 inches across. As even that was deemed risky, Concorde has since been decommissioned.

Both of these responses are pathetic in my opinion because they sound as if they were concocted by globularists in order to make the flat earth position appear weak and unconvincing.  In both the case of a window too small for a view as well as planes that fly too low for a good view an implication is made by these answers that flat earth theory cannot face reality.

40,000 feet is a completely arbitrary number, and Rowbotham's answer to the same question was far more satisfactory.  Rowbotham addressed the same issue in the context of hot air balloons and actually reported that passengers witnessed concavity!  Although available technology has changed since the early nineteenth century, the shape of the earth has not and his logic is just as applicable now as it was at that time. 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za15.htm#page_38



Quote
Q: As a passenger on an aircraft, how is it I can see the curvature of the earth?

A: Quite simply you cannot.

This much is correct.


The discussion about flight times and the accompanying diagram is a better argument.
40k is not arbitrary, it is based off the formula for apparent curvature of the earth given a RE model.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2011, 07:02:27 PM »
40k is not arbitrary, it is based off the formula for apparent curvature of the earth given a RE model.
You are correct.  (However, we can truthfully insist that the alleged 25,000 mile globular circumference which the math behind the 40,000 feet altitude is based upon is fictional.)

The important point is that suggested addition to the FAQ leaves the ominous and legitimate question hanging in peoples' minds as to whether curvature would be visible from an airplane IF they did fly at 40,000 feet altitude.  It should also include the essence of Rowbotham's conclusion about hot air balloons which more adequately answers questions about the appearance of horizons from great altitude.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2011, 11:34:10 PM »
40k is not arbitrary, it is based off the formula for apparent curvature of the earth given a RE model.
You are correct.  (However, we can truthfully insist that the alleged 25,000 mile globular circumference which the math behind the 40,000 feet altitude is based upon is fictional.)

The important point is that suggested addition to the FAQ leaves the ominous and legitimate question hanging in peoples' minds as to whether curvature would be visible from an airplane IF they did fly at 40,000 feet altitude.  It should also include the essence of Rowbotham's conclusion about hot air balloons which more adequately answers questions about the appearance of horizons from great altitude.
True.  I also feel we need to expand our faq to include resources a  bit more current than Rowbotham.  Also, I linked a paper earlier talking about this very phenom.  I'll try to find wher eand post it here, its of interest to us all I believe.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2011, 07:26:39 PM »
I also feel we need to expand our faq to include resources a  bit more current than Rowbotham.
You do that, and I'll gather some a bit more dated than Rowbotham.  ;)

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2011, 02:13:36 AM »
I also feel we need to expand our faq to include resources a  bit more current than Rowbotham.
You do that, and I'll gather some a bit more dated than Rowbotham.  ;)
That too.  Theres a plethora of ancient sources and simply older sources that have wonderful information in them.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Potential Addition to FAQ
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2011, 05:39:28 PM »
Theres a plethora of ancient sources and simply older sources that have wonderful information in them.

I think there is a very great divide between
 
1) ancient sources (early Christian and otherwise)
and
2) simply older sources like Rowbotham (the last couple of hundred years or so).

I have recently become more cognizant of the fact that the greatest wealth of scientific knowledge bridging these two sources is the Arab-Islamic scientific tradition.  To the researcher who knows where to look, Arab-Islamic geographical knowledge is especially rich with both concepts and specific concrete knowledge that are unknown to modern western science.  And we might gain a priceless knowledge from a given Arab cartographer, geographer, or historian in spite of the fact that he believes the world is spherical.  Medieval Arab science may technically be globular, but the medieval Arab idea of even a spherical world is so much closer to the traditional flat earth concept generally than western science today, and it contains innumerable vestiges of old truth which have been purged by the west. As in all things, take what is valuable and leave the rest.  The Arab Islamic geographers and savants can be keys to much knowledge which the prejudice of western science has prevented it from understanding or even pursuing.