how does air stay on earth

<< I thought the topic was "how does air stay on earth?"  >>

And on the Globe we don't your funny stacking etc - all we need is gravity . See it's all so simple a child could understand it .

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2020, 01:01:24 AM

<< I thought the topic was "how does air stay on earth?"  >>

And on the Globe we don't your funny stacking etc - all we need is gravity . See it's all so simple a child could understand it .

That makes little sense.

Quote from: Amoranemix 44

Quote from: sceptimatic

Because air moving there would still be in energy range for agitation. It would be like brushing the walls.

So at the air ice rim air is depositing. Yet some air is still moving, presumably the air that is arriving to replace the air that is depositing (which takes less volume, making room for more air). So we have high pressure inside the southern ring, low pressure at the air ice ring and intermediate pressure at the southern ring. So one would expect air at the southern ring to flow outward to the air ice ring. Now according to you the air still in gas form at the air ice ring prevents that from happening because it still contains heat. How does that work ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

In 1992, Michael Palin made a documentary for the BBC featuring his travel from the Arctic to the South Pole

Pole to Pole with Michael Palin. I have seen that series.

One question at a time. I'm bored trawling through various.

No problem. Feel free to answer my questions one at a time.

So far we were able to establish that we are unable provide dimeonsions for hydrogen-helium dome that are consistent with the evidence, a big problem for the flat-earth model.
In the round-earth model there is no such dome, which is perfectly consistent with the evidence.

I have pointed out several more problems with the flat-earth model, but those might still be solved. I am not optimistic though.

So far we were able to establish that we are unable provide dimeonsions for hydrogen-helium dome that are consistent with the evidence, a big problem for the flat-earth model.

It's not an issue to me.
I mean you have zero proof of the size of the glo0bal model you adhere to, other than to be told it is what you're told it is.
Admit that much.

In the round-earth model there is no such dome, which is perfectly consistent with the evidence.

What evidence is this?
Not what you're told...... what you know.

I have pointed out several more problems with the flat-earth model, but those might still be solved. I am not optimistic though.

I don't see any problems.

I don't see any problems.

That might be the first thing you have said that I believe.

It will at the very top of the stack.

Not unless you compress it, which is not what happens at the top of your magical stack.
So no, it wont freeze there and you will have all your gas just flying off into space.

I mean you have zero proof of the size of the glo0bal model you adhere to, other than to be told it is what you're told it is.
Admit that much.

Why would we admit such a lie?
There are mountains of evidence on the size of Earth, including things you can do yourself.

Quote from: Amoranemix on June 14, 2020, 08:46:29 AM

So far we were able to establish that we are unable provide dimeonsions for hydrogen-helium dome that are consistent with the evidence, a big problem for the flat-earth model.

It's not an issue to me.
I mean you have zero proof of the size of the glo0bal model you adhere to, other than to be told it is what you're told it is.
Admit that much.

Quote from: Amoranemix

In the round-earth model there is no such dome, which is perfectly consistent with the evidence.

What evidence is this?
Not what you're told...... what you know.

Quote from: Amoranemix

I have pointed out several more problems with the flat-earth model, but those might still be solved. I am not optimistic though.

I don't see any problems.

You're all hung up one what "the man" tells someone. So much so that you can't differentiate knowledge/experience from what you think are lies in textbooks. Take for example your statement:
"I mean you have zero proof of the size of the glo0bal model you adhere to, other than to be told it is what you're told it is."

Seriously? Have you ever flown anywhere far away? I have, many times. If you add them up, all around the world, like many people. The great circle paths on display along with wind currents, speed, time to destination data all within easy view and it all checks out. Unless of course, the pilot and rest of the crew are in cahoots with "the man" and they have a separate secret set of data they use to get from point A to B.

Have you ever driven anywhere? I've driven all over N.America and parts of Europe. All the times, distances checked out. Unless my gauges and watch were designed by "the man" to keep me unaware of the conspiracy.

From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size. 

So your constant mantra around we only know what we are told is not relevant in many circumstances.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2020, 09:53:01 AM

Quote from: Amoranemix on June 14, 2020, 08:46:29 AM

So far we were able to establish that we are unable provide dimeonsions for hydrogen-helium dome that are consistent with the evidence, a big problem for the flat-earth model.

It's not an issue to me.
I mean you have zero proof of the size of the glo0bal model you adhere to, other than to be told it is what you're told it is.
Admit that much.

Quote from: Amoranemix

In the round-earth model there is no such dome, which is perfectly consistent with the evidence.

What evidence is this?
Not what you're told...... what you know.

Quote from: Amoranemix

I have pointed out several more problems with the flat-earth model, but those might still be solved. I am not optimistic though.

I don't see any problems.

You're all hung up one what "the man" tells someone. So much so that you can't differentiate knowledge/experience from what you think are lies in textbooks. Take for example your statement:
"I mean you have zero proof of the size of the glo0bal model you adhere to, other than to be told it is what you're told it is."

Seriously? Have you ever flown anywhere far away? I have, many times. If you add them up, all around the world, like many people. The great circle paths on display along with wind currents, speed, time to destination data all within easy view and it all checks out. Unless of course, the pilot and rest of the crew are in cahoots with "the man" and they have a separate secret set of data they use to get from point A to B.

Have you ever driven anywhere? I've driven all over N.America and parts of Europe. All the times, distances checked out. Unless my gauges and watch were designed by "the man" to keep me unaware of the conspiracy.

From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size. 

So your constant mantra around we only know what we are told is not relevant in many circumstances.

So a number of plane flights and drives and you know the Earth.
Seriously don't waste your time trying that stuff on me.

Quote from: Stash on June 14, 2020, 02:33:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2020, 09:53:01 AM

Quote from: Amoranemix on June 14, 2020, 08:46:29 AM

So far we were able to establish that we are unable provide dimeonsions for hydrogen-helium dome that are consistent with the evidence, a big problem for the flat-earth model.

It's not an issue to me.
I mean you have zero proof of the size of the glo0bal model you adhere to, other than to be told it is what you're told it is.
Admit that much.

Quote from: Amoranemix

In the round-earth model there is no such dome, which is perfectly consistent with the evidence.

What evidence is this?
Not what you're told...... what you know.

Quote from: Amoranemix

I have pointed out several more problems with the flat-earth model, but those might still be solved. I am not optimistic though.

I don't see any problems.

You're all hung up one what "the man" tells someone. So much so that you can't differentiate knowledge/experience from what you think are lies in textbooks. Take for example your statement:
"I mean you have zero proof of the size of the glo0bal model you adhere to, other than to be told it is what you're told it is."

Seriously? Have you ever flown anywhere far away? I have, many times. If you add them up, all around the world, like many people. The great circle paths on display along with wind currents, speed, time to destination data all within easy view and it all checks out. Unless of course, the pilot and rest of the crew are in cahoots with "the man" and they have a separate secret set of data they use to get from point A to B.

Have you ever driven anywhere? I've driven all over N.America and parts of Europe. All the times, distances checked out. Unless my gauges and watch were designed by "the man" to keep me unaware of the conspiracy.

From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size. 

So your constant mantra around we only know what we are told is not relevant in many circumstances.

So a number of plane flights and drives and you know the Earth.
Seriously don't waste your time trying that stuff on me.

I never said I "know the earth". I said, "From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size."

All my travels translate to the correct size of those areas I've covered. You start putting that together with other's personal experiences, people that you even know and trust, and you can get the accurate size of more and more of the earth. It's not "the man" telling me like you so often like to claim.

The bottom line:

A) You don't have a map of your world so theoretically you don't know where anything really is.
B) You have zero evidence for your dome and carbonite projecting sun as no one on the planet has ever even seen a hint of these things. Not to mention that you wouldn't know where to look (See A)
C) Not all knowledge is the direct result of it coming from "the man". There's personal experience and observation.

From all of this, one can only assume that you have never flown, driven, traveled any significant distance. And that' ok, not everyone can afford the luxury. But if you do get a chance, travel does broaden the mind.

I never said I "know the earth". I said, "From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size."
All my travels translate to the correct size of those areas I've covered. You start putting that together with other's personal experiences, people that you even know and trust, and you can get the accurate size of more and more of the earth. It's not "the man" telling me like you so often like to claim.

So basically you are aware of some distances you travelled/navigated.
Me too but it does not give my any inclination as to the size of Earth, just as it gives you zero proof of the size.
What you think you know of, in terms of what Earth is, is handed to you on a platter. Why deny it?

The bottom line:

A) You don't have a map of your world so theoretically you don't know where anything really is.

You do have a map of the world sold to you and you have zero clue as to where anything really is.

B) You have zero evidence for your dome and carbonite projecting sun as no one on the planet has ever even seen a hint of these things. Not to mention that you wouldn't know where to look (See A)

Knowing where to look is one thing. Being able to trek to it and live is another.
You have zero evidence of your spinning globe other than what's handed to you on that platter.

C) Not all knowledge is the direct result of it coming from "the man". There's personal experience and observation.

You have zero personal experience of a spinning globe and all the supposed extras that are said to go along with it.
Your personal experience is of travelling to various pieces of land via road/track, air or sea gives you zero insight into what Earth is. It simply doesn't.

From all of this, one can only assume that you have never flown, driven, traveled any significant distance. And that' ok, not everyone can afford the luxury. But if you do get a chance, travel does broaden the mind.

You're having a little go here because you're frustrated.

Feel free to ramp this up if it makes you feel better but don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.

Quote from: Stash on June 14, 2020, 06:34:56 PM

I never said I "know the earth". I said, "From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size."
All my travels translate to the correct size of those areas I've covered. You start putting that together with other's personal experiences, people that you even know and trust, and you can get the accurate size of more and more of the earth. It's not "the man" telling me like you so often like to claim.

So basically you are aware of some distances you travelled/navigated.
Me too but it does not give my any inclination as to the size of Earth, just as it gives you zero proof of the size.
What you think you know of, in terms of what Earth is, is handed to you on a platter. Why deny it?

I could give you thousands, tens of thousands of pieces of evidence of how large the Earth is.  But lets give you just one, and one you can do yourself!

I can measure the size of the Earth with two sticks and get a pretty accurate result. I could do that right now, all I need is someone a few thousand miles away, two sticks, a measuring tape and a calculator. It's very simple geometry anyone can understand.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2020, 05:00:11 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 14, 2020, 06:34:56 PM

I never said I "know the earth". I said, "From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size."
All my travels translate to the correct size of those areas I've covered. You start putting that together with other's personal experiences, people that you even know and trust, and you can get the accurate size of more and more of the earth. It's not "the man" telling me like you so often like to claim.

So basically you are aware of some distances you travelled/navigated.
Me too but it does not give my any inclination as to the size of Earth, just as it gives you zero proof of the size.
What you think you know of, in terms of what Earth is, is handed to you on a platter. Why deny it?

I could give you thousands, tens of thousands of pieces of evidence of how large the Earth is.  But lets give you just one, and one you can do yourself!

I can measure the size of the Earth with two sticks and get a pretty accurate result. I could do that right now, all I need is someone a few thousand miles away, two sticks, a measuring tape and a calculator. It's very simple geometry anyone can understand.

Explain exactly how you would go about this and how it works.
From your own thoughts. Don't copy and paste some other work.
Let's see your proof.

Quote from: Stash on June 14, 2020, 06:34:56 PM

I never said I "know the earth". I said, "From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size."
All my travels translate to the correct size of those areas I've covered. You start putting that together with other's personal experiences, people that you even know and trust, and you can get the accurate size of more and more of the earth. It's not "the man" telling me like you so often like to claim.

So basically you are aware of some distances you travelled/navigated.
Me too but it does not give my any inclination as to the size of Earth, just as it gives you zero proof of the size.
What you think you know of, in terms of what Earth is, is handed to you on a platter. Why deny it?

It's applied logic from experience. Not what has been handed to me on a platter. For example, my now wife 2 handed sailed on a 44' boat from the States to fiji and back by way of Hawaii. I tracked her trip the whole way and even had a satellite call with her after they ripped the mainsail in a storm 1500 miles southwest of Oahu. Things were dicey at that point. In any case, her route was known, tracked and accurately distanced. And all of it checked out on Google maps. All my travels in North America, Central America and Europe all checked out distance, time, route-wise via modern maps/distances. So that's a fairly wide swath of the world, not the whole world by any means, but a sizable chunk of it.

And it all checks out. So you latch that to some other trusted family/friends who have been to and through other continents and their's all checks out.

So you see, it's not handed to me by "the man" as you always claim. It's through personal experience and the experiences of trusted others.

Have you never traveled? Like been on a plane? If you have been, how do you think your pilot knows how to get from A to B? Magic? Think about it. Take off your "everything is a conspiracy" hat for a moment and really think about your experiences with travel and those whom you know and trust and their travel.  You probably can piece a hunk of the world together just based upon that alone. You can only deny reality so much.

Explain exactly how you would go about this and how it works.
From your own thoughts. Don't copy and paste some other work.
Let's see your proof.

You keep demanding proof but what about you providing proof of your claims. For example you posted this:

Flat earth, against a round solid ball, wins it hands down for me...BUT, only in us walking about on a sort of half sphere or half an orange, so to speak, slightly sloping downwards with the seas in the bowl, kind of thing, with a centre that we know as the north pole, not being exactly what they tell us it is and actually holding the sun as a plasma type disc, moving around magnetically, emitting it's light/heat into the sky, hitting the ice dome and reflecting back all over one half of the disc, whilst the first reflection being a high up noon type sun that we see.

Please show your proof of "the sun as a plasma type disc, moving around magnetically, emitting it's light/heat into the sky, hitting the ice dome and reflecting back all over one half of the disc".
How did you prove "the sun as a plasma type disc"?
How did you prove that the Sun is "moving around magnetically"?
How did you ever prove that there even is an "ice dome"?

Out with it! You demand proof now you give us some proof, fair's fair!

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2020, 05:00:11 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 14, 2020, 06:34:56 PM

I never said I "know the earth". I said, "From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size."
All my travels translate to the correct size of those areas I've covered. You start putting that together with other's personal experiences, people that you even know and trust, and you can get the accurate size of more and more of the earth. It's not "the man" telling me like you so often like to claim.

So basically you are aware of some distances you travelled/navigated.
Me too but it does not give my any inclination as to the size of Earth, just as it gives you zero proof of the size.
What you think you know of, in terms of what Earth is, is handed to you on a platter. Why deny it?

It's applied logic from experience. Not what has been handed to me on a platter. For example, my now wife 2 handed sailed on a 44' boat from the States to fiji and back by way of Hawaii. I tracked her trip the whole way and even had a satellite call with her after they ripped the mainsail in a storm 1500 miles southwest of Oahu. Things were dicey at that point. In any case, her route was known, tracked and accurately distanced. And all of it checked out on Google maps. All my travels in North America, Central America and Europe all checked out distance, time, route-wise via modern maps/distances. So that's a fairly wide swath of the world, not the whole world by any means, but a sizable chunk of it.

And it all checks out. So you latch that to some other trusted family/friends who have been to and through other continents and their's all checks out.

So you see, it's not handed to me by "the man" as you always claim. It's through personal experience and the experiences of trusted others.

Have you never traveled? Like been on a plane? If you have been, how do you think your pilot knows how to get from A to B? Magic? Think about it. Take off your "everything is a conspiracy" hat for a moment and really think about your experiences with travel and those whom you know and trust and their travel.  You probably can piece a hunk of the world together just based upon that alone. You can only deny reality so much.

Nice try but you're struggling.
You have zero clue what you are living on in its entirety.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2020, 05:40:22 AM

Explain exactly how you would go about this and how it works.
From your own thoughts. Don't copy and paste some other work.
Let's see your proof.

You keep demanding proof but what about you providing proof of your claims. For example you posted this:

I can't provide proof, only circumstantial evidence based on tests with evacuation chambers and such, plus logical thought from my side that may seem illogical to people like yourself just as your stuff is totally illogical to me.
It's about who gets the higher pedestal, which you believe is you because you're following mass opinion and indoctrination by that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 15, 2013, 11:07:23 AM

Flat earth, against a round solid ball, wins it hands down for me...BUT, only in us walking about on a sort of half sphere or half an orange, so to speak, slightly sloping downwards with the seas in the bowl, kind of thing, with a centre that we know as the north pole, not being exactly what they tell us it is and actually holding the sun as a plasma type disc, moving around magnetically, emitting it's light/heat into the sky, hitting the ice dome and reflecting back all over one half of the disc, whilst the first reflection being a high up noon type sun that we see.

Please show your proof of "the sun as a plasma type disc, moving around magnetically, emitting it's light/heat into the sky, hitting the ice dome and reflecting back all over one half of the disc".

I can't show you proof. of that because I don;t subscribe to that.
Have you been taking any notice? It seems you haven't.
Maybe some of your internet friends can get you up to speed.

How did you prove "the sun as a plasma type disc"?

I don't believe it is.

How did you prove that the Sun is "moving around magnetically"?

Hmmmm. you'll have to elaborate on this.

How did you ever prove that there even is an "ice dome"?

I haven't proved anything. I've given my thoughts on it based on experiments, logic and how observations lead me to that thought process.

Out with it! You demand proof now you give us some proof, fair's fair!

I agree, fair is fair and I'm being very fair.
I've never given anything as a proof but I've been taken as if I'm giving proof's which is wrong.

Now I'm asking you to give me your proof's for your arguments based on your knowledge, not schooled knowledge that you took/take as proof's without actual proof's.

Fair's fair....right?

I can measure the size of the Earth with two sticks and get a pretty accurate result. I could do that right now, all I need is someone a few thousand miles away, two sticks, a measuring tape and a calculator. It's very simple geometry anyone can understand.

WooHooo, let's get that shit done.

Tell me what I need to do.

Quote from: Stash on June 15, 2020, 05:21:58 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2020, 05:00:11 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 14, 2020, 06:34:56 PM

I never said I "know the earth". I said, "From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size."
All my travels translate to the correct size of those areas I've covered. You start putting that together with other's personal experiences, people that you even know and trust, and you can get the accurate size of more and more of the earth. It's not "the man" telling me like you so often like to claim.

So basically you are aware of some distances you travelled/navigated.
Me too but it does not give my any inclination as to the size of Earth, just as it gives you zero proof of the size.
What you think you know of, in terms of what Earth is, is handed to you on a platter. Why deny it?

It's applied logic from experience. Not what has been handed to me on a platter. For example, my now wife 2 handed sailed on a 44' boat from the States to fiji and back by way of Hawaii. I tracked her trip the whole way and even had a satellite call with her after they ripped the mainsail in a storm 1500 miles southwest of Oahu. Things were dicey at that point. In any case, her route was known, tracked and accurately distanced. And all of it checked out on Google maps. All my travels in North America, Central America and Europe all checked out distance, time, route-wise via modern maps/distances. So that's a fairly wide swath of the world, not the whole world by any means, but a sizable chunk of it.

And it all checks out. So you latch that to some other trusted family/friends who have been to and through other continents and their's all checks out.

So you see, it's not handed to me by "the man" as you always claim. It's through personal experience and the experiences of trusted others.

Have you never traveled? Like been on a plane? If you have been, how do you think your pilot knows how to get from A to B? Magic? Think about it. Take off your "everything is a conspiracy" hat for a moment and really think about your experiences with travel and those whom you know and trust and their travel.  You probably can piece a hunk of the world together just based upon that alone. You can only deny reality so much.

Nice try but you're struggling.
You have zero clue what you are living on in its entirety.

Describe entirety.

I know what it takes to get from Los Angeles to London, distance-wise, time-wise, & route-wise. Because I've done it. Apparently you live in a world where you would have zero clue about that.

Would it be your contention that I did not fly the route that I flew, the distance that I flew, and the time it took to do so?

Describe entirety.

I know what it takes to get from Los Angeles to London, distance-wise, time-wise, & route-wise. Because I've done it. Apparently you live in a world where you would have zero clue about that.

Would it be your contention that I did not fly the route that I flew, the distance that I flew, and the time it took to do so?

Let me try and make this a bit more clear.

You may happily navigate to a destination based on the map you were given, in a small area.
Let's use the UK as an instance.

You can get to every part of it by using maps or generally GPS, assuming GPS works for certain areas...which it is getting better the more ground positioning stations that are set up to cover the areas.

Ok, so you can confidently accept that you're getting to where the map tells you.

This is fine for an island, just as it's fine for you to go walking around your area without a map, just by committing your routes to memory but to an outsider, they would require a map.....initially.

Does any of this give you the shape of the Earth you are part of?.....Obviously, no.

Now you can continue to follow maps of what you're told about in your known world and all you are doing is hopping from island to island or continent to continent...which again, is fine.....but does it give you the shape of the Earth you are part of?........Again.....no.


Then you have the oceans.
Mapped?
In a fashion, right?
Point to point navigation.

Does this give you your Earth shape?......Once again....no.

So therefore, what you think you know is based on maps set out for you and navigation to points.

It does not mean you navigate over a ball/convex curve and you certainly do not know the entirety of the Earth you are following navigation routes for.

In a nutshell, you've travelled in planes, trains, automobiles and by sea.....probably.
You are a point to point observer of what you can follow and totally oblivious to what you cannot.

Quote from: Stash on June 15, 2020, 11:23:27 PM

Describe entirety.

I know what it takes to get from Los Angeles to London, distance-wise, time-wise, & route-wise. Because I've done it. Apparently you live in a world where you would have zero clue about that.

Would it be your contention that I did not fly the route that I flew, the distance that I flew, and the time it took to do so?

Let me try and make this a bit more clear.

You may happily navigate to a destination based on the map you were given, in a small area.
Let's use the UK as an instance.

You can get to every part of it by using maps or generally GPS, assuming GPS works for certain areas...which it is getting better the more ground positioning stations that are set up to cover the areas.

Ok, so you can confidently accept that you're getting to where the map tells you.

This is fine for an island, just as it's fine for you to go walking around your area without a map, just by committing your routes to memory but to an outsider, they would require a map.....initially.

Does any of this give you the shape of the Earth you are part of?.....Obviously, no.

Now you can continue to follow maps of what you're told about in your known world and all you are doing is hopping from island to island or continent to continent...which again, is fine.....but does it give you the shape of the Earth you are part of?........Again.....no.


Then you have the oceans.
Mapped?
In a fashion, right?
Point to point navigation.

Does this give you your Earth shape?......Once again....no.

So therefore, what you think you know is based on maps set out for you and navigation to points.

It does not mean you navigate over a ball/convex curve and you certainly do not know the entirety of the Earth you are following navigation routes for.

In a nutshell, you've travelled in planes, trains, automobiles and by sea.....probably.
You are a point to point observer of what you can follow and totally oblivious to what you cannot.

Does any of it give you the shape of the earth? Actually, yes it does. Point to point straight line journeys over long distances would be a rhumbline, much like people sailed back 300 years ago. More modern long distance travel follows a Great Circle route. So you must step up into this century, at a minimum, to understand how long transport is routed.

The Great Circle routing, in and of itself, is predicated on a globe earth. All of human and goods transport relies on it to save time, fuel...money. When I fly from LA to London, my journey takes me way up over Greenland, not a straight point to point rhumbline. You not knowing this makes me think you've never flown/traveled very far. That's not a jab, just a matter of fact that you can't deny.

Now if you want to get into how the pilots and such must be duping or duped themselves into thinking they are flying a specific route that they actually aren't, well that's a whole other thing.

The bottom line is that all of long haul transport relies on great circle routes, not straight line point-to-point. And you can't prove me wrong on that.

Does any of it give you the shape of the earth? Actually, yes it does. Point to point straight line journeys over long distances would be a rhumbline, much like people sailed back 300 years ago.

Explain it to me so it's perfectly clear.

More modern long distance travel follows a Great Circle route. So you must step up into this century, at a minimum, to understand how long transport is routed.
The Great Circle routing, in and of itself, is predicated on a globe earth.

Explain it to me so it's perfectly clear.

All of human and goods transport relies on it to save time, fuel...money. When I fly from LA to London, my journey takes me way up over Greenland, not a straight point to point rhumbline. You not knowing this makes me think you've never flown/traveled very far. That's not a jab, just a matter of fact that you can't deny.

It is a jab but I'm fine with it as long as you explain the above so we can argue these points.

Also you need to tell me how you know of these routes in terms of a physical proof.

Now if you want to get into how the pilots and such must be duping or duped themselves into thinking they are flying a specific route that they actually aren't, well that's a whole other thing.

Pilots rely on instruments and follow orders....but we can argue this later, if you want to.

The bottom line is that all of long haul transport relies on great circle routes, not straight line point-to-point. And you can't prove me wrong on that.

I can't prove you wrong because you're not proving you're right.
When you do prove you're right, I'll accept what you say.
It's down to you.

Quote from: Stash on June 16, 2020, 12:08:02 AM

Does any of it give you the shape of the earth? Actually, yes it does. Point to point straight line journeys over long distances would be a rhumbline, much like people sailed back 300 years ago.

Explain it to me so it's perfectly clear.

Quote from: Stash

More modern long distance travel follows a Great Circle route. So you must step up into this century, at a minimum, to understand how long transport is routed.
The Great Circle routing, in and of itself, is predicated on a globe earth.

Explain it to me so it's perfectly clear.

Quote from: Stash

All of human and goods transport relies on it to save time, fuel...money. When I fly from LA to London, my journey takes me way up over Greenland, not a straight point to point rhumbline. You not knowing this makes me think you've never flown/traveled very far. That's not a jab, just a matter of fact that you can't deny.

It is a jab but I'm fine with it as long as you explain the above so we can argue these points.

Also you need to tell me how you know of these routes in terms of a physical proof.

Quote from: Stash

Now if you want to get into how the pilots and such must be duping or duped themselves into thinking they are flying a specific route that they actually aren't, well that's a whole other thing.

Pilots rely on instruments and follow orders....but we can argue this later, if you want to.

Quote from: Stash

The bottom line is that all of long haul transport relies on great circle routes, not straight line point-to-point. And you can't prove me wrong on that.

I can't prove you wrong because you're not proving you're right.
When you do prove you're right, I'll accept what you say.
It's down to you.

Great Circle routing is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. Simple as that. A rhumbline is a point-to-point direct line from A to B, e.g., your destination is West, you just go due West.

Modern long haul navigation is Great Circle based. Prove me wrong on that.

Your only recourse is this: "Pilots rely on instruments and follow orders" business. What are the instruments based on? I can dig up all of the literature on Initial Guidance Systems and Ring Laser Gyroscopes you want.
They just follow orders? A dear friend of mine is a United Pilot. He wouldn't think too kindly of your unfounded cavalier attitude about what you think his profession entails. Who are you to make such a claim? Do you really think you know more than the people who actually do stuff as opposed to your simply waxing about your alternative reality? Get an ego check.

Quote from: JJA on June 15, 2020, 05:32:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2020, 05:00:11 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 14, 2020, 06:34:56 PM

I never said I "know the earth". I said, "From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size."
All my travels translate to the correct size of those areas I've covered. You start putting that together with other's personal experiences, people that you even know and trust, and you can get the accurate size of more and more of the earth. It's not "the man" telling me like you so often like to claim.

So basically you are aware of some distances you travelled/navigated.
Me too but it does not give my any inclination as to the size of Earth, just as it gives you zero proof of the size.
What you think you know of, in terms of what Earth is, is handed to you on a platter. Why deny it?

I could give you thousands, tens of thousands of pieces of evidence of how large the Earth is.  But lets give you just one, and one you can do yourself!

I can measure the size of the Earth with two sticks and get a pretty accurate result. I could do that right now, all I need is someone a few thousand miles away, two sticks, a measuring tape and a calculator. It's very simple geometry anyone can understand.

Explain exactly how you would go about this and how it works.
From your own thoughts. Don't copy and paste some other work.
Let's see your proof.

I'm not your monkey.

You know exactly how I'd go about it, we've discussed the Eratosthenes experiment here for weeks now. Quit pretending like you have no idea what it is, it makes you look foolish.

How about YOU show me a map of your flat Earth. From your own explorations. Don't copy and paste some other work. You do that, then I'll tell you how to measure the earth with sticks and shadows.

Great Circle routing is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. Simple as that. A rhumbline is a point-to-point direct line from A to B, e.g., your destination is West, you just go due West.

Let me get this straight.
A great circle on your globe is the shortest distance between two points.

Explain the great and the circle in terms of the shortest distance and explain why another set up is a longer distance.

Also this rhumbline. A point to point, direct line?
Do you mean a point to point convex vertical curved/arced line?

Explain it to me as simple as you can, please.

Modern long haul navigation is Great Circle based. Prove me wrong on that.

I'm hoping you can prove yourself right.

Your only recourse is this: "Pilots rely on instruments and follow orders" business. What are the instruments based on? I can dig up all of the literature on Initial Guidance Systems and Ring Laser Gyroscopes you want.
They just follow orders? A dear friend of mine is a United Pilot. He wouldn't think too kindly of your unfounded cavalier attitude about what you think his profession entails. Who are you to make such a claim? Do you really think you know more than the people who actually do stuff as opposed to your simply waxing about your alternative reality? Get an ego check.

My ego is fine.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2020, 05:40:22 AM

Quote from: JJA on June 15, 2020, 05:32:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2020, 05:00:11 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 14, 2020, 06:34:56 PM

I never said I "know the earth". I said, "From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size."
All my travels translate to the correct size of those areas I've covered. You start putting that together with other's personal experiences, people that you even know and trust, and you can get the accurate size of more and more of the earth. It's not "the man" telling me like you so often like to claim.

So basically you are aware of some distances you travelled/navigated.
Me too but it does not give my any inclination as to the size of Earth, just as it gives you zero proof of the size.
What you think you know of, in terms of what Earth is, is handed to you on a platter. Why deny it?

I could give you thousands, tens of thousands of pieces of evidence of how large the Earth is.  But lets give you just one, and one you can do yourself!

I can measure the size of the Earth with two sticks and get a pretty accurate result. I could do that right now, all I need is someone a few thousand miles away, two sticks, a measuring tape and a calculator. It's very simple geometry anyone can understand.

Explain exactly how you would go about this and how it works.
From your own thoughts. Don't copy and paste some other work.
Let's see your proof.

I'm not your monkey.

You know exactly how I'd go about it, we've discussed the Eratosthenes experiment here for weeks now. Quit pretending like you have no idea what it is, it makes you look foolish.

I have every idea of what it says about Eratosthenes. I don;t believe a word of it and it also makes no sense.
So how about you make some sense of it by telling me how you can measure the Earth using your sticks and be sure it is what you believe it is.
Or you can admit you have zero clue.

How about YOU show me a map of your flat Earth.
From your own explorations. Don't copy and paste some other work.

I don't have a map of the flat Earth that is a proof of anything. I

 You do that, then I'll tell you how to measure the earth with sticks and shadows.

My hypotheses are just that. I don't pass them off as a reality. I pass my stuff off as my potentials.


This is what you said to me.

I could give you thousands, tens of thousands of pieces of evidence of how large the Earth is.  But lets give you just one, and one you can do yourself!

I can measure the size of the Earth with two sticks and get a pretty accurate result. I could do that right now, all I need is someone a few thousand miles away, two sticks, a measuring tape and a calculator. It's very simple geometry anyone can understand.

I'm waiting for you to explain how this will prove your globe and size.
Feel free to bottle out.

Quote from: JJA on June 16, 2020, 08:58:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2020, 05:40:22 AM

Quote from: JJA on June 15, 2020, 05:32:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2020, 05:00:11 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 14, 2020, 06:34:56 PM

I never said I "know the earth". I said, "From a personal perspective and experience I can tell you that all of the distances I experienced, translated to size, are correct. No one "told" me anything. You put that together with everyone elses' experience and you get a sense of the greater size."
All my travels translate to the correct size of those areas I've covered. You start putting that together with other's personal experiences, people that you even know and trust, and you can get the accurate size of more and more of the earth. It's not "the man" telling me like you so often like to claim.

So basically you are aware of some distances you travelled/navigated.
Me too but it does not give my any inclination as to the size of Earth, just as it gives you zero proof of the size.
What you think you know of, in terms of what Earth is, is handed to you on a platter. Why deny it?

I could give you thousands, tens of thousands of pieces of evidence of how large the Earth is.  But lets give you just one, and one you can do yourself!

I can measure the size of the Earth with two sticks and get a pretty accurate result. I could do that right now, all I need is someone a few thousand miles away, two sticks, a measuring tape and a calculator. It's very simple geometry anyone can understand.

Explain exactly how you would go about this and how it works.
From your own thoughts. Don't copy and paste some other work.
Let's see your proof.

I'm not your monkey.

You know exactly how I'd go about it, we've discussed the Eratosthenes experiment here for weeks now. Quit pretending like you have no idea what it is, it makes you look foolish.

I have every idea of what it says about Eratosthenes. I don;t believe a word of it and it also makes no sense.
So how about you make some sense of it by telling me how you can measure the Earth using your sticks and be sure it is what you believe it is.
Or you can admit you have zero clue.

You just admitted you don't believe in the Eratosthenes experiment, so why should I waste time explaining it to you? It's explained hundreds of times all over the internet, and if none of that convinces you, my explaining it certainly won't.

Quote from: JJA

How about YOU show me a map of your flat Earth.
From your own explorations. Don't copy and paste some other work.

I don't have a map of the flat Earth that is a proof of anything. I

Quote from: JJA

 You do that, then I'll tell you how to measure the earth with sticks and shadows.

My hypotheses are just that. I don't pass them off as a reality. I pass my stuff off as my potentials.

You certainly are. In your reality the Eratosthenes experiment is wrong. You are claiming that as reality. You are denying basic geometry, nothing potential there.

This is what you said to me.

Quote from: JJA

I could give you thousands, tens of thousands of pieces of evidence of how large the Earth is.  But lets give you just one, and one you can do yourself!

I can measure the size of the Earth with two sticks and get a pretty accurate result. I could do that right now, all I need is someone a few thousand miles away, two sticks, a measuring tape and a calculator. It's very simple geometry anyone can understand.

I'm waiting for you to explain how this will prove your globe and size.
Feel free to bottle out.

You know exactly how it will show the Earths size. You just refuse to believe it, so why would I bother explaining it when you've already made up your mind that anything I say is going to be wrong?  You know how the Eratosthenes experiment works.  Maybe you should try and prove why geometry is wrong?

plus logical thought from my side that may seem illogical to people like yourself just as your stuff is totally illogical to me.

You are yet to provide any logical thoughts from your side.
Instead you apply extremely illogical claims, like air freezing to a larger volume, even though it is observed to dramatically decrease in volume when it does freeze, and repeatedly contradict yourself.
That isn't logical.
Especially when you just ignore these problems.

It isn't about who gets the higher pedestal. It is about who can actually a provide a model which works to explain reality without repeatedly contradicting itself or reality.
You are yet to provide such a model.

Again, how does your air freeze into a solid dome which prevents further air from escaping?

If it freezes then it would take up basically no volume and just fly off into space or crash down onto the surface. Over time this would allow all the air to leave.

My hypotheses are just that. I don't pass them off as a reality. I pass my stuff off as my potentials.

No, you repeatedly pass it off as reality, saying anything else is nonsense.
Even in this thread, you aren't providing it as a possibility, but as if it is a fact.

For example, where in this post of yours are you indicating it is just an idea which might be true rather than a factual statement of reality:

Air stays on Earth because it's stacked in atmospheric layers from more densely packed matter at the bottom (ground) to less and less densely packed with each layer above until the very top layers sit atop of the rest ans basically freeze under little agitation due to those gases being the very last Earth has to give and so creating the ice dome.

Quote from: Stash on June 16, 2020, 12:38:20 AM

Great Circle routing is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. Simple as that. A rhumbline is a point-to-point direct line from A to B, e.g., your destination is West, you just go due West.

Let me get this straight.
A great circle on your globe is the shortest distance between two points.

Explain the great and the circle in terms of the shortest distance and explain why another set up is a longer distance.

Also this rhumbline. A point to point, direct line?
Do you mean a point to point convex vertical curved/arced line?

Explain it to me as simple as you can, please.

Notice how the Rhumbline route is longer.

Quote from: Stash

Modern long haul navigation is Great Circle based. Prove me wrong on that.

I'm hoping you can prove yourself right.

Flight Paths and Great Circles—Or Why You Flew Over Greenland

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-paths-and-great-circles-or-why-you-flew-over-greenland/

Quote from: Stash

Your only recourse is this: "Pilots rely on instruments and follow orders" business. What are the instruments based on? I can dig up all of the literature on Initial Guidance Systems and Ring Laser Gyroscopes you want.
They just follow orders? A dear friend of mine is a United Pilot. He wouldn't think too kindly of your unfounded cavalier attitude about what you think his profession entails. Who are you to make such a claim? Do you really think you know more than the people who actually do stuff as opposed to your simply waxing about your alternative reality? Get an ego check.

My ego is fine.

I think not. Considering that you believe you know better than the pilots, physicists, and engineers of the world I would say you're afflicted with serious delusions of grandeur.

You just admitted you don't believe in the Eratosthenes experiment, so why should I waste time explaining it to you? It's explained hundreds of times all over the internet, and if none of that convinces you, my explaining it certainly won't.

Just because I don't believe Eratosthenes performed it does not mean you can't explain it from your side. You have the benefit of telephone and all kinds of ways and means....so simply show me or I'll accept you can't and I'll leave it at that.

 In your reality the Eratosthenes experiment is wrong. You are claiming that as reality. You are denying basic geometry, nothing potential there.

I'm claiming that as my disbelief and believe a reality is something very different.
I'm not denying basic geometry, I'm questioning the use of it as a proof for something that is not a proof, at all.

If you think it is then very simply, from your own workings in this day and age of much better technology to aid you.......show me the size of your Earth and shape of it.

You said it was simple....so show me how you work it out.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 16, 2020, 02:05:16 PM

This is what you said to me.

Quote from: JJA

I could give you thousands, tens of thousands of pieces of evidence of how large the Earth is.  But lets give you just one, and one you can do yourself!

I can measure the size of the Earth with two sticks and get a pretty accurate result. I could do that right now, all I need is someone a few thousand miles away, two sticks, a measuring tape and a calculator. It's very simple geometry anyone can understand.

I'm waiting for you to explain how this will prove your globe and size.
Feel free to bottle out.

You know exactly how it will show the Earths size. You just refuse to believe it, so why would I bother explaining it when you've already made up your mind that anything I say is going to be wrong?  You know how the Eratosthenes experiment works.  Maybe you should try and prove why geometry is wrong?

I'll end this here because you cannot or will not explain how you would go about proving you supposedly know the Earth size and shape.
Next time just say you can't and it'll save argument.

You are yet to provide any logical thoughts from your side.

Then leave it at that.