I'm a pilot and I have some queries.

Yeah, I simply misunderstood the actual definition of vertical. Another glorious victory for FET.

carrots are round, oranges are spheres like the earth; paper is not like the earth,we are able to go "around" the world, as the famous film around the world in 80 days not across the world in 80 days. quote zoom "around" showing the world is sphereical and it sounds like what the world is
thank you

carrots are round, oranges are spheres like the earth; paper is not like the earth,we are able to go "around" the world, as the famous film around the world in 80 days not across the world in 80 days. quote zoom "around" showing the world is sphereical and it sounds like what the world is
thank you

Oranges are used all the time in reference to a round Earth, but this is the first time I have seen a carrot used.  That is an odd choice for a vegetable.  Anyway, the Earth is not a carrot or an orange, so there is no reason to believe that it must be round just because they (or at least the orange) are round.

Also, you can walk "around" the floor of a room.  You can also drive "around" the block.  Something does not need to be spherical in order for you to circumnavigate it.  Therefore, if the world is flat, you can go around the world in 80 days.  You don't need to go across it.

I dont think a war of paint pics will be able to settle it... Simplest solution would be for someone to use a program like AutoCAD. Simply make semicirlce with the radius of the earth (Scaled down obviously) then simply find 2 tangents that are a feasible distance apart for a foundation, then draw perpendicular lines from each point, and measure the difference in distance between the tops and bottoms... My view is it will be marginal, if even detectable on a scaled down version...

No the 'paint war' (those two pics ) were to illustrate the theory. Now the theory is understood by all, the maths is very easy. Some basic trig will tell you how much RET pretends that walls lean.

No the 'paint war' (those two pics ) were to illustrate the theory. Now the theory is understood by all, the maths is very easy. Some basic trig will tell you how much RET pretends that walls lean.

Have you done the maths anywhere? and come to any conclusions yourself? Or is this a typical the maths could show it... But we not really bothered situation?

And saying the use of laser guides is evidence for FET... This is going on the presumption there is gravity, and this gravity is immensely strong (Black hole level gravity) and that the bend of the laser would be noticeable over a short distance, such as foundation, or height of a building...

Well, you need a real life example. The best example is actually the old world trade centre because it was a straight block. So the top floors should be wider than the bottom ones on a round earth.

The towers were 1368ft and 1362ft. Ok, we'll pick the taller of the two and wikipedia tells me its top floor was at 1347ft



The floor plane is as so.


The radius of earth is 2.0891×10⁷ feet. (20,891,000)

So to the base we have an isosceles triangle of 20,891,000 feet for two sides and 208 for the top edge. With some basic trig I calculate that the width of the top floor therefore needs to be 208.0077280857326 ft.

So the top floor is 43267.21494338807069 sqft
and the bottom floor is 43264 sqft

So the top floor of the world trade centre had an extra 3 square feet than the bottom one! Space for a toilet, or a printer cupboard or something. Round earthers just ignore these things as if no one would notice. The building actually has 165 sqft more to offer than advertised in each tower. That's a few extra offices! And no one noticed?

Round earthers are playing for ignorance again.

Alright but read my point re the use of laser as I saw mentioned in this thread or another... If the laser does not bend when making the foundation, this would imply the foundation is level, FE or RE... Remember foundations are dug into the earth, aren't just placed on top... Even in older structures, if guide wires or strings were used to determine it was level or flat, and these strings were pulled tort, there would be no droop or rise due to the the curvature of the earth...  Which really nullifies the use of this argument for both sides.... One way I could see this argument being used, is perhaps the use of two towers miles apart, measuring the distance between the tops and bottoms... The towers would have to be of 2 totally different foundations, and far enough to provide a large enough reading, that allows for measurement errors...

And re the maths, given the base if a square of 208 x 208, which gives 43264 sqft, and we take the top floor number u got, 43267.21494338807069 sqft, and we find the root of it we can get the measurement increase of each wall... which i get as 208.0077280857326... Minimal increase really...

For metric readers like me, that an extra 2.35mm on each wall... Absolutely minute

Is easy to claim 3 extra square feet, and it would be massively noticeable if it were bulging at some point... the fact its 2.35mm on each wall, shares out the 3 squared feet in a much less noticeable manner....  If u could detect that difference by eye it would be rather impressive...

BAM THORK BAM

Those walls are not vertical for a round earth. Vertical would mean they stand straight up and are line with the earth's centre.



Think of a plumb line. Its pulled to the centre of a round earth. So the walls need to be in line making a thin wedge shape, if they are to be considered vertical.

You've draw walls that actually lean in. And that's no use.

that's a moot point.  my bet is if you go measure from wall to wall at the floor and wall to wall at the ceiling of any 2 walls in your house, the difference will be more that what the earths curvature would require for those walls to be vertical.

your walls would have to be approximately 70 miles apart for their angle to be 1 degree...  to do some measuring.

You mean its an inconvenient fact that doesn't fit in with your idea of earth's shape? Very well, we'll ignore it. I'm sorry for bringing it up.

You mean its an inconvenient fact that doesn't fit in with your idea of earth's shape? Very well, we'll ignore it. I'm sorry for bringing it up.

"Don’t confuse me with the facts."

Is not as inconvenient as it is insignificant, so it doesn't present a problem in building skyscrapers, the base is always the same size that the roof if you are building a "block".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/books/big-questions/given-the-curvature-of-the-earth-are-rectangular-skyscrapers-widerat-the-top-than-they-are-at-the-base/2008/10/26/1224955822897.html

I had clearly muted Thork's point... WHY DID PEOPLE COME WITH MORE SHIT

but the USA had Hollywood. In a studio in California, NASA staged a moon walk with special effects like no one had seen before.

Already been disproved. Try again.

I am interested in the theories put forward on this site but I have some questions. If the idea of a spherical world is in fact a NASA conspiracy then how come the Soviets showed the exact same findings during the space race and also confirmed the shape of the earth from first hand accounts and pictures. Does this mean the entire cold war was a hoax played out by NASA?

Another thing I'm having trouble with, I have previously flown around the world. I didn't meet any ice walls and witnessed the curvature of the earth first hand.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks, Matthew.

How many opportunities have you had to look over the nose of your plane?

sceptimatic, do you mean, to examine the nose, or to peer over it to see something below?

Quote from: MNMorgan on November 03, 2012, 03:50:18 PM

I am interested in the theories put forward on this site but I have some questions. If the idea of a spherical world is in fact a NASA conspiracy then how come the Soviets showed the exact same findings during the space race and also confirmed the shape of the earth from first hand accounts and pictures. Does this mean the entire cold war was a hoax played out by NASA?

Another thing I'm having trouble with, I have previously flown around the world. I didn't meet any ice walls and witnessed the curvature of the earth first hand.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks, Matthew.

How many opportunities have you had to look over the nose of your plane?

I'm an airline pilot myself...a real one, who won't make the claim that I have flows across the world heading...and fail to see the point in this question.

I look down the nose often.  At 37000 feet with the autopilot on, what the hell else am I going to be looking at.  Crap gets boring after a while.

The radius of earth is 2.0891×10⁷ feet. (20,891,000)

So to the base we have an isosceles triangle of 20,891,000 feet for two sides and 208 for the top edge. With some basic trig I calculate that the width of the top floor therefore needs to be 208.0077280857326 ft.

So the top floor is 43267.21494338807069 sqft
and the bottom floor is 43264 sqft

So the top floor of the world trade centre had an extra 3 square feet than the bottom one! Space for a toilet, or a printer cupboard or something. Round earthers just ignore these things as if no one would notice. The building actually has 165 sqft more to offer than advertised in each tower. That's a few extra offices! And no one noticed?

This looks like an old thread that somehow rose from the grave, but the skyscraper question is an interesting one. I was getting ready to break out my super math powers, but it looks like Thork did the calculations. I'll assume they're correct.

You have a bottom floor width of 208 feet, and a top floor width of 208.007728 feet. So, the difference in the widths is .007728 feet, or .09274 inches. So right about 1/10th of an inch.

I can call one of the steel fabricators located here in town and ask if you guys want, but I'd be a little surprised if the beams are cut to that high a precision. So depending on how the beams are cut, the top of the building may be slightly wider, or slightly narrower, than the bottom. Consequently, one of the 4 building edges won't be *precisely* vertical no matter how much laser levelling you do.

Was the distance between World Trade Towers different between top and bottom?

...and regarding the Soviet/US space race fraud:  If both sides were in on the ruse surely the Russians would have cried foul when the US "reached" the moon first?  What would have stopped them?  They could go on to claim their own program was legit.

Was the distance between World Trade Towers different between top and bottom?

...and regarding the Soviet/US space race fraud:  If both sides were in on the ruse surely the Russians would have cried foul when the US "reached" the moon first?  What would have stopped them?  They could go on to claim their own program was legit.

Have you ever been out with a friend and watched him do something wrong, yet promised not to tell because he watched you do something wrong and never blew your cover?
Look at it that way.
Russia was doing it's own fake space program with Yuri Gagarin as the first man in space and all the other fake stuff, so it wasn't in anyones interests to let the cat out of the bag, so to speak was it?

This is basically off topic but I'll just add, that the cold war (in my opinion) was really just a ruse.

On the contrary.  Soviet Union and US were not "friends" during the Cold War era. 

To use your analogy: these nations hated each other and either of them would have jumped at the chance to Rat out the other. 

The fact is neither nation was cheating.

Now that we see private enterprise enter into space exploration, SpaceEx for example, are we to believe these people are also in on the fraud.  Ellon Musk, founder of PayPal, Tesla Motors and SpaceEx is clearly a smart business man.  Becoming entangled in a decades long government conspiracy doesn't seem like a good business model.  Why would he do this?

On the contrary.  Soviet Union and US were not "friends" during the Cold War era. 

To use your analogy: these nations hated each other and either of them would have jumped at the chance to Rat out the other. 

The fact is neither nation was cheating.

Now that we see private enterprise enter into space exploration, SpaceEx for example, are we to believe these people are also in on the fraud.  Ellon Musk, founder of PayPal, Tesla Motors and SpaceEx is clearly a smart business man.  Becoming entangled in a decades long government conspiracy doesn't seem like a good business model.  Why would he do this?

You don't know whether they hated each other or not , if you are honest.

If the Earth is round, what stops a plane from just following a straight path once it's at cruising altitude, rather than following the Earth's supposed curve?

I hope you're being sarcastic?

Planes do follow a straight path.  It's called the Great Circle route and is the shortest distance between points on a globe.  It only looks curved when depicted onto a flat map with the typical Mercator projection.  If you had a globe and a piece of string you would see for yourself.

On your globe run the string between San Francisco and London.  It's a straight line, right?  The planes follow this line which, as you now see on your globe, heads over NE Canada and Southern Greenland. 

But I suspect you already know this and I also suspect you don't have a globe at home.

I hope you're being sarcastic?

Planes do follow a straight path.  It's called the Great Circle route and is the shortest distance between points on a globe.  It only looks curved when depicted onto a flat map with the typical Mercator projection.  If you had a globe and a piece of string you would see for yourself.

On your globe run the string between San Francisco and London.  It's a straight line, right?  The planes follow this line which, as you now see on your globe, heads over NE Canada and Southern Greenland. 

But I suspect you already know this and I also suspect you don't have a globe at home.

I'm on about a plane following the curve of the globe, How does it stay following it, instead of veering away from the planet in a straight line.