THE 1ST DOME IS NOT AS HIGH AS YOU THINK

The 1st glass-like dome stays at 17,000 feet. No flight can go beyond such a dome. That also makes the sun look "cut".

Hydrogen Bomb ?

Hydrogen bomb materials collide the dome and form mushroomlike shape.

The 1st glass-like dome stays at 17,000 feet. No flight can go beyond such a dome. That also makes the sun look "cut".

I can't figure if you are a troll or you actually believe this kind of stuff.  Thousands of airplane flights everyday  fly over 17000 feet.  There are mountains over 17000 feet.  How did you determine the height of the dome?

Rethink about the data which you haven't verified, including "the height" of mountains.
Altimeter is not an exact device.
Go to the top of tall building. Make an estimation about a distance based on your sight & real distance on land.

Rethink about the data which you haven't verified, including "the height" of mountains.
Altimeter is not an exact device.
Go to the top of tall building. Make an estimation about a distance based on your sight & real distance on land.

My last flight was at a cruising altitude of 37,000 feet. Are you saying that plane altimeters are all off by about 20,000+ feet? If so, there would be planes crashing all of the time, no?

As well, you didn't address stank's question, how did you come up with 17,000 feet?

The 1st glass-like dome stays at 17,000 feet. No flight can go beyond such a dome.

So why do planes routinely fly between 30 000 and 40 000 ft.
Why do so many pictures of sunsets not have the sun cut like that?
If the dome does cut the sun, why can we see the sun at all?

Rethink about the data which you haven't verified

How did you verify your data? Take your own advice.

You do understand that planes have a number of different ways to measure their altitude, not just a pressure based altimeter. Some of those are extremely accurate.

It's also possible to use triangulation on the ground to determine the height of a plane. You can even do this yourself with a friend, if you're willing to actually test your theory.

1st Dome?  How many are there?!?

Danang always makes me smile when he comes out with his own 'alternative' explanations for something as routine as what the Sun looks like near sunset or sunrise.  For instance why should we believe that your account of the 'missing' section of the Sun is right over the other and more conventional explanation of low level atmospheric scattering due air particulates?

Why does the Sun look different during pretty much every sunset and sunrise?  If it was due to some 'dome' then there would always be a section of the Sun missing as someone else points out.

I think bodies such as the CAA and the FAA would be horrified to learn that the altimeters in all civilian aircraft are inaccurate to the extent that you are claiming they are. If that was found to be true then that would also make the ILS systems across the world unsafe and therefore unusable.

Why do these people come up with these wild and totally unfounded claims about stuff like this and then fall strangely silent after a couple of posts when the errors in their claims are pointed out?

Rethink about the data which you haven't verified

Nor have you from what I can tell.  If you have verified any of what you claim then please tell us how.

The 1st glass-like dome stays at 17,000 feet. No flight can go beyond such a dome. That also makes the sun look "cut".

OK so this '1st dome' is made of something (you don't say exactly what) which is 'glass-like'. In other words this 'dome' is transparent to visible light. The Suns diameter on the sky is 1/2 degree.   That photo of yours shows about 2/3 of the Suns disk with just the lowest visible 1/3 invisible.  Why then is the missing lower third due to the dome hiding it? Over such a small area of sky why should the dome hide only part of the Sun? What other variables in the atmospheric state might be at play here to cause this 'missing third'?

Oh no not again, fucking Domers LOL

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Danang suddenly started claiming support for the ancient theories about the cause of solar eclipses as being a dragon which is trying to eat the Sun and then spits it out again because it finds the Sun too hot to eat. 

Why do people try and argue against such a clearly idiotic statement? The person who posted that claim has a track recorded of posting similar deranged claims. He is wrong end of story. Of course mountains and flights all go above 17000! But the main fact is that there is no dome, never has been and never will be!

Anyone is ultimately free to believe whatever they so choose to think. So if it suits Danang to believe what he claims as true then fair enough. Whether he makes these claims because it really is what he believes or simply to provoke others into replying I don't know.

But if he insists that there really is some sort of 'glass like' dome sitting 17,000 ft above the Earth and which partially hides the disk of the Sun when it is seen low down then it is up to him to prove it. Why the dome should only hide part of the Suns disk and not all of it is beyond me. Claims on their own prove nothing though. So until that proof comes I'm with TimeIsUp on this one.

Why do people try and argue against such a clearly idiotic statement? The person who posted that claim has a track recorded of posting similar deranged claims. He is wrong end of story. Of course mountains and flights all go above 17000! But the main fact is that there is no dome, never has been and never will be!

Aren't you at least interested in why he thinks this? How he may have arrived at it? I am.

Why do people try and argue against such a clearly idiotic statement? The person who posted that claim has a track recorded of posting similar deranged claims. He is wrong end of story. Of course mountains and flights all go above 17000! But the main fact is that there is no dome, never has been and never will be!

Why are you questioning the expertise of a prominent flat earth dome scientist?

Aren't you at least interested in why he thinks this? How he may have arrived at it? I am.

Same here. I'd love to what evidence he has to support his claims. Beyond just his own personal beliefs that is. How did he come up with this so far apparently random figure of 17,000ft for instance? When I flew between LGW and JFK a couple of years back the maximum altitude shown by the screens on the plane showing the flight track data was 41,000ft and looking out of the window it was obvious that we were definitely a lot higher than 17,000ft! At no point did I hear or feel the plane collide with anything that could pass as a 'dome'.

We know how big an Airbus A380 (for example) is physically because the dimensions are freely available. For example the wingspan is just a few cm under 80m or 262.47 ft. We can work out what the angle subtended by the wings would be as seen from a distance of 17,000 ft from simple trig. Inv tan (262.47/17000) comes to 0.88 deg. So larger than the full Moon by some distance. Yet there are load of photos online showing an A380 passing across the Moon and visibly much smaller.

I can then use flightradar24 for example to identify when an A380 is due to pass over my location and observe the plane as it passes overhead at cruising altitude through my telescope. Next I can choose from a selection of eyepieces to give me a magnification that provides a view of the whole plane so it just fits into the FOV. From that I know the angular size of the aircraft on the sky and from that I can easily measure the height because I know what its physical size is.

Unfortunately as is often the case with flat earthers though, after publishing a couple of posts declaring this sort of thing, they then fall strangely silent when those claims are subsequently challenged.  Danang is no different.

Hey what's up guys? 

17,000 feet was quoted from a pilot when president Sukarno asked him to drive the plane as high as possible.
When the plane reach 17,000 feet high, he pilot told the president that he could not drive higher anymore, because there is "plafon".

President Sukarno told this flight experience when delivered a speech.
Even if he forgot the real number, even if the number told was not 17,000 feet, you cannot deny the existence of the dome.

Some people ain't believe in dome, please repent

And somebody call me "prominent flat earth dome scientist", hmm.. why did you say that? Anyway, that's true, I'm a real scientist, and the future Nobel prize for me is something unavoidable. but... is that a sarcasm?Ώ  

17,000 feet was quoted from a pilot when president Sukarno asked him to drive the plane as high as possible.

The flight ceiling of that particular aircraft. Not a magical dome.
Different planes have different ceilings.

When the plane reach 17,000 feet high, he pilot told the president that he could not drive higher anymore, because there is "plafon".

Did you bother to look up the meaning of "plafon"?  It is a Romanian word which translates into English as 'ceiling', or 'roof' or 'cap' and various words to that effect.  As JB says
it is the maximum height at which that particular aircraft can fly. 

A plane needs lift in order to fly. That means the air pressure must be greater below the wings than above. There are various ways in which pilots can control the airflow around the wings which in turn influences the amount of lift. However above a certain height you cannot generate more lift due to wing surface area, shape and the power of the engines and so that becomes the 'plafon' for that particular aircraft. That is what the pilot was telling the president about the particular type of aircraft he was flying.

Not exactly the same as hitting a 'dome' eh danang ?1?!

Hey what's up guys? 

17,000 feet was quoted from a pilot when president Sukarno asked him to drive the plane as high as possible.
When the plane reach 17,000 feet high, he pilot told the president that he could not drive higher anymore, because there is "plafon".

President Sukarno told this flight experience when delivered a speech.
Even if he forgot the real number, even if the number told was not 17,000 feet, you cannot deny the existence of the dome.

Some people ain't believe in dome, please repent

And somebody call me "prominent flat earth dome scientist", hmm.. why did you say that? Anyway, that's true, I'm a real scientist, and the future Nobel prize for me is something unavoidable. but... is that a sarcasm?Ώ  

Cool, now we're getting somewhere. Thanks for the preliminary info on how you arrived at your conclusion. However, more clarity and context needs to be provided.

- Sukarno was President of Indonesia from 18 August 1945 – 12 March 1967
- Back in the 60's the vast majority of commercial aircraft were prop driven and flew at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 12,000 feet, unpressurized. Even with the Boeing Stratocruiser kicking around during that era, with its pressurized cabin and max altitude of 32,000 feet, there were only 50 in the world.

So a question to you, what type of plane was Sukarno on when he asked the pilot the question?

-"Plafon" in Indonesian apparently directly translates into the English word "Ceiling". In aviation terms the word "ceiling" is strictly, internationally, and universally a reference to the lowest layer of clouds.

"In aviation, ceiling is a measurement of the height of the base of the lowest clouds (not to be confused with cloud base which has a specific definition) that cover more than half of the sky (more than 4 oktas) relative to the ground."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_(cloud)#:~:text=In%20aviation%2C%20ceiling%20is%20a,oktas)%20relative%20to%20the%20ground.

Ceiling
Article Information
Category:   Weather   Weather
Content source:   SKYbrary   About SKYbrary
Content control:   EUROCONTROL   EUROCONTROL

Definition
The height above the ground or water of the base of the lowest layer of cloud below 6 000 metres (20 000 feet) covering more than half the sky. (ICAO Annex 2)
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Ceiling

So what the pilot referred to in his answer to the President as to why they couldn't fly higher was because the plane being flown wasn't equipped/rated to fly above the cloud layer - Presumably a prop driven plane, presumably unpressurized, presumably not instrument rated.

Fun fact: The Indonesian word for "Dome" is "Kubah", not "Plafon".

I'm afraid your interpretation of the interaction of the Indonesian President and his pilot and what was meant is illogical and misinterpreted. But I do appreciate you responding with some insight as to how you arrived there.

If so, good. But you should consider the plafon as I meant AKA Dome.

Without closed system of dome, no action-reaction mechanism will occure, so that the conventional aero dynamic theory will be left confusing and contadictory.

Open air cannot give feedback force for a thrust. It take a "wall" in a closed system to realize an action reaction mechanism.

Only an example of why you should accept the dome theory. 👌

If so, good. But you should consider the plafon as I meant AKA Dome.

Why? There is no evidence of it at all.

Without closed system of dome, no action-reaction mechanism will occure

Pure BS.
Just what magic stops it occurring?
Especially considering the vast majority of the aerodynamic forces involved in flight is pushing the air down to push the aircraft up.
Last time I checked, Earth is below the plane, not the dome. So even if your nonsense was true, there is still Earth for it to push off.

If so, good. But you should consider the plafon as I meant AKA Dome.

I understand what you meant. But that is not what the pilot meant. As "plafon" refers to an aviation/weather term meaning lowest cloud layer, not an impenetrable "dome". And the pilot was obviously an aviator using aviation language as they are called upon to do, universally.
(You are not an aviator, at least I hope not because according to you, you would have lasted one flight and killed yourself and everyone else onboard because you didn't believe your altimeter readings).
So you can make up whatever a word and your meaning for it is, but that doesn't mean you can apply yours to a pilot using the term that is universally standardized and used in aviation to mean something completely different.

Without closed system of dome, no action-reaction mechanism will occure, so that the conventional aero dynamic theory will be left confusing and contadictory.

Open air cannot give feedback force for a thrust. It take a "wall" in a closed system to realize an action reaction mechanism.

Only an example of why you should accept the dome theory. 👌

This one comes up a lot in Domer theory, a closed system, objects need a "wall" to move, etc. Since you're referring to action/reaction specifically there's this little experiment - A slider held together with rubber bands, apparatus resting on some low friction beads. Snip the connecting band, the sliders slide apart, action/reaction, the half-mass slider on the right moves double speed to the full size mass on he left.



Now aside form the physics of simple action/reaction exemplified by the experiment, let's talk domes and closed systems. The same result would occur if you moved that experiment into a bigger room, or smaller room, all of which would be considered closed systems of varying size - One would expect the push off within the smaller "closed system" (aka, smaller room) would yield a different result from inside the larger "closed system" (aka, larger room). It doesn't.

What I suggest you need to do is square your notions against actual events, things, experiments, and then ask yourself if logically, rationally, at a distance, your conclusions actually make sense.

If so, good. But you should consider the plafon as I meant AKA Dome.

Where else, other than an idea in your head does there exist any hard evidence whatsoever that there is any kind of physical dome over the Earth?

You are looking for meanings and connections where none exist. Simply to satisfy what you personally believe.  I'm afraid I need a bit more than that.

Quote from: Danang on August 06, 2021, 03:35:13 AM

If so, good. But you should consider the plafon as I meant AKA Dome.

I understand what you meant. But that is not what the pilot meant. As "plafon" refers to an aviation/weather term meaning lowest cloud layer, not an impenetrable "dome". And the pilot was obviously an aviator using aviation language as they are called upon to do, universally.
(You are not an aviator, at least I hope not because according to you, you would have lasted one flight and killed yourself and everyone else onboard because you didn't believe your altimeter readings).
So you can make up whatever a word and your meaning for it is, but that doesn't mean you can apply yours to a pilot using the term that is universally standardized and used in aviation to mean something completely different.

In an aviation sense ceiling can have two meanings. It could be a cloud layer as you say or it could also refer to the maximum usable altitude of a particular aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_(aeronautics)

But still nothing about Danang's mythical dome.

Quote from: Stash on August 06, 2021, 04:17:15 AM

Quote from: Danang on August 06, 2021, 03:35:13 AM

If so, good. But you should consider the plafon as I meant AKA Dome.

I understand what you meant. But that is not what the pilot meant. As "plafon" refers to an aviation/weather term meaning lowest cloud layer, not an impenetrable "dome". And the pilot was obviously an aviator using aviation language as they are called upon to do, universally.
(You are not an aviator, at least I hope not because according to you, you would have lasted one flight and killed yourself and everyone else onboard because you didn't believe your altimeter readings).
So you can make up whatever a word and your meaning for it is, but that doesn't mean you can apply yours to a pilot using the term that is universally standardized and used in aviation to mean something completely different.

In an aviation sense ceiling can have two meanings. It could be a cloud layer as you say or it could also refer to the maximum usable altitude of a particular aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_(aeronautics)

But still nothing about Danang's mythical dome.

Good point. I originally was writing exactly what you said as my initial understanding from memory was that "ceiling" referred to the max altitude a plane was rated for, but in a quick search I only found the more weather/cloud layer oriented definitions. But yes, both are correct and the pilot was obviously referring to one or the other or maybe even both depending on the plane's configuration/rating. In any case, the pilot was not referring to a "Dome".

The survey says:
1. Moonlanding was fake, space journeys were only CGIs.
2. FE rocket experiments always showed a colision at the end before the rocket fell down.
3. "Round Earth" pics are only CGIs. Why not going to certain sufficient altitude -say, by ISS- and then shoot a photo?
4. Apollo 11 AstroNOTs were afraid when asked to swear under Bible. Why?

You can't give the opposite arguments..

When you say 17k, from what point on the plane are you referencing

Okay, 17000 feet from the land was misunderstood. I thought it was a dome, in fact a maximum altitude allowed for particular planes with various designs. Aeronautic terminology is not the same as general terminology.

Afterall with respect to real physics, the existence of dome is very logical as I explained above.

Okay, 17000 feet from the land was misunderstood. I thought it was a dome, in fact a maximum altitude allowed for particular planes with various designs. Aeronautic terminology is not the same as general terminology.

Afterall with respect to real physics, the existence of dome is very logical as I explained above.

With respect to real physics, a dome would make the earth a sealed contain and air pressure would be equal everywhere.