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

Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis

  • 43 Replies
  • 6332 Views
?

timdefrag

  • 4
Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« on: October 14, 2012, 10:35:22 AM »
Forgive my naivete, I am honestly curious how this fits with the Flat Earth hypothesis.

I have just concluded a long distance trip. I first flew from my hometown in Austin, TX, USA, into Riga, Latvia, in Europe, to visit a friend. I flew North-East from Austin to Chicago, then East across the ocean to Warsaw, Poland, then NE again to Riga. I stayed for a few months. Afterwards, I flew to Brisbane, Australia, to visit another mutual friend. I flew East, to Moscow, Russia, then South-East to Seoul, South Korea, and finally South to Brisbane. I stayed again for several months. Finally, I flew back to Austin. East to Fiji, then North-East across the ocean to Los Angeles, then South-East back to Austin, Texas.

During my flights, the time zones and position of the sun changed as I would expect if the earth were round. Also, I was in constant contact with people in all three locations (and also people in the UK, which is admittedly reasonably near Latvia.) These are all close friends I know personally. All of their daylight schedules varied as I would expect, with the people to my west experiencing daytime earlier, and people to the east experiencing it later.

If the surface of the earth is flat, how did I manage to travel only east and wind up back where I started? Also, how do different daylight times / time zones arise? Thanks for your consideration.

Logged
?

Jesse

  • 2
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2012, 11:31:08 AM »
Didn't you hear?  The pilots, flight attendants, aircraft designers, and everyone else in the airline industry are all in one the round Earth conspiracy.   What you thought was the sun, was probably actually a small flashlight in your eyes.   If not, then you were clearly drugged.  I hope you didn't eat those free peanuts; that's how they get you.

Logged
?

timdefrag

  • 4
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2012, 11:43:26 AM »
According to the US Department of Transportation Statistics, the airline industry employs over 500,000 people. Even if the DOTS were a conspiracy, I know enough people who fly on a regular basis and see enough popular reference to it that it must employ some significant number of people.

Are you suggesting half a million people are all educated and motivated enough to undertake this immense effort to convince me that the earth isn't flat? Firstly, it's pretty easy to see that the sun out the window is the same one you see from the ground, especially when you're getting on and off the aircraft. Second, I'm no stranger to drugs and their psycho-pharmacology, it's difficult to imagine I was dosed without noticing. Thirdly, this still does not explain how friends I've known for years exist in different daylight schedules when I am thousands of miles away from them. And finally, I don't understand the motivation behind this conspiracy; Why would anyone go to so much effort to hide the truth about the shape of the earth?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 11:45:20 AM by timdefrag »
Logged
?

flateyes

  • 10
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2012, 11:45:46 AM »
Jesse was being sarcastic. You're on the same side.
Logged
?

timdefrag

  • 4
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2012, 11:51:11 AM »
@flateyes -- Sorry for being too literal. I find the best way to approach these debates is with an absolutely thick sense of open-mindedness to even the most absurd-sounding explanations. If he had been seriously suggesting that hypothesis, it would be unscientific not to give it fair scrutiny. ;)
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2012, 04:50:15 AM »
Quote from: timdefrag on October 14, 2012, 10:35:22 AM
If the surface of the earth is flat, how did I manage to travel only east and wind up back where I started? Also, how do different daylight times / time zones arise? Thanks for your consideration.

This confuses a lot of new people.  Let me try to explain it.  Let's say you are in an empty room that happens to have a large, powerful magnet in the middle of it.  The south pole of the magnet is buried deep under ground, but the north pole is at floor level.  Now you take a compass out of your pocket.  Anywhere you move to in that room, the compass will always show north as being towards the center of the room. 

Now, let's say you turn until the compass says you are facing east and you begin to walk, being careful to make corrections as you walk so that the compass always says you are going east.  You would walk in a circle around the magnet and eventually end up in the same place that you started.  It's the same concept on a flat earth. 

As for the time zone question, some here believe that the sun travels in a circle around the Earth near what is known as the equator and takes approximately 24 hours to make one revolution.  When the Sun is near the opposite side above the Earth from you, then it is dark where you are but brightly lit on the side where the Sun is located.  It is around noon directly under the Sun. 

Hope this clears it up for you.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 04:54:31 AM by jroa »
Logged
?

ataraxia

  • 185
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2012, 10:18:42 AM »
But under FET, the sun is a spotlight, correct?
Logged
you can't spell planet without plane. or net... 8)
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2012, 11:01:05 AM »
There has been some controversy over the term "spotlight".  It is generally accepted among FE'ers that the sun projects a "spot" of light over a limited area of the earth at any given time.
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.
?

ataraxia

  • 185
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2012, 04:44:15 PM »
Sort of like the real sun.
Logged
you can't spell planet without plane. or net... 8)
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2012, 12:09:13 AM »
Quote from: ataraxia on October 18, 2012, 04:44:15 PM
Sort of like the real sun.

I am fairly sure we are talking about the "real" sun. 
Logged
?

ataraxia

  • 185
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2012, 12:27:36 AM »
I think the real sun is just a solar lamp and we are all in a giant aquarium.
Logged
you can't spell planet without plane. or net... 8)
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2012, 12:31:35 AM »
Quote from: ataraxia on October 19, 2012, 12:27:36 AM
I think the real sun is just a solar lamp and we are all in a giant aquarium.

You are entirely entitled to your own ideas and theories.  I would really be interested in hearing how you came to this conclusion, though.
Logged
?

ataraxia

  • 185
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2012, 12:36:11 AM »
There are striking similarities between our reality and the reality my lizard had. Both had flat surfaces, both had a solar source, both had controlled weather in the form of humidity and general watering, and I smoked a bunch of weed earlier.
Logged
you can't spell planet without plane. or net... 8)
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2012, 12:45:49 AM »
I noticed the word "had" instead of "have".  I hope you did not smoke him to death.

Anyway, please reread the subject.  We have strayed far from it and we should get the thread back on track.

Also, I would caution you to not admit your drug usage on these fine forums.  There are some people here who believe that we are being monitored by at least one government agency.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 10:16:02 AM by jroa »
Logged
?

Dudeman

  • 25
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2012, 04:03:51 PM »
Quote from: jroa on October 15, 2012, 04:50:15 AM
Quote from: timdefrag on October 14, 2012, 10:35:22 AM
Now, let's say you turn until the compass says you are facing east and you begin to walk, being careful to make corrections as you walk so that the compass always says you are going east.  You would walk in a circle around the magnet and eventually end up in the same place that you started.  It's the same concept on a flat earth. 

As for the time zone question, some here believe that the sun travels in a circle around the Earth near what is known as the equator and takes approximately 24 hours to make one revolution.  When the Sun is near the opposite side above the Earth from you, then it is dark where you are but brightly lit on the side where the Sun is located.  It is around noon directly under the Sun. 

Hope this clears it up for you.

It seems there's an obvious problem with this. Clearly, in any size room, your walking "corrections" are constantly in a very definite left turn (assuming a counterclockwise walk). The same applies to an aircraft. As a pilot, I can tell from the ariificial horizon whether or not I'm flying straight and level. To follow your concept, I would be constantly making a left bank to correct for the compass in order to follow an easterly heading. A constant or continuous left bank, no matter how slight, would be an obvious proof of your theory. Sorry, but this isn't the case in actual flight. Seems that if the earth were spherical, it would be a lot easier to explain and accept, no?
Logged
?

SoNic

  • 98
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2012, 05:00:00 AM »
The left bank would be so small that you wouldn't notice it. It is several magnitude orders below your instruments precision.
Logged
?

Dudeman

  • 25
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2012, 09:33:11 AM »
No response or rebuttal from anyone to my flight navigation example? Was it really that easy to demonstrate and disprove this theory? Wow, come on...
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2012, 12:38:54 PM »
Did you simply ignore the response/rebuttal that you received?
Logged
"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.."
?

Dudeman

  • 25
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2012, 01:58:06 PM »
Quote from: Ski on November 01, 2012, 12:38:54 PM
Did you simply ignore the response/rebuttal that you received?

No, for some reason I missed the response the first time. However, having now read the response, I'm not buying that at all. That reasoning is like telling a NASCAR driver that they probably don't realize that they are making a left hand turn all day in order to keep the track in their windshield. Nope, a pilot, especially those that fly jets ( which I don't ) or an SR-71 pilot would have noted that they need to fly in a consant or continuously corrected turn attitude in order to fly either due east or due west.

But lets make this even more fun: forget your compass, let's just fly straight and level in a jet. Let's take a 747 and start in Los Angeles and plot an initial heading of 270 degrees ( due west ) and then cover up the compass, and forget about your bearing and fly straight and level for 18 hours in the same initial direction. Where will I be after 18 hours? Keep in mind, that's roughly 10,000 miles. Seems like I would have flown off the edge of the earth. Has anyone ever done this, if not, why not?
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2012, 02:07:42 PM »
Why don't 747 pilots fly off on a random heading and then hide their instruments and still manage to fly in a straight line for 18 hours? Gee, I have no idea.   ::)
Logged
"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.."
?

Dudeman

  • 25
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2012, 02:20:31 PM »
Quote from: Ski on November 01, 2012, 02:07:42 PM
Why don't 747 pilots fly off on a random heading and then hide their instruments and still manage to fly in a straight line for 18 hours? Gee, I have no idea.   ::)

So, you either missed the point of my question, or you honestly don't understand the question, or, more likely you have no explanation for my obviously hypothetical question. Really, you thought I was implying that 747 pilots randomly fly blind? Is there anyone here qualified to answer a legitimate question?
Logged
*

Particle Person

  • 5967
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2012, 02:25:36 PM »
Quote from: Dudeman on November 01, 2012, 02:20:31 PM
Quote from: Ski on November 01, 2012, 02:07:42 PM
Why don't 747 pilots fly off on a random heading and then hide their instruments and still manage to fly in a straight line for 18 hours? Gee, I have no idea.   ::)

So, you either missed the point of my question, or you honestly don't understand the question, or, more likely you have no explanation for my obviously hypothetical question. Really, you thought I was implying that 747 pilots randomly fly blind? Is there anyone here qualified to answer a legitimate question?

Qualified expert in semantics here.

You described a scenario in which a 747 pilot takes off and flies in an arbitrarily chosen direction, doesn't use a compass, flies perfectly straight and level for eighteen hours straight, and implied this is simple experiment by wondering why it wouldn't have been done already. I think Ski understood perfectly.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 02:28:18 PM by Particle Person »
Logged
?

Dudeman

  • 25
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2012, 02:30:54 PM »
OK, yes, the question is understood, great, but in two posts, why don't one of you just answer the freaking question? Where will I be after 18 hours of this flight? Or is the edge still beyond 10,000 miles? If so, how far does one have to go?
Logged
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2012, 02:32:04 PM »
Dudeman, if you were a real pilot, you'd know that the aircraft needs near constant corrections in order to stay on course.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
*

Particle Person

  • 5967
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2012, 02:37:11 PM »
Quote from: Dudeman on November 01, 2012, 02:30:54 PM
OK, yes, the question is understood, great, but in two posts, why don't one of you just answer the freaking question? Where will I be after 18 hours of this flight? Or is the edge still beyond 10,000 miles? If so, how far does one have to go?

I don't know where you would be. I don't know where you began. If you're asking what happens when an aircraft flies over the edge (if there is one), nobody knows. Presumably it has never happened. I imagine weather conditions approaching the edge would make it very difficult to do so.
Logged
?

Dudeman

  • 25
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2012, 02:49:57 PM »
Quote from: EnigmaZV on November 01, 2012, 02:32:04 PM
Dudeman, if you were a real pilot, you'd know that the aircraft needs near constant corrections in order to stay on course.

I am a pilot. Do you understand what straight and level means? It has nothing to do with what course you are on, if you read my original question, it is quite clear what my point is. My interest here is to see how this question will be answered in a presumptive flat earth scenario. The point is, if I maintain straight and level flight for a long enough time, you would inevitably reach the edge of the earth at some point. Again, I'm not following a compass, I'm drawing a staight line from point A to point B, so lets not get distracted,  a third grader can understand this example.

The fact is, I don't see a difinitive answer to this, so it seems to be written off as a paradox. There is absolutely no way at this point in our technology and history that someone would not have encountered this problem by now, if this earth were truly flat. I can't uderstand how there could be a defensible arguement against this example.
Logged
?

Thork

Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2012, 02:53:46 PM »
You have just set up a scenario that cannot be proven. You know very well that if you flew a 747 for the south pole, you'd be intercepted for hi-jack and forced to land long before you got to the edge of the earth. And that's how a conspiracy works. Whether is possible to get to the rim or not is not the point. Its not demonstrable.
Logged
?

Dudeman

  • 25
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2012, 03:09:57 PM »
Thork - you are listed as a flat earht veteran, and this is how you answer the question? Are you just not taking the questions seriously, or is this how you guys manage to dodge legitimate questions which can't be answered? So, you don't think anyone has ever flown from the Falkland Islands near the Southern tip of South America on a due south heading, flown straight and level and never reached the end of the earth? Really, and you think this is unprovable? How can you be taken as an authority on this topic if that's going to be your "out" for trying to explain this obvious gap in flat earth reasoning?

So, I wonder how many people should have died flying off the edge by those that have taken tours of Antarctica after having left by plane from South America and the Falkland Islands. There are lots of tour companies that make this flight, seems like they should have seen the edge by now, but its not included in their tour offerings, why not?

http://adventuresincorporated.com/destinations/antarctica-adventures/trip-details.php?tid=209&cid=1
Logged
?

SoNic

  • 98
Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2012, 03:15:57 PM »
Quote from: Dudeman on November 01, 2012, 02:49:57 PM
I am a pilot. Do you understand what straight and level means?
Do you? What's the sensitivity of your artificial horizont? Can it show a diference of 2 parts per million from true level?
Logged
?

Thork

Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2012, 03:17:46 PM »
The answer is if you could fly that far, you'd fly off the edge.

How can this be demonstrated? It can't because you'd be intercepted before you got there. Do I think anyone has filed a flight plan from the Falklands >> the edge? No. It would be rejected. Have planes ever got lost and gone missing heading in that general direction? Yes, thousands.

Did you miss the bit in the FAQ where it says the there is a conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth? Proving you can fly off the edge is nigh on impossible. But so is proving that there is no God. Difficult to obtain proof does not constitute implausibility.

Quote from: SoNic on November 01, 2012, 03:15:57 PM
Quote from: Dudeman on November 01, 2012, 02:49:57 PM
I am a pilot. Do you understand what straight and level means?
Do you? What's the sensitivity of your artificial horizont? Can it show a diference of 2 parts per million from true level?
Every other teenager that comes to this site claims to be a pilot. ::)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »