TRY TO DEBUNK THIS IF YOU CAN

When you are flying around the supposed "ball-earth" (along the equator - and only along the equator!!!) you are literally moving in a STRAIGHT (in absolute terms) LINE (NO JAWING NEEDED BECAUSE NO JAWING IS GEOMETRICALLY POSSIBLE)

No. You are travelling ina  circle. Just not one which requires you to adjust your yaw. However in reality, due to wind and the like, you will still likely change your heading.

- However, while flying around the globe a jet aircraft needs to constantly adjust nose down to follow the curvature of the earth, that is why you can't fly LEVEL (in absolute terms) anywhere around the globular earth!

No, it does fly level, by maintaining a constant altitude. What it doesn't fly is straight.
And the "nose down" doesn't require any conscious input.

... so that i can compare Rowbotham's argument against the motion of the earth (many of which originates - all the way back - from Aristoteles) with Galileo's mathematical conjectures (and DISHONESTY that bursts all over his book) which veracity Galileo wasn't capable to corroborate with honestly and carefully performed experiments (if any experiment at all that he himself had carried out)!!!

And instead of doing any such comparison you just make baseless claims.

2. Since i i am able to compare DIRECTLY Rowbotham's argumentation AGAINST the rotation of the earth with Galileo's argumentation FOR the rotation of the earth, i can tell you (on the basis of his own words/thesis which are pure experimentally unsustained mathematical conjectures) that Galileo was very dishonest person (rotten liar) and that Rowbotham was very honest and sincere person who corroborated his argumentation with absolutely valid experimental proofs!!!

And having looked at some of the crap Rowbotham came up with I can say with 100% certainty he is a blatant liar with no care for reality.

For example, with one experiment, using a theodite, he states you can clearly measure the dip angle to the horizon, but then just rejects that, saying if you take out the magnifier from it you can no longer measure it so there mustn't be any dip, as if the dip was merely a result of measuring it with a magnifying device.

---- Mr Rowbotham says :

I don't care what he says (especially when it is childish crap). Provide the argument yourself.

Quote

>>>It is certain, then, that the path of a ball, dropped from the mast-head of a stationary ship will be vertical. It is also certain that, dropped down a deep mine, or from the top of a high tower, upon a stationary earth, it would be vertical. It is equally certain that, dropped from the mast-head of a moving ship, it would be diagonal; so also upon a moving earth it would be diagonal. And as a matter of necessity, that which follows in one case would follow in every other case, if, in each, the conditions were the same. Now let the experiment shown in fig. 46 be modified in the following way:--

And as you lack the necessary reference frame, you cannot distinguish between that diagonal path and a vertical path. Effectively you need to measure if Earth is in motion to measure that.

He even admits that:

it does not follow therefrom that the earth moves. It only follows that the earth might move, and yet allow of such a result.

Quote

Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, 13; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; BUT DURING ITS FALL TOWARDS H, THE SHIP WILL HAVE PASSED ON TO THE POSITION S, LEAVING THE BALL AT H, A GIVEN DISTANCE BEHIND IT.

Pure crap. (As this is just dealing with linear motion, I will just focus on that)
But this does now get to the point of a massive error.
In this case, they are ignoring any wind resistance and just dealing with an ideal situation.
The path is not a diagonal line, nor is it a diagonal line and a vertical line.
In all cases except a straight vertical drop, it will follow a parabola.

At the time of launch, there is a single force acting upon the ball, that of the thrower throwing it upwards. However it keeps the momentum it had on the boat.
This means it will continue to move sideways with the boat and just have an addition velocity going upwards.
Once it is released, it is then just subjected to gravity which only acts on the vertical component of its motion. That means the vertical component of the velocity will reduce to 0 and then become negative as the ball falls back down.
At no point does the horizontal component get changed. The ball will continue to move with the boat.

Or to put it simply in a manner consistent with this blatant liar, upon reaching position 13, the ball will now have the vertical force acting upon it expended, and the ball will begin to fall, with the combined force of gravity and the initial momentum it had. (I know this is technically wrong as it is equating momentum with a force, but I don't care, as it is expressing it in a consistent manner with the blatant liar you idolise as a prophet/high priest of your cult).

You can easily test this for yourself in a moving vehicle, as long as it is moving in a constant manner. Throw a ball up and see where it falls.


The difference you get in reality is entirely due to the motion of the craft through the air. This results in wind resistance acting upon the ball to slow it down.
This does not happen in the case of Earth, as the atmosphere is moving with Earth.

Quote

The same result will be observed on throwing a ball upwards from a railway carriage, when in rapid motion, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 48. While the carriage or tender passes from A to B, the ball thrown upwards, from A towards (2, will reach the position D; BUT DURING THE TIME OF ITS FALL FROM D TO B, THE CARRIAGE WILL HAVE ADVANCED TO S, LEAVING THE BALL BEHIND AT B, AS IN THE CASE OF THE SHIP IN THE LAST EXPERIMENT.[/i]<<<

And this analysis suffers from the same problem.
The ball doesn't just stop its horizontal motion. It keeps moving and ends up with the train, unless you consider wind resistance.

Quote

Do you see (on the basis of this simple example) how easy is to expose Galileo's unbelievable DISHONESTY?

No. It isn't shown at all.
But your's is.
You are trying to pretend that Galileo was trying to prove Earth was in motion by this experiment. He wasn't.
This experiment had nothing to do with Row boat's pages of nonsense and lies.
This experiment was to show that objects accelerate at the same rate due to the same "source of gravity", regardless of mass.


Would you like to try to explain how he was dishonest at all?

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2017, 05:01:03 AM

4. Galileo demonstrated some flaws in the full geocentric model, and left us a legacy of observational astronomy, but he did not prove that Earth rotates on its axis or revolves around the Sun, nor did he even answer the arguments against those positions that had been well-known for 2000 years.

And this has no bearing on the argument at hand.

This isn't even your own argument, not at all. You are just copying and pasting crap from elsewhere, so I wont bother with the rest of it, unless you think it is really good, and can provide the argument yourself.

There isn't a single shred of evidence that Earth is motionless or flat, but there is plenty which shows it to be round and in motion.

Read this short exchange of thoughts (between one heliocentrist and me) and try to learn one very important lesson :
If your myth of inertia contained a shred of truth, then this scenario (IN WHICH EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE IS TREATED AS A VACUUM) would also be true : Just imagine one small-slow airplane which max speed is not higher than 100 mi/h, now let's attach our small plane below the wing of B-52 which max. speed is 650 mi/h, now B-52 is taking off, reaching his max. speed and dropping our small-slow plane so that he could fly independently...THE QUESTION IS THIS : Which airplane should fly faster in accordance with HC utterly stupid myth of inertia??? THE ANSWER IS THIS : Our small plane should fly faster because his max. speed is the sum of the next factors :

No. Inertia has absolutely nothing to do with this.
The key thing here is that the plane is flying in Earth's atmosphere, which is moving with Earth. It's maximum speed is relative to this atmosphere.

The important thing to note is that being in the air doesn't magically sap away all the inertia. All it does is provide resistance to relative motion to try to make whatever object is in it travel at the same speed as it.
This is also why the wind moves objects.
It has almost nothing to do with inertia.

If you magically put a plane at rest in Earth's atmosphere, then Earth's atmosphere would rapidly accelerate it (possibly resulting in it burning up in the process) to match the speed of Earth's atmosphere.

Exactly the same thing that would happen to our bodies (right after jumping from an airplane) would have happened (long time ago) to every single molecule of air. Every single molecule of air would be "glued" to the correspondent latitudinal point on the earth. What would that mean? Plain and simple : it would mean absolute absence of any wind anywhere within our atmosphere, there is no way around it.

No, it wouldn't.
That would only be the case without any source of forces. But there are plenty, like the sun heating the air, causing it to expand and move.

no known effects of "coriolis force" (which is the consequence of the motion of the sun above the motionless earth

No. It is a consequence of Earth's rotation.
It has nothing to do with the sun.

because alleged "big G" is not strong enough to overcome centrifugal force in order to keep oceans from flying off into space

It isn't big G alone. It is also the mass of Earth and the distance of the oceans to the centre. The gravity from Earth is enough to almost entirely overcome the apparent centrifugal force, such that all the apparent centrifugal force does is cause a slight bulge.

if gravity ("big G") were strong enough to overcome centrifugal force so that oceans could stick to the earth then the flow of ocean currents wouldn't be possible, people wouldn't be able to walk or even breathing (we would be literally nailed/smashed to the surface of the earth right away), not to mention how it would be impossible for insects and birds to fly in an atmosphere which couldn't even exist in it's present form, in the first place...Is the Amount of Gravity (pressure or invisible force) over the Ocean the same "Amount of Gravity" over us humans here on earth? If it's "not" then why? If it is then why are we not "squashed" like a bug?

Pure childish bullshit.
Do you have any kind of rational argument to back that up at all?

Remember, gravity acts to accelerate objects. Thus the force of it is based upon the mass of the object as well.
So the force of gravity holding 1 million kg to Earth will be 1 million times stronger than the force holding a 1 kg object to Earth.

Another thing that you have to deal with (which demands your ludicrous belief system) is a necessity to figure out and postulate one completely new definition of inertia because this is exactly what your inertia turns out to be :

Nope. The current system of inertia works fine, even with air resistance acting as a force on the object.

An air is trapped by gravity, a plane is trapped by air, and as the earth turns an air turns with the earth, and as an air turns with the earth, an airplane (trapped by an air ) turns with the earth too, and voila, this is your inertia. Is it not?

No. It isn't.
Inertia (there is just one, the one which exists in reality, rather than our own little individual one, is expressed best in the simplest form of F=ma.
Thus an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force.

Atmospheric drag is an external force based upon the relative velocities of the object and the air.

Any attempt to fly towards north would produce enormous lateral deceleration force!

And just how enormous would that be?
If you don't know, then it is pointless saying it will be enormous.

Also, it would be towards or away from the equator, not just north or south. Remember, the southern hemisphere exists as well.

Nobody has ever felt or detected - by any means - such a force!

Except it is clearly observed in the atmosphere as tropical storms and large scale weather systems.

And what would be the "carrying force" working to maintain the original motion?

Stop using a horribly outdated method of mechanics to try to describe reality.
There is no carrying force needed.
An object will remain in motion until it is acted upon by an outside force. That means that no carrying force is required to keep it moving.

Let's use my favorite airplane flight example to crunch this "original motion" factor.

And how do you crunch it? With ignorant crap based upon outdated laws of motion which completely discard the reality of inertia.

What this all means is that if the "original motion" component of the plane is not maintained, then explaining its observed travel reality by resorting to "relative motion" (just like for outer space bodies where the original motion IS maintained) is fatally wounded. So therefore, to conclude that the difference in mediums does not affect the way relative motion would work is not logical, but that is the enemy's stance, as far as I can tell.

No. It isn't our stance at all. It is just your pathetic straw man so you can dismiss reality and pretend Earth is flat and stationary.

@ Canadabear

So you use a video depicting pure bullshit?

First he gets a picture of a wall, but that doesn't show a good enough example, because even at the edge of the screen, the slats are still separated. So he cuts away the edge and then changes the line to pretend they meet much earlier than they would in reality (which in reality would be at INFINITE DISTANCE).
Then he goes and blatantly misrepresents the sun's motion.

Remember, the further away an object is, the smaller it appears.
So if you have 2 distances appearing to be the same, the one which is further away is longer.

Conveniently, the wall he chose has vertical supports, which are presumably evenly spaced.
We can use that to measure the motion of the sun he has shown, or determine where the sun should be. (we shall call the distance between the supports d km)
The sun starts off at 12, to the right of some support that is some unknown distance to the left. That means the speed is d/2 km/hr.
It is only at 2 pm that it passes a support.
But then at 3pm, it passes another, so the speed between 2 and 3 pm would be d km/hr.
Then by the time it reaches 4 pm, it has passed another 2, making its speed 2d km/hr.
Notice how it keeps on speeding up?
But that isn't what is observed in reality.
In reality, the sun's speed remains constant, regardless of where you are.

So lets try matching the alleged speed of d/2 km/hr.
So we will leave the 12, 1 and 2 pm suns. But then the 3pm sun as it is d units after 2 pm, would actually be 4 pm.
Then the one labelled as 4pm, as it is 2d units after the one which is actually 4pm, puts it at 8pm.
So notice how even at 8 pm, 2 hours after the sun is meant to have set, it still hasn't actually set?
Notice a big problem for the FE bullshit?
Continuing the trend, the one labelled 5pm would be after an additional 4d units, meaning it would now be an additional 8 hours later. This puts it at 4 am.
So even assuming the sun is travelling directly away, even at 4am the sun shouldn't have set from the day before.

This also means the sun would appear to wiz by and then slow to a crawl, without ever setting.

So no, that is just more blatant dishonesty from you.

ZIGZAG ARGUMENT IS THE WINNER

Wrong as usual.  Why do you continue to cling to that laughable argument?

@ Rabinoz,
 
1. I've got Galileos's book (which was translated very recently to serbian language from an old version of italian language) "The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" (Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo) :
https://a74i.imgup.net/GALILEODIJ86f7.jpg

... so that i can compare Rowbotham's argument against the motion of the earth (many of which originates - all the way back - from Aristoteles) with Galileo's mathematical conjectures (and DISHONESTY that bursts all over his book) which veracity Galileo wasn't capable to corroborate with honestly and carefully performed experiments (if any experiment at all that he himself had carried out)!!!

You do that properly and you might just find that Rowbotham is simply wrong here and in so many other places.

2. Since i i am able to compare DIRECTLY Rowbotham's argumentation AGAINST the rotation of the earth with Galileo's argumentation FOR the rotation of the earth, i can tell you (on the basis of his own words/thesis which are pure experimentally unsustained mathematical conjectures) that Galileo was very dishonest person (rotten liar) and that Rowbotham was very honest and sincere person who corroborated his argumentation with absolutely valid experimental proofs!!!

Really? Please document these "valid experimental proofs" that Rowbotham made.

3. In the days of modern cockpit instruments : artificial horizons, directional gyros (gyrocompass and turning indicators), etc..., those old arguments against or for the rotation of the earth are absolutely obsolete, but still valid...

---- Mr Rowbotham says :

Let's see what Rowbotham actually said and why it is completely invalid.

<<< see below >>>

READ MORE : http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm

THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<<< Treatment of ball simply dropped omitted for brevity >>>
Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions-the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47;

FIG. 47.

but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, B; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.
From Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' [1881], CHAPTER III. THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

Rowbotham is misleading when he says "because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D." A diagonal direction implies a straight line, but the ball follows a parabolic path as in: This is from Projectile Motion and you really should read, among other things, the sections:
Velocity and Acceleration in Projectile Motion and Principle of Physical Independence of Motions.

But where Rowbotham goes totally wrong is in claiming "the two forces will have been expended".
The two components of the velocity are quite independent.
At the highest point, the vertical component will have fallen to zero because of gravity.
Gravity, however, is purely vertical and has no effect the horizontal component.

---- Although Galileo new knew about this very kind of an argument (he even cited Aristoteles on this very kind of an argument) he had never tried to experimentally test one, not only that, he had never even referred to someone else's attempt of carrying out such an experiment!!! - On the other hand Galileo spent a lot of time to talk about one another kind of an experiment which Rowbotham described with these words, at the very beginning of the chapter that i linked above :

Sure, "Galileo knew about this very kind of an argument" and knew that it was incorrect.

Do you see (on the basis of this simple example) how easy is to expose Galileo's unbelievable DISHONESTY?

No, you and Rowbotham and totally wrong for the reason I gave above and accusing Galileo of "unbelievable DISHONESTY" is slanderous for two reasons:

• Galileo believed what he wrote was the truth, so he was not being dishonest.
• Galileo was correct and YOU and Rowbotham are both quite mistaken.

<< further comment is pointless >>

Al of you " irrefutable arguments  " are as easy to debunk by anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject.

And if you insist on using Rowbotham as your "authority" I'll has to resort to digging up more places where the "patron saint of the flat earth" is totally incorrect.

And if you insist on using Rowbotham as your "authority" I'll has to resort to digging up more places where the "patron saint of the flat earth" is totally incorrect.

You've got lots of choices, he was wrong a lot!  My list of favorites:

A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea, and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam above the Biblical lake of fire
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer
F) Sunlight puts out fire
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers

All of these preposterous statements MAY have sounded credible to the untraveled Victorians that Rowbotham targeted, but a twenty first century adult should know better.

@ rabinoz

<< More baseless crap!  >>

I'll answer this rubbish when I have nothing else to do, can't sleep and get bored watching the grass grow.

We are not affiliated with any FE youtubers.
They come here to advertise their (usually shit) videos sometimes, but they are separate from the FES.

But,  in the mean time, please remind the person that made that video "Big "G" is a hoax" that:

• the earth is not exactly a sphere
• g varies significantly with latitude (and elevation, but that does not matter here).
• the effective g includes the effect of rotation.

Way to go! Nice work

I spoke to a pilot once, pretending to know nothing about the plane's gyroscope.  He very proudly and excitedly went into a detailed explanation of how the gyroscope works and its use.  "It's the most wonderful instrument - it works in all weathers, day or night - just don't trust your senses.  Just have absolute trust in the instrument".  I asked him to confirm that the gyroscope's false horizon was totally straight and he said yes.  I then told him I was looking for another confirmation of FE.  Shame I didn't catch his face on camera.  Truth comes with a price and he wasn't prepared to pay it.  But maybe there are some pilots out there who would come clean, sacrifice their paid job and prefer to walk in truth?

Way to go! Nice work

I spoke to a pilot once, pretending to know nothing about the plane's gyroscope.  He very proudly and excitedly went into a detailed explanation of how the gyroscope works and its use.  "It's the most wonderful instrument - it works in all weathers, day or night - just don't trust your senses.  Just have absolute trust in the instrument".  I asked him to confirm that the gyroscope's false horizon was totally straight and he said yes.  I then told him I was looking for another confirmation of FE.  Shame I didn't catch his face on camera.  Truth comes with a price and he wasn't prepared to pay it.  But maybe there are some pilots out there who would come clean, sacrifice their paid job and prefer to walk in truth?

Pilots nowadays start their careers heavily in debt, they don't get paid much and have challenging shift patterns. They do it for the love - many drop out as they can't handle the workload and pressure. Don't you think of the countless pilots that give up their careers or retire, not one of them would come forward and provide insight into FE?

I'm skeptical you spoke to a pilot, but if you did I would have to surmise his expression would have been one of incredulity at what he was hearing.

Here is a post from a commercial pilot on a thread here that buries the ridiculous notion of the aircraft instrument's straight line confirming FE. If you think you can mount an adequate challenge to what this pilot says, then do so on that thread so he has an opportunity to respond.

No flat earther here has challenged him on what he has said - why not be the first?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70093.msg1893118#msg1893118

I asked him to confirm that the gyroscope's false horizon was totally straight and he said yes.  I then told him I was looking for another confirmation of FE.  Shame I didn't catch his face on camera.  Truth comes with a price and he wasn't prepared to pay it.  But maybe there are some pilots out there who would come clean, sacrifice their paid job and prefer to walk in truth?

Who gives a shit if it is straight?
That would be the same (within error) of the curve of Earth when the plane is on the ground.

Regardless, it is used to indicate pitch, it has no reason to be curved.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was shocked, shocked at your stupidity and possibly the sheer irrationality of the question.

The artificial horizon being straight has nothing to do with if Earth is flat or round.

You are the one hiding from the truth here.

Way to go! Nice work

I spoke to a pilot once, pretending to know nothing about the plane's gyroscope.  He very proudly and excitedly went into a detailed explanation of how the gyroscope works and its use.  "It's the most wonderful instrument - it works in all weathers, day or night - just don't trust your senses.  Just have absolute trust in the instrument".  I asked him to confirm that the gyroscope's false horizon was totally straight and he said yes.

Would you please explain why the horizon line on the Attitude Indicator should be curved?

  I then told him I was looking for another confirmation of FE.  Shame I didn't catch his face on camera.  Truth comes with a price and he wasn't prepared to pay it.  But maybe there are some pilots out there who would come clean, sacrifice their paid job and prefer to walk in truth?

You are joking, I hope, with your "who would come clean, sacrifice their paid job and prefer to walk in truth?"
I strongly suspect that the great majority of pilots have no doubt that the truth is that the earth is a Globe.

Pilots of light planes would might not see much difference between a flat earth or the Globe.
Intercontinental pilots, however, would never believe that the earth could be flat.

For a start the Southern Hemisphere route distances for the flat earth map (yes, I know,   there is no official map ) are drastically further than on the Globe.
Strangely enough, these Globe distances match the actual route distances.

In a number of cases, the distance on the flat earth map is far outside the range of the aircraft used.
For example on the Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile, route the distance actually flown is just a bit over 11,400 km, but
on the flat earth map (the Ice-Wall one) the distance would be a bit over 25,500 km.
I said "a bit over" because the distances given are the minimum distances and flights normally follow slightly longer routes.

No, International pilots know that the earth is a Globe.

@ rabinoz,

As i said in one another similar discussion to one other guy :

So, you want me to believe that when you take off (with a helicopter) and hover for an hour (or for many hours) above some spot on the ground, inertia is capable to carry you and your helicopter all around the globe so that you (and a helicopter) don't lose any amount of impetus (for hours)

Well, let's say that this is possible (although it's pure nonsense)...

Let me remind you what i described within my hypothetical experiment in one of the videos that i have posted in the opening post of this thread :

Let's say our helicopter is oriented NORTH - SOUTH ..If the earth spins below us every 4 minutes our directional gyro would indicate 1 degree of horizontal displacement of the helicopter with respect to the designated orientation point (drawn straight line) on the ground below us...

Now, you and Galileo claim this : it wont happen because although gyrocompass would indicate ALL THE TIME (no matter how long we hover in the air) that we are oriented NORTH - SOUTH, there will be no displacement because of INERTIA which is capable to carry halicopter in such a way that helicopter stay above the same spot (ABOVE THE SAME MERIDIAN - SAME LONGITUDINAL COORDINATE) from which you took off at the beginning of your experiment.

Well, if this is so then why don't you carry out such an experiment above the North Pole, or above the South Pole???

Since the speed of Earth's rotation is equal to ZERO there, then there is NO INERTIA there, also, so, if there is no INERTIA, then it would be easy there to demonstrate to us and to the whole world that the earth rotates because above the North Pole nothing would stop displacement of the helicopter in relation to designated orientation point (drawn straight line) below the helicopter, unless you figure out some other (completely new excuse)...

Galileo didn't claim that earth's atmosphere and the earth constitute one close system, so without that supposition Galileo claims are plainly wrong.

On the other hand, see what would happen if the earth and it's atmosphere constituted one close system :

We shall not recall the  objection  of the good fellows ("objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface"), because we have a modern one. That is, objects on a rotating Earth should not fly off. Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down.  The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would become for the real-change of air pressure  in the  atmosphere. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth. The Newtonian fellows accept that, the  air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth.  Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge  dynamic pressure.

In a real atmosphere, the measured air-pressure at the surface of the rigid Earth is 1013.25 mbar (1  atm), at standard condition of temperature. It is the highest pressure  value measured in the altitude height for standard conditions.  The pressure pattern of air atmosphere reveals that, the pressure drops from 1 atm to lower values as we ascend to higher altitudes, reaching zero at the interface with space.  In addition, the abundant of hydrogen is higher at the outer  layer  than at the surface of  the Earth.   Moreover, the concentration of oxygen is higher at the seal level than at the outer layers.  These conclude that, the Earth had never rotated since the first day of life.

In addition : Can we consider one circus arena as a closed system? If no then why, if yes then how would you explain this (in the light of your famous HC myth - so called "throwing a ball upward in a non accelerating car") :

>>>The same phenomenon would be observed in a circus, during the performance of a juggler on horseback, were it not that the balls employed are thrown more or less forward, according to the rapidity of the horse's motion. The juggler standing in the ring, on the solid ground, throws his balls as vertically as he can, and they return to his hand; but when on the back of a rapidly-moving horse, he should throw the balls vertically, before they fell back to his hands, the horse would have taken him in advance, and the whole would drop to the ground behind him. It is the same in leaping from the back of a horse in motion. The performer must throw himself to a certain degree forward. If he jumps directly upwards, the horse will go from under him, and he would fall behind.<<<

@ kennykirklan,

Here we go (because you asked for it) :

1. I know you haven't had the opportunity (up until now) to read these words :
Since you don't understand how aircraft trimming works, as a PSA for you and other's I will try and explain it. All aircraft are armed with something called a "Trimming" system. It's a set of tabs on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer of an aircraft. When a pilot is at his cruising altitude, he "Trims" the aircraft. There is a wheel inside the cockpit that you roll forwards or backwards and this adjusts the trims on the wings of the aircraft. This changes the way air or wind travels over the shape of the wing; Thus creating lift - up or down in altitude. Autopilots also can automatically trim the craft for you but you must engage it manually. This way, the aircraft hold's it's altitude without descending or ascending. This relieves the pilot, as well, of back or forward yoke pressure. Once the aircraft is trimmed, it's trimmed and will hold it's altitude, Mean Sea Level (MSL) all day long (Weather permitting). If there was a curvature to the earth, the amount of altitude loss would not only be visually noted on the altimeter but your body would feel pressure of constant G force as you would have to push the nose of the craft down to hold your altitude along the curvature of the earth. If this was a automatic system, passengers in jet's would have a noticeable G effect happening to their bodies because of the speed of the aircraft having to constantly descend to maintain constant altitude. (G-force) Even IF an aircraft's gyro did automatically compensate for the curvature of the earth (Which it doesn't), you would be constantly fighting to properly trim the airplane as the craft would be constantly trying to adjust it's altitude to deal with the curvature of the earth itself; Assuming you are manually flying the aircraft.?

2. THE GYRO MAINTAINS IT'S AXIS IN RELATION TO SPACE AND NOT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH!!! Now, if we set one gyro without erection mechanism in an airplane next to standard attitude indicator built-in the cockpit of an airplane and performed an experiment like this : ,should we (according to you) expect any discrepancy on the display of these two pretty different devices no matter how long our experiment lasts and how far we fly while conducting our experiment?

3. Ibrahim Muñoz
I used to run tests on gyros for the C-5 and C-141 airplanes in the military. The tests usually ran for 4 hours. I had to make sure it could stay precise an all the axes. (Pitch Yaw and Roll) there was only one allowance made for the rotation of the earth. 15 degrees for every hour. Now this only affects the heading in terms of longitude position . But , there was NEVER I mean NEVER any mention or allowance for pitch or altitude adjustment for the curvature of the earth. If a plane is going 500 MPH, after a1/2 an hour it would have traveled 250 miles. That means the plane would be 7.89 miles higher. Those gyros are very sensitive and precise. This is proof the earth is flat. For me that is the final nail in the coffin for round earth?

4. blk jet 1 month ago
When i started my 25 year USAF career, I was an Automated Flight Control Systems Specialist (autopilot). The system had a pitch up command for coordinated turns so that when the aircraft banked and the wings lost lift the resulting altitude loss could be prevented. There was also pitch up and down commands for terrain following, but no pitch commands to account for the curvature of the earth. If there were then there would have to be a continuous pitch down command to account for the earths curvature. I worked both on the flight line (on the aircraft) and the back shop so I got to learn the complete system and can tell you that there was never any signals to account for the curvature of the earth.?

5. Magic38 minutes ago
In the 20+ years I research this subject I have not found one person or company that uses spherical geometry in their calculations or surveying instruments -- this is impossible not even so much by the Laws of Physics as by the Law of Economics! ALL flight manuals assume a Flat and Stationary Earth. In no flight map or any avionics will you ever see the inclusion of an Earth(v)D> (Earth Velocity/Direction of Spin) component in ANY flight, navigation or fuel calculations. Don't take my word for it but go to your local library and check it out.

The cost overrun on miss-measured projects would be discovered by accountants if this were true! How can a land surveying company that makes high tech measuring surveying instruments (also for military) not use spherical geometry equations in their devices??? -- those errors would kill people and cause chaos.

This 6,666' GIANT gone missing is what turned me immediately -- I did not need any more convincing -- You CANNOT just lose 6,666 feet per 100 miles --- CANNOT!

Naval missile operators paint their targets which are over 55 miles away line-of-sight with a laser pencil beam, called beam riding. NOT possible on a globe with a curvature drop of 8 inches per mile squared.?

6. At the end of this conversation i will only add this (right interpretation of the usage of this mechanism) : Attitude indicators use a gyroscope (powered via vacuum pump or electrical motor) to establish an inertial platform. The gyroscope is geared to a display that has two dimensions of freedom, simultaneously displaying pitch and bank. The display may be colored to indicate the horizon as the division between the two colored segments (typically blue for sky and brown for ground), and is intended to be intuitive to use. The actual bank angle is calibrated around the circumference of the instrument. The pitch angle is indicated by a series of calibration lines, each representing 5&#176; or 10&#176; of pitch depending on design. The instrument may develop small "precession" errors, in pitch indication during extended periods of acceleration or deceleration and, in bank indication during extended periods in a turn, caused by the mechanism that normally keeps the gyro rotor properly erected. These errors develop very slowly (usually at not more than 2 or 3 degrees per minute) and are not significant in normal flying. Some attitude indicators can only tolerate a specific range of bank angles. If the aircraft rolls too steeply or achieves an extreme pitch attitude — while performing aerobatics, for example — the attitude indicator can tumble (or topple) and become temporarily unusable. For this reason, some attitude indicators are fitted with a caging mechanism (a device to restore the gyroscope to an erect position). Some attitude indicators can be manually erected once the airplane is in level flight using the caging mechanism. Most modern instruments are designed to tolerate 360 degrees of rotation in pitch and roll without tumbling, although periods of violent aerobatics may tumble any gyro horizon.

Pilots of light planes would might not see much difference between a flat earth or the Globe.

Well, being a glider pilot myself, I can always see my viewing distance increasig as I am being pulled up by a winch.

So, you want me to believe that when you take off (with a helicopter) and hover for an hour (or for many hours) above some spot on the ground, inertia is capable to carry you and your helicopter all around the globe so that you (and a helicopter) don't lose any amount of impetus (for hours)

NO. No one has ever said anything like that.
It is a combination of several things.
The main ones acting in a situation like this would be inertia, gravity and lift.

Well, let's say that this is possible (although it's pure nonsense)...

The pure nonsense here is your arguments.

Let's say our helicopter is oriented NORTH - SOUTH ..If the earth spins below us every 4 minutes our directional gyro would indicate 1 degree of horizontal displacement of the helicopter with respect to the designated orientation point (drawn straight line) on the ground below us...

WHY?

Well, if this is so then why don't you carry out such an experiment above the North Pole, or above the South Pole???
Since the speed of Earth's rotation is equal to ZERO there

No. It is the same as it is everywhere else, roughly 15 degrees an hour.
Rotational speed is measured in units of angle per unit time, not length per unit time.

then there is NO INERTIA there

Yes, there is.
Inertia/momentum doesn't only apply for linear motion. It also applies for rotational motion. Objects have angular momentum, which keeps them spinning.

above the North Pole nothing would stop displacement of the helicopter in relation to designated orientation point

What displacement are you expecting?

Galileo didn't claim that earth's atmosphere and the earth constitute one close system, so without that supposition Galileo claims are plainly wrong.

WHY?

We shall not recall the  objection  of the good fellows ("objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface"), because we have a modern one. That is, objects on a rotating Earth should not fly off. Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down.

No. It isn't. That is because the gravity of Earth is far stronger than the force required to keep things on the surface while it rotates. All the rotation would cause is a slight bulge.

The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would become for the real-change of air pressure  in the  atmosphere.

What change in pressure?

reaching zero at the interface with space.

There is no interface with space. It is an arbitrary line in the sand.
It decreases exponentially, resulting in it tending to 0, never reaching it.

These conclude that, the Earth had never rotated since the first day of life.

No. It doesn't. If you think it does, feel free to provide the argument rather than just baseless claims.

In addition : Can we consider one circus arena as a closed system? If no then why, if yes then how would you explain this (in the light of your famous HC myth - so called "throwing a ball upward in a non accelerating car") :

The circus arena itself, for the most part, YES.

>>>The same phenomenon would be observed in a circus, during the performance of a juggler on horseback, were it not that the balls employed are thrown more or less forward, according to the rapidity of the horse's motion. The juggler standing in the ring, on the solid ground, throws his balls as vertically as he can, and they return to his hand; but when on the back of a rapidly-moving horse, he should throw the balls vertically, before they fell back to his hands, the horse would have taken him in advance, and the whole would drop to the ground behind him. It is the same in leaping from the back of a horse in motion. The performer must throw himself to a certain degree forward. If he jumps directly upwards, the horse will go from under him, and he would fall behind.<<<

Pure nonsense.
The rider has inertia, he has momentum. He doesn't need to jump forward to stay moving with the horse.
If he throws the ball up the it will have momentum as well and keep moving forward.

Since you don't understand how aircraft trimming works, as a PSA for you and other's I will try and explain it.

And fail miserably.

Once the aircraft is trimmed, it's trimmed and will hold it's altitude, Mean Sea Level (MSL) all day long (Weather permitting). If there was a curvature to the earth, the amount of altitude loss would not only be visually noted on the altimeter but your body would feel pressure of constant G force as you would have to push the nose of the craft down to hold your altitude along the curvature of the earth.

No. It wouldn't.
If you trim it to maintain its altitude, there will be no change in altitude to notice.
The g forces required to maintain a circular path around Earth, at the equator, on the surface, when travelling at the speed of Earth is 0.03 m/s^2, roughly 0.3% of gravity, so no significant g-force.

If this was a automatic system, passengers in jet's would have a noticeable G effect happening to their bodies because of the speed of the aircraft having to constantly descend to maintain constant altitude.

No, it wouldn't.
The g-force required to maintain a circular path is tiny.
Just like so much other FE bullshit, you just assert it will exist and be noticeable without actually saying what it will be.
How about you go and do the math and tell us what it should be and compare that to gravity, so we can see how noticeable it should be.

you would be constantly fighting to properly trim the airplane as the craft would be constantly trying to adjust it's altitude to deal with the curvature of the earth itself

Why would you?
You trim it in such a way that it follows the curve. Why would you then need to fight it or re-adjust (other than due to the already existing changes in the air as you fly which is true regardless of the shape of Earth)

Assuming you are manually flying the aircraft.

If that was the case you wouldn't bother with the trim all that much and would instead by manually flying it, moving the yolk and rudder pedals to control the craft and keep it on course instead of trimming.

Now, if we set one gyro without erection mechanism in an airplane next to standard attitude indicator built-in the cockpit of an airplane and performed an experiment like this should we (according to you) expect any discrepancy on the display of these two pretty different devices no matter how long our experiment lasts and how far we fly while conducting our experiment?

Depending on how you fly, you would expect differences.

If a plane is going 500 MPH, after a1/2 an hour it would have traveled 250 miles. That means the plane would be 7.89 miles higher. Those gyros are very sensitive and precise. This is proof the earth is flat. For me that is the final nail in the coffin for round earth?

It all depends on how you fly. If you are flying straight, then yes, you will gain altitude, but instead, planes typically fly level, resulting in them remaining at the same altitude. The gyros have correction mechanisms built in that try to make them stand upright. Slow changes (like that from the curve of Earth) will thus be corrected for.

The system had a pitch up command

And what was the pitch calculated relative to?
I assume something to do with the local gravitational down or a gyroscope which follows that? If so, no compensation is needed as the reference changes and you follow that.

In the 20+ years I research this subject I have not found one person or company that uses spherical geometry in their calculations or surveying instruments -- this is impossible not even so much by the Laws of Physics as by the Law of Economics! ALL flight manuals assume a Flat and Stationary Earth. In no flight map or any avionics will you ever see the inclusion of an Earth(v)D> (Earth Velocity/Direction of Spin) component in ANY flight, navigation or fuel calculations. Don't take my word for it but go to your local library and check it out.

That is because the air is moving with Earth. The planes fly relative to the air. So the speed of Earth is irrelevant.
Regardless, that is just motion, not if it is flat or round.
The vast majority of planes fly using spherical geometry, such as on great circle routes.

None assume a flat and stationary Earth.

The cost overrun on miss-measured projects would be discovered by accountants if this were true! How can a land surveying company that makes high tech measuring surveying instruments (also for military) not use spherical geometry equations in their devices??? -- those errors would kill people and cause chaos.

What is the device measuring? Does it need to calculate for the spherical geometry or does the data get fed into something that does?

Look at GPS, one of the most common devices used for navigation (and even surveying) today. It relies upon spherical geometry.

This 6,666' GIANT gone missing is what turned me immediately -- I did not need any more convincing -- You CANNOT just lose 6,666 feet per 100 miles --- CANNOT!

Why not? It is 8 inches per mile squared. Very gradual.

Naval missile operators paint their targets which are over 55 miles away line-of-sight with a laser pencil beam, called beam riding. NOT possible on a globe with a curvature drop of 8 inches per mile squared.?

No, still possible, they just need to be high enough, like in a plane.

These errors develop very slowly (usually at not more than 2 or 3 degrees per minute) and are not significant in normal flying.

2 to 3 degrees per minute.
How does that compare to Earth?
Well, assuming the plane is travelling at record speed, 1000 miles per hour, with the rotation of Earth, that would mean it does a full 360 degree turn in 12 hours. That is 30 degrees an hour or 0.5 degrees per minute. Roughly 1/4 of the speed that the errors would accumulate.
So that would easily be accumulated by the instrument.

So thanks for disproving yourself.

In a real atmosphere, the measured air-pressure at the surface of the rigid Earth is 1013.25 mbar (1  atm), at standard condition of temperature. It is the highest pressure  value measured in the altitude height for standard conditions.

In addition : Can we consider one circus arena as a closed system? If no then why, if yes then how would you explain this (in the light of your famous HC myth - so called "throwing a ball upward in a non accelerating car") :


@ kennykirklan,

Here we go (because you asked for it) :

1. I know you haven't had the opportunity (up until now) to read these words :
Since you don't understand how aircraft trimming works, as a PSA for you and other's I will try and explain it. All aircraft are armed with something called a "Trimming" system. It's a set of tabs on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer of an aircraft. When a pilot is at his cruising altitude, he "Trims" the aircraft. There is a wheel inside the cockpit that you roll forwards or backwards and this adjusts the trims on the wings of the aircraft. This changes the way air or wind travels over the shape of the wing; Thus creating lift - up or down in altitude. Autopilots also can automatically trim the craft for you but you must engage it manually. This way, the aircraft hold's it's altitude without descending or ascending. This relieves the pilot, as well, of back or forward yoke pressure. Once the aircraft is trimmed, it's trimmed and will hold it's altitude, Mean Sea Level (MSL) all day long (Weather permitting). If there was a curvature to the earth, the amount of altitude loss would not only be visually noted on the altimeter but your body would feel pressure of constant G force as you would have to push the nose of the craft down to hold your altitude along the curvature of the earth. If this was a automatic system, passengers in jet's would have a noticeable G effect happening to their bodies because of the speed of the aircraft having to constantly descend to maintain constant altitude. (G-force) Even IF an aircraft's gyro did automatically compensate for the curvature of the earth (Which it doesn't), you would be constantly fighting to properly trim the airplane as the craft would be constantly trying to adjust it's altitude to deal with the curvature of the earth itself; Assuming you are manually flying the aircraft?

1013 is a standard pressure setting used for aircraft separation at higher altitudes.

The reality is pressure varies locally and the altimeter (which is effectively a barometer) will need to be adjusted for lower altitude flight to either QNH (sea level) or QFE (airfield elevation). This information is provided to pilots as part of air traffic information services.

I'm well aware of trimming. I'd have very big arms by now if I wasn't. You cannot trim an aircraft and just leave it indefinitely. Air pressure will change, turbulence etc and constant small changes are required. Even if the air were completely still, perfectly trimming an aircraft manually is impossible to then just leave hands off and expect indefinite straight and level flight (well it is for me). We just trim the pressure off.

As has been explained ad nauseum on many other threads, you do not need to descend to track curve.

Lastly, how can there be g force if there is no gravity?

4. blk jet 1 month ago
When i started my 25 year USAF career, I was an Automated Flight Control Systems Specialist (autopilot). The system had a pitch up command for coordinated turns so that when the aircraft banked and the wings lost lift the resulting altitude loss could be prevented. There was also pitch up and down commands for terrain following, but no pitch commands to account for the curvature of the earth. If there were then there would have to be a continuous pitch down command to account for the earths curvature. I worked both on the flight line (on the aircraft) and the back shop so I got to learn the complete system and can tell you that there was never any signals to account for the curvature of the earth.?

Why would there be signals to account for curvature? Assuming there are signals to maintain a given altitude that is.

This point plus your mistakes with pressure and trim are starting to give me the impression you haven't had a 25 year USAF career.

JackBlack, if you don't believe me, that's fine, but i am going to be totally amazed if you discard NeilDeGrass Tyson's stance on this issue, also :

Quote from: cikljamas on May 09, 2017, 04:08:34 AM

4. blk jet 1 month ago
When i started my 25 year USAF career, I was an Automated Flight Control Systems Specialist (autopilot). The system had a pitch up command for coordinated turns so that when the aircraft banked and the wings lost lift the resulting altitude loss could be prevented. There was also pitch up and down commands for terrain following, but no pitch commands to account for the curvature of the earth. If there were then there would have to be a continuous pitch down command to account for the earths curvature. I worked both on the flight line (on the aircraft) and the back shop so I got to learn the complete system and can tell you that there was never any signals to account for the curvature of the earth.?

Why would there be signals to account for curvature? Assuming there are signals to maintain a given altitude that is.

This point plus your mistakes with pressure and trim are starting to give me the impression you haven't had a 25 year USAF career.

especially he claims he has worked 25 years with the information and the science that is based on a global earth and now he claims that all that is wrong and does not work.

if his claim of 25 years in that he was working in the USAF is true,
than either he is trolling here to get attention or he has some mental conditions that effects his way of seeing the reality.

I would REALLY like to see ANY kind of sane-meaningful attempt (by anyone) of refutation of the following flat-earth truth :

1.Cavendish experiment is a bullshit : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Big "G" is a hoax, odiupicku

Do you mind if I relabel that video I'm only a little way through so far I see at:

2:45	You weigh your bocchi ball and get 552 grams. I was going to ask if they were properly calibrated because those scales are not a "mass" measuring device, but a force measuring device. As it turns our that does not matter.
3:00	The force due to gravity is measured with a "Newton Force Balance", simply another set of much less precise scales. You say this reads 5.4 N. I would say it's a bit over, but I doubt that it would be any better than 1% accuracy,  so who cares?
3:10	You want the radius of the earth, so you simply pick the first one to pop up of 6371 km. I hope you took into account that the polar radius is about 6357 km and the equatorial circomference is about 6,378 km. In the end, however little queries like this do no matter!
3:25	You say correctly that we have everything we need to calculate the mass of the earth and put up these values: All well and good!
3:40	You substitute in your values, ever so carefully because you are trying to prove Big "G" is a hoax. ending up with: Anybody see a problem?
4:00	He shows a value of the mass of the earth rather different from "NASA's value". As in: Why NASA's value I do not know, except that odiupicku clearly has NASAphobia as do most flat earthers.

Now that little problem. If anyone checked, odiupicku used G = 6.87 x 10^-11, where he had previously stated that G = 6.67 x 10^-11.

And guess what? Had used the correct value for G he would have got Mass_earth = 5.95 x 10²⁴ kg, compared to the accepted value of [/b][/i] = 5.97 x 10²⁴ kg. This is an excellent result, considering how simple the equipment was.

A simple mistake, you say, but not when you are starting a video to "disprove" G, the "Law of Universal Gravitation", the radius of the earth and "the mass of the earth".

Then we get yo the nitty gritty, with this little gem!

• BS #1 (The Radius of the earth): odiupicku claims that this is an assumption which comes out as a consequence of our presumption that the earth is a sphere!
  Firstly, if you try to apply Eratosthenes to a flat earth you get a different sun height for each spacing of observation points.
  The results only make sense on a Globe with a distant sun.
  
  Then the radius of the earth was measured by Al-Biruni around 1000 AD using the "dip angle to the horizon" to measure the curvature and hence the radius- and he got within 1% of the current value!
  This method even proves that the earth is not flat!
  
  No, Mr Odiupicku, the measurements of the earth's radius make no sense on a flat earth all.
  
  So, scrub "BS #1 (The Radius of the earth) and accept that the mean radius is close to 6731 km.
  
  
• BS #2 (mass of the earth): odiupicku claims this calculation of the
  "(mass of the earth) is a result of two factors
  (assumptions): 1: Volume of the earth 2: Average density of the earth."
  Incorrect again, if you learned you history a bit you might realise that Henry Cavendish, while he set out to find the density of the earth had to find the mass of the earth first - the Cavendish Experiment.
  So Cavendish found, in this order: the mass of the earth (and your Big "G" "drops out" of that) and then the density.
  
  
• Utter BS (Big "G"):  odiupicku claims this
  "is totally bogus number with no
  connection to reality, and which only purpose was to save Newton
  and to conciliate values of two above BS numbers!!!"
  
  Totally incorrect again, Mr BS_purveyor Odiupicku. As anyone might have noted, the earliest value of G came experimentally from the Cavendish Experiment.
  Now, unlike flat earthers, "science" likes to check that values are consistent and as precisely known as possible.
  So this and similar experiments have been performed numerous times, so ridiculing Cavendish is quite pointless.
  See Flat Earth Debate / Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE? « Message by rabinoz on April 26, 2017, 01:19:41 PM »
  for the result of 60 such experiments from the time of Cavendish till 2000.

And I don't think I could stomach the rest of it, unless you can assure me that it gets much better!

The compass points at magnetic North (Just North of Canada and just South of North Pole), as you travel around the world, that offset should cause the compass the point slightly southward.

JackBlack, if you don't believe me, that's fine, but i am going to be totally amazed if you discard NeilDeGrass Tyson's stance on this issue, also :

That guy looks nothing like him.
I will also happily discard his stance if he is spouting the same childish bullshit that you are.

And guess what? The video is just full of childish crap.
Gravity doesn't pull things down. Down is the direction gravity pulls things in (and yes, there is a subtle difference here, it is which one determined the other).
He is trying to say gravity will always pull down on the paper, fixing the direction of down.
In reality, gravity attracts any 2 masses. As such, the force of gravity from Earth will point towards the centre of Earth, which then defines what way is down.
He drew the arrow at the south pole upside down.

If you want to provide a video claiming big G is a hoax, you might want to try using it properly.

How about instead of continually making pathetic appeals to authority which just get torn to shreds, you try making an actual argument, or admitting the mistakes in your prior claims?

Quote from: cikljamas on May 09, 2017, 05:11:09 AM

JackBlack, if you don't believe me, that's fine, but i am going to be totally amazed if you discard NeilDeGrass Tyson's stance on this issue, also :

That guy looks nothing like him.
I will also happily discard his stance if he is spouting the same childish bullshit that you are.

And guess what? The video is just full of childish crap.

Note that the spelling of the real
         Neil deGrasse Tyson and the spelling of cikljamas's
         Neil DeGrass Tyson! See anything?

All the following from Buzzfeed, For Everyone Who Is Attracted To Young Neil DeGrasse Tyson

But it's important to note that YOUNG Neil deGrasse Tyson was on an entirely other almost astronomical, level of fine.

Young, buff Neil deGrasse Tyson during a wrestling match

JESUS THOSE BICEPS. Not to mention his smize game. He even has a great watch. EVERYTHING ON HIM IS BETTER.

Does the "alternate" young Neil DeGrass Tyson look anything the real young Neil deGrasse Tyson?

Somehow, I think cikljamas/odiupicku got himself a ring-in (possibly of similar name) and gave hin a script.
But even if it were the genuine young Neil deGrasse Tyson, so what! A person can "see the light".

Nevar change Rab.

JackBlack, if you don't believe me, that's fine, but i am going to be totally amazed if you discard NeilDeGrass Tyson's stance on this issue, also :

Again with the dishonesty. 

Since you can't comprehend things, and you are rather deceiving, is there any reason we should believe you?

Nevar change Rab.

¿Qué significa esta palabra?, "Nevar".

You've been using teh internets for quite a while now Rab.

詳細は潜んでいます

You've been using teh internets for quite a while now Rab.
詳細は潜んでいます

Since the days of "AltaVista", "Ask Jeeves" and of course "Yahoo!".
Though did a miniscule bit on ARPAnet in 1973.
But I was never into forums or "bulletin boards" and am not really up in BBcodes.

So you can't debunk this strong flat earth argument? That figures...

So you can't debunk this strong flat earth argument? That figures...

till now i have not seen one evidence that was true and could fit to the reality that supports a flat earth.

if i ask questions the Flat Earth Believer came up with some lies or simply ignored the question completely.

So you can't debunk this strong flat earth argument? That figures...

It has been debunked.

Just like your previous crap, you failed big time.

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2017, 05:01:03 AM

2. Since i i am able to compare DIRECTLY Rowbotham's argumentation AGAINST the rotation of the earth with Galileo's argumentation FOR the rotation of the earth, i can tell you (on the basis of his own words/thesis which are pure experimentally unsustained mathematical conjectures) that Galileo was very dishonest person (rotten liar) and that Rowbotham was very honest and sincere person who corroborated his argumentation with absolutely valid experimental proofs!!!

Really? Please document these "valid experimental proofs" that Rowbotham made.

There are too many proofs that the earth is at rest, but i would like to show you one very primitive example which corroborates this already 100 % proven fact :

>>>A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line, so that its true vertical direction was secured; and the breech of the gun was firmly embedded in sand up to the touch-hole, against which a piece of slow match was placed. The cannon had been loaded with powder and ball, previous to its position being secured. At a given moment the slow match at D was fired, and the operator retired to a shed. The explosion took place, and the ball was discharged in the direction A, B. In thirty seconds the ball fell back to the earth, from B to C; the point of contact, C, was only 8 inches from the gun, A. This experiment has been many times tried, and several times the ball fell back upon the mouth of the cannon; but the greatest deviation was less than 2 feet, and the average time of absence was 28 seconds; from which it is concluded that the earth on which the gun was placed did not move from its position during the 28 seconds the ball was in the atmosphere. Had there been motion in the direction from west to east, and at the rate of 600 miles per hour (the supposed velocity in the latitude of England), the result would have been as shown in fig. 49. The ball, thrown by the powder in the direction A, C, and acted on at the same moment by the earth's motion in the direction A, B, would take the direction A, D; meanwhile the earth and the cannon would have reached the position B, opposite to D. On the ball beginning to descend, and during the time of its descent, the gun would have passed on to the position S, and the ball would have dropped at B, a consider-able distance behind the point S. As the average time of the ball's absence in the atmosphere was 28 seconds--14 going upwards, and 14 in falling--we have only to multiply the time by the supposed velocity of the earth, and we find that instead of the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun, it should have fallen behind it a distance of 8400 feet, or more than a mile and a half! Such a result is utterly destructive of the idea of the earth's possible rotation.<<<

First of all, Mr Rowbotham calculated wrong : the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun should have fallen behind it more than 4.6 miles (not "more than a mile and a half")!!!

Now, i would like to point out a few important details in relation to this experiment :

1. When the ball was discharged upwards, gravitational pull ceased to make any significant influence (for all intents and purposes) to the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight!

2. The ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward direction of flight (all the way to the point when gravitational pull regained/resumed it's influence to that ball after 14th seconds of the first half of it's vertical flight), and the ball was perfectly able to pass (in the same manner) through the air in it's downward path - coming back to the earth, also.

3. Since the ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward and downward direction we can be sure that this same ball would be able to pass through any kind of a supposed air flow which could theoretically blow (due to the alleged lateral motion of the atmosphere - in relation to the flying ball - due to the alleged rotation of the earth)

THE QUESTION : Having in mind above three enumerated information i would like to hear from any HC maniac what kind of physical mechanism could provide/caused 4,6 miles long ALLEGED lateral displacement of the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight???