Is Our Planet Much Bigger Than They Tell Us?

I stand corrected, it is not 50 degrees but around 97 degrees difference, since one is West and the other is East, thus you add the two numbers.

John F. Kennedy International Airport (40.6446° N, 73.7797° W)
Athens International Airport “Eleftherios Venizelos” (37.9362° N, 23.9480° E).

73.7797° W + 23.9480° E = 73.7797 +  23.9480 = 96.7 Degrees

What’s the problem then?

The distance between the two airports? 



https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gccalc.shtml

The distance is not the problem, the problem is that the planes that JFK and Athens International Airport are separated by almost 97 degrees, yet they are parallel to each other.

This can not happen is a spherical earth of the size we are told.

Either the Earth is not a sphere or the sphere is much larger than we are told....

The distance is not the problem, the problem is that the planes that JFK and Athens International Airport are separated by almost 97 degrees, yet they are parallel to each other.

How are two points “parallel”? Planes? 

This cannot happen is a spherical earth of the size we are told.

Why not?

Show that it can’t happen.

Meanwhile.



The distance between the two airports for a great circle route on a globe.

Note.  Added image


The distance and everything matches a globe with a diameter of 12,756 kilometers, using coordinates for a globe. 

https://www.britannica.com/technology/great-circle-route

great circle route, the shortest course between two points on the surface of a sphere. It lies in a plane that intersects the sphere’s centre and was known by mathematicians before the time of Columbus. Until the 19th century ships generally sailed along rhumb lines, which made use of prevailing winds and fixed compass headings. The development of steamships in the 19th century allowed complete independence from the winds, removing the major uncertainty for sailors trying to follow a geometrically prescribed route.

This can not happen is a spherical earth of the size we are told.

Here.  I’ll help you out on your showing why..






CA = CB = to radius of the earth, or about 6,371 kilometres. 

Both airports lie in parallel planes, which means that either the Earth is flat or it is only a small section of a large sphere. The height above sea level is irrelevant.

So that confirms it, you are knowingly lying to everyone.

You have had it explained, and even had video evidence provided, that attitude indicators use a self-erecting mechanism which makes your entire argument invalid; yet here you are, repeating the same falsehood.

Again, the attitude indicator in an aircraft is not capable of determining the orientation of one bit of ground relative to another.

I stand corrected, it is not 50 degrees but around 97 degrees difference, since one is West and the other is East, thus you add the two numbers.

John F. Kennedy International Airport (40.6446° N, 73.7797° W)
Athens International Airport “Eleftherios Venizelos” (37.9362° N, 23.9480° E).

73.7797° W + 23.9480° E = 73.7797 +  23.9480 = 96.7 Degrees

So, you're a flat earther in the sense you believe all the evidence shows the Earth is flat, indicating to you the Earth is instead a much much larger sphere than the worldwide accepted dimensions? I have to say, this is an interesting twist on the subject! I'm not sure how well you'd fit in at a flat earth conference or a globe earth conference on climate change for that matter.

It's still a conspiracy theory though, requiring the entire world of academia to be lying to the masses. That's the common denominator you share with all other flat earth theorists and conspiracy theorists in general.

It's a bummer that hundreds of thousands of people if not millions, have tested the accepted dimensions of our planet and found the figures and calculations to all be correct isn't it?

If you're keen on fantasizing about uncharted areas on Earth, why not concentrate on subterranean tunnels? Surely there would be subterranean tunnels under Antarctica for you to daydream about?

Assuming the plane was flying at 1000 km/hr, is that the plane would be gradually pitching down at a rate of 0.15 degrees per minute. This would be entirely overwhelmed by the trim for a multitude of other factors.

It is ‘overwhelmed’?

Having to constantly descend at a rate of 6 or more feet per second would certainly not be ignored, it would leave planes over a thousand feet higher than they should be at their destination!!

Why do you think they have to adjust altitudes over a flight and return to their original altitude on flights?

When they DO have to adjust their altitudes, they return to their original altitudes if possible, right?

So they are not insignificant at all, because they correct for them, right?

That leaves your ‘descend’ the only thing they don’t need to adjust for, is that what you’re saying?

If they correct for any deviation of altitude during flights, which would probably not be a thousand foot dip in altitude, but may be a 6 or 7 foot adjustment in altitude, and  correct for it afterwards, then they’d have to constantly adjust for a 6 or 7 foot dip every minute in flight, for your made up ‘curvature’!

You’ve confirmed your argument wrong. You say they are constantly making adjustments on route, and later on correcting for them, right? That means they would also have to correct for ‘curvature’ over flights too, but never need to, of course, since there IS no curvature to correct for in the first place!

It is ‘overwhelmed’?

Yes, as explained, the angular correction required is trivial.

Having to constantly descend

You have already implicitly admitted that is pure BS.
Planes DO NOT need to magically descend to remain level.

Even if we were to accept your delusional BS, why is 6 or more feet per minute?
I assume you have done the standard dishonest BS of taking that 1000 km, finding the drop and then dividing that by 3600?
Why do it that way? That would be a straight line, not a curve.
Every second the plane flies, they would fly 0.28 km.
That corresponds to a drop of 6 mm.

So even if your dishonest, delusional BS was true, the plane would descend 6 mm every second.

Why do you think they have to adjust altitudes over a flight and return to their original altitude on flights?

For a variety of reasons, including avoiding weather and other aircraft.
It has nothing at all to do with the shape of Earth.

But notice how when they make these changes, they use their altimeter to look at what altitude they are at and then change their altitude to bring it in line with another.

If we accept your BS as true, then you should be able to take a pilot, put them in a plane blindfolded and have them fly to their destination.
Or at the very least, remove all the instruments from the plane, like the altimeter, VSI and attitude indicator.
Are you willing to be in that plane?

That leaves your ‘descend’ the only thing they don’t need to adjust for, is that what you’re saying?

No, that is not what I am saying at all.
I am saying there are many things which need to be corrected for, which is not done by deciding what that thing is and trying to make a correction for it.
Instead it is made by looking at how the plane is flying, i.e. what its altitude is, how its altitude is varying, and what its attitude is and how that is varying; and adjusting the controls to make those numbers what you want them to be.

then they’d have to constantly adjust for a 6 or 7 foot dip every minute in flight, for your made up ‘curvature’!

Why?
They would trim the aircraft so it maintains the numbers they want.
You would need the conditions to change.

That means they would also have to correct for ‘curvature’ over flights too

Not in any conscious way, as the effect is insignificant. A mere 0.15 degrees per minute. And even if we were to accept your dishonest BS, which could equally be used to argue for an ascent or a descent, to would be a mere 6 mm per second.

So no, I haven't confirmed my argument is wrong.
I have explained why your argument is pure BS.
I have done this many times, with you just ignoring the refutation of your BS.

Has anybody looked into the possibility that the section we call Earth is only a tiny section of a spherical planet? If this is the case, then we are in a relatively flat section of a giant planet, say, the size of Jupiter. If this is the case, we have a vast part of the planet that is unexplored, and the government is hiding it from us.

We know that the section of the planet called Earth is flat since the airplane’s attitude indicator shows the aircraft’s relative position to the horizon, showing that any two airports are leveled. In the 1930s, they developed a vacuum pump to spin the gyroscopes of the attitude indicator and showed that the airplane was level with the ground relative to the airport where they took off. The pilots use it to see if the plane is climbing, banking, or descending, and when the airplane lands, it shows that the level is the same in both the airport where they take off and land. It is the case from John F. Kennedy International Airport (40.6446° N, 73.7797° W) to Athens International Airport “Eleftherios Venizelos” (37.9362° N, 23.9480° E). The two airports are level even though there should be an almost 50-degree difference; thus, the Earth is level. It does not matter if the pilot has a downward, upward, or level flight; the only thing that matters is that the two airports are at the same level.

…. And people wonder why the human race is doomed when posts like this are produced. What on earth makes people think like this?

…. And people wonder why the human race is doomed when posts like this are produced. What on earth makes people think like this?

A little bit of knowledge but not enough.
An attitude indicator needs to know which way is up.
Due to the g-forces the plane experiences during manoeuvring, it can't simply use something to tell which way is down like a spirit level; so a gyroscope is used instead.
The basic understanding of a gyroscope (on a gimbal which allows free rotation) is that it maintains its orientation in 3D space.
Taking those basic understandings together, it is apparently reasonable to conclude that if a plane starts out in one location with the attitude indictor reading level, and then flies to another location, also reading level, that the plane would have the same orientation in 3D cartesian space, which would rule out any significant curvature between those points.

What is lacking is that gyroscopes will drift, and over a long flight that can add up, so they need something to correct the gyroscope, which is the self-erecting mechanism.
Something which relies upon down to slowly put the gyroscope upright.
This makes the gyroscope effective a time weighted average down directional indicator.
i.e. it points "down", but that down is averaged.
During prolonged periods of linear acceleration it can become inaccurate, thinking down is pointing partially opposite the direction of that acceleration.
During turns the orientation of the acceleration is always changing so it can't pick up such an error (at least not any significant one).
But this also means that the changing direction of down due to the curvature of Earth is accounted for.

I think how you need to approach this odd question rather than trying to confront its irrationality head on is to ask; why is the person asking the question in the first place?
What has led them to imagine that our planet is larger than it is? That is the question you should be asking.

Why are they unable to accept the truth supported by actual facts? that is the real issue.

If looks like for some the actual truth is not enough and for some reason they have to invent a neu-truth that is based on nothing more than the irrationality of their own mind. They then no doubt scour the internet looking for like minded irrational people to reinforce what they believe. How they deal with the truth that "They" have provided  is to convert it into a complex network of lies that they can then reject. Though they never quite say who "They" actually are. Why do they think that "They" have been lying to them? What other things do they think that "They" have been lying about?

It's bizarre how this dangerous mode of thinking has crept into the fabric of society. It has nothing to do with people wanting to discover the truth, as thats readily available, it has everything to do with creating ones own new-truth where you get to decide what is and what not true. Export that thinking to the world of politics as Trump has done and next stop is chaos. Why? because decisions will be made based on due-think and nue-truth where reality is not taken into account.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 16, 2024, 02:45:59 PM

…. And people wonder why the human race is doomed when posts like this are produced. What on earth makes people think like this?

A little bit of knowledge but not enough.
An attitude indicator needs to know which way is up.
Due to the g-forces the plane experiences during manoeuvring, it can't simply use something to tell which way is down like a spirit level; so a gyroscope is used instead.
The basic understanding of a gyroscope (on a gimbal which allows free rotation) is that it maintains its orientation in 3D space.
Taking those basic understandings together, it is apparently reasonable to conclude that if a plane starts out in one location with the attitude indictor reading level, and then flies to another location, also reading level, that the plane would have the same orientation in 3D cartesian space, which would rule out any significant curvature between those points.

What is lacking is that gyroscopes will drift, and over a long flight that can add up, so they need something to correct the gyroscope, which is the self-erecting mechanism.
Something which relies upon down to slowly put the gyroscope upright.
This makes the gyroscope effective a time weighted average down directional indicator.
i.e. it points "down", but that down is averaged.
During prolonged periods of linear acceleration it can become inaccurate, thinking down is pointing partially opposite the direction of that acceleration.
During turns the orientation of the acceleration is always changing so it can't pick up such an error (at least not any significant one).
But this also means that the changing direction of down due to the curvature of Earth is accounted for.

It has nothing to do with gyroscopes and everything to do with the internal workings and motivations of the minds of certain people. Why do you think Alex Jones promotes  all kinds of lies on his website? Why do you think Mark Sargent promotes his flat earth ideas? Neither has anything to do with gyroscopes, the available facts, knowledge, the truth or whatever else you may wish to list. Rather it's all about certain peoples inner desires for them to decide what the truth should be. They each want to create their own new-truth. Thats their motivation. They have no interest in the actual truth as they want to create their own. Do you not think that Alex Jones could have quite easily found out the actual truth about those shootings had he wished? Do you not think that Mark Sargent could quite easily find out that all what he thinks about the shape of the earth is actually nonsense? The truth of the matter is neither wants to give up their own world of new-truth where its them that calls the shots. All this nonsense about people wanting to know the truth is bollocks. These people who say they have been lied to by "Them" care not a jot about the truth. Thats the actual facts of the matter.

I think how you need to approach this odd question rather than trying to confront its irrationality head on is to ask; why is the person asking the question in the first place?
What has led them to imagine that our planet is larger than it is? That is the question you should be asking.

And I did.
Which is why I pointed out that their argument is invalid because of the self-righting mechanism of the attitude indicator. If you remove that self-righting mechanism, and instead have the attitude indicator be a perfect gyroscope, then their argument is sound.

The question then becomes why are you unwilling to even entertain this argument, to try to determine what issues there are if any?
And the answer to that is quite simple - You are not a rational thinker who is willing to reassess your beliefs.
You are a religious thinker that has already concluded that whatever mainstream science says must be correct.
You don't need to look for an issue with their argument, because you "know" their argument is wrong because it goes against your religious beliefs.
So you dismiss them and ridicule them.

It's bizarre how this dangerous mode of thinking has crept into the fabric of society.

And I would say your dogmatic adherence to "THE TRUTH^TM" is just as if not far more dangerous.

It has nothing to do with you wanting to discover the truth or understand it, but instead to cling to your religion and attack anyone who dares question it.
Not attack their argument, attack them.

The question then becomes why do you think your religious beliefs are so fragile they need to be protected in this manner?
If it was actually the truth, then either you would be able to defend them to explain what the issue with arguments (note: arguments, not people making them) are that allegedly show they are wrong; or you actually have no idea so would have no chance and are just clinging to your beliefs without reason.

It has nothing to do with gyroscopes and everything to do with the internal workings and motivations of the minds of certain people.

You mean people like you, who desperately cling to their beliefs at all costs and attack anyone who dares challenge them?

Given the argument presented is almost entirely about gyroscopes, that is crucial to it and understanding it.
But not for a religious nut like you.

Rather it's all about certain peoples inner desires for them to decide what the truth should be.

You don't need to cover it up with "certain peoples"
You can just be honest, it is about YOUR desire to decide what the truth should be.
That is why you don't bother with the argument, because it contradicts your beliefs so you deem it must be wrong.
This demonstrates you have no interest in the actual truth; as if you did you would actually consider the argument to potentially reassess your beliefs; instead of concluding it must be wrong just because it contradicts your beliefs, what you have decided what the truth should be.

Do you not think that Mark Sargent could quite easily find out that all what he thinks about the shape of the earth is actually nonsense? The truth of the matter is neither wants to give up their own world of new-truth where its them that calls the shots.

If it was that simple, do you really think people like Bob Knodell would have spent $20 000 on a laser ring gyroscope that would prove them wrong?
Do you really think people like Mark Sargent would have set up a simple experiment with light passing through holes that would prove them wrong?
Do you really think they would openly talk about it and allow people to record it to show just how ridiculous their claims are?

No, the issue is just like you (collectively referring to you personally as well as people like Bob Knodell and Mark Sargent) have decided that your beliefs MUST be true, and that anything that shows otherwise must be wrong. So if you ever get something that shows you are wrong, you dismiss it even before you have any rational justification to do so.
You have brainwashed yourself into a religion which you refuse to give up.

As always you totally miss the point as you are so set on always wanting to be right regardless. Forget the experiments Sargent did, the question is why did he feel the need to conduct them in the first place? Especially when the outcome was glaringly obvious, he was always going to be wrong. He was always going to get, for him negative results. What other results could he have produced?
The question, as I have said is why did he reject conventional wisdom and all the evidence that is freely available, along with subscribing to conspiracies? Did his negative results change his mind?
Once more you totally miss the point and personalise it.
I subscribe to conventional beliefs. They are not my beliefs they are rather general beliefs held by  millions of people.  Beliefs held to be true by the best evidence available. This is a very different position from someone like Sargent who rejects conventional beliefs invoking conspiracies along the way to favour his very own. This makes  his position very very different from my own. Of course this is a situation like all the others you prefer to distort to meet your own warped agenda.
You who despise experts while pretending to be one on all subjects. The truth is not my truth the truth is its own.

I think how you need to approach this odd question rather than trying to confront its irrationality head on is to ask; why is the person asking the question in the first place?
What has led them to imagine that our planet is larger than it is? That is the question you should be asking.

Why are they unable to accept the truth supported by actual facts? that is the real issue.

If looks like for some the actual truth is not enough and for some reason they have to invent a neu-truth that is based on nothing more than the irrationality of their own mind. They then no doubt scour the internet looking for like minded irrational people to reinforce what they believe. How they deal with the truth that "They" have provided  is to convert it into a complex network of lies that they can then reject. Though they never quite say who "They" actually are. Why do they think that "They" have been lying to them? What other things do they think that "They" have been lying about?

It's bizarre how this dangerous mode of thinking has crept into the fabric of society. It has nothing to do with people wanting to discover the truth, as thats readily available, it has everything to do with creating ones own new-truth where you get to decide what is and what not true. Export that thinking to the world of politics as Trump has done and next stop is chaos. Why? because decisions will be made based on due-think and nue-truth where reality is not taken into account.

I understand where you are coming from. The very question implies there is a possibility our planet is much larger than official measurements.

The flat Earth conspiracy promotes alternate Earth shape considerations and even size, in it's adherents thinking. It promotes thinking outside the box where the sky is the limit to these ideas. I imagine that a person obsessed with an idea like this, can fully immerse themselves and be fully distracted from reality. Reality can be a shitty and boring thing while alternate thinking can be exciting.

You use Mark Sargent as an example, and now I will. Look at his background. His credentials are that he played computer games professionally for 20 years, before he turned his attention to the flat earth conspiracy. His mind was conditioned to the experience of being a gamer so much so that he made the jump in his mind that our reality is like a giant computer program and we are in an enclosed system. He toyed with a host of other conspiracy theories first, before finding fame and fortune in flat earth.

The background of a person does matter in trying to understand how and why they are attracted to this kind of thinking.

Addressing how a gyroscope does or does not work in a plane will not be enough to pull a person out of this mode of thinking.

Mark Sargent was the right person at the right time of social media and flourishing unchecked misinformation under the guise of freedom of speech, to kick start this conspiracy.

I think Mark relishes in the fame and fortune it has brought him, and he may be totally unaware or fully aware that he's tapped into a simple truth being that we all experience Earth as a stationary place in an enclosed system, despite all of Jack Black's protests.

As always you totally miss the point as you are so set on always wanting to be right regardless.

And there you go projecting right off the bat.

The point of this thread is about attitude indicators on aircraft.
Instead of even attempting to focus on that, you go off on your religious rant about how anyone who thinks different to you must be wrong and broken.

the question is why did he feel the need to conduct them in the first place? Especially when the outcome was glaringly obvious, he was always going to be wrong. He was always going to get, for him negative results. What other results could he have produced?

Again, if this is the obvious outcome, why would he have bothered doing it? It makes no sense at all.

This makes  his position very very different from my own.

No, it doesn't.
Fundamentally your position is equivalent.
You have your deeply held beliefs, and if something challenges it you reject it.
You are just as bad as them.

Of course this is a situation like all the others you prefer to distort to meet your own warped agenda.
You who despise experts while pretending to be one on all subjects. The truth is not my truth the truth is its own.

And projecting yet again.
I have never said I despise experts or indicated as such in any way. But because I didn't agree with you that you just need to blindly accept the word of your prophets as the only possible way to obtain knowledge, you repeat this pathetic lie.

he may be totally unaware or fully aware that he's tapped into a simple truth being that we all experience Earth as a stationary place in an enclosed system, despite all of Jack Black's protests.

You mean despite the reality that that claim of yours is pure BS?
I also notice you have changed it from being flat to a "Stationary place in an enclosed system".
I wonder why? Did you realise you were spouting pure BS and had no chance of defending it.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 17, 2024, 03:06:32 AM

I think how you need to approach this odd question rather than trying to confront its irrationality head on is to ask; why is the person asking the question in the first place?
What has led them to imagine that our planet is larger than it is? That is the question you should be asking.

Why are they unable to accept the truth supported by actual facts? that is the real issue.

If looks like for some the actual truth is not enough and for some reason they have to invent a neu-truth that is based on nothing more than the irrationality of their own mind. They then no doubt scour the internet looking for like minded irrational people to reinforce what they believe. How they deal with the truth that "They" have provided  is to convert it into a complex network of lies that they can then reject. Though they never quite say who "They" actually are. Why do they think that "They" have been lying to them? What other things do they think that "They" have been lying about?

It's bizarre how this dangerous mode of thinking has crept into the fabric of society. It has nothing to do with people wanting to discover the truth, as thats readily available, it has everything to do with creating ones own new-truth where you get to decide what is and what not true. Export that thinking to the world of politics as Trump has done and next stop is chaos. Why? because decisions will be made based on due-think and nue-truth where reality is not taken into account.

I understand where you are coming from. The very question implies there is a possibility our planet is much larger than official measurements.

The flat Earth conspiracy promotes alternate Earth shape considerations and even size, in it's adherents thinking. It promotes thinking outside the box where the sky is the limit to these ideas. I imagine that a person obsessed with an idea like this, can fully immerse themselves and be fully distracted from reality. Reality can be a shitty and boring thing while alternate thinking can be exciting.

You use Mark Sargent as an example, and now I will. Look at his background. His credentials are that he played computer games professionally for 20 years, before he turned his attention to the flat earth conspiracy. His mind was conditioned to the experience of being a gamer so much so that he made the jump in his mind that our reality is like a giant computer program and we are in an enclosed system. He toyed with a host of other conspiracy theories first, before finding fame and fortune in flat earth.

The background of a person does matter in trying to understand how and why they are attracted to this kind of thinking.

Addressing how a gyroscope does or does not work in a plane will not be enough to pull a person out of this mode of thinking.

Mark Sargent was the right person at the right time of social media and flourishing unchecked misinformation under the guise of freedom of speech, to kick start this conspiracy.

I think Mark relishes in the fame and fortune it has brought him, and he may be totally unaware or fully aware that he's tapped into a simple truth being that we all experience Earth as a stationary place in an enclosed system, despite all of Jack Black's protests.

While what you say may well be true as I know next to nothing about Sargent and his life. What I can say, based on the views he  holds, his belief in the flat earth, is he is part of this neu-breed of people who imagine they can dispense with the accumulated expert generated  knowledge on which our society is based and go ahead and produce their own neu- facts, neu-truth and neu-reality that has no scientific basis. It’s what the flat earth believers and a whole host of others like; racists, climate change deniers, anti vaxers etc. all do. They each feel they can dispense with the scientific consensus and produce their own. People like Jack Black appear to suggest that their views have some validity irrespective of what thinking they may be based on. He firmly believe flat earth neu-belief can generate credible scientific models. It’s a power thing. Knowledge is power. You can therefore gain power from creating neu-knowledge that has its own neu-truths and neu/beliefs that YOU alone can control. Why leave it up to nature to determine things like planetary shape and behaviour when you can decide it for yourself. Thats power.

If we go back to the original question;

"is the planet bigger than they tell us"

The first thing to ask is what prompted the question. Why doubt what centuries of exploration, recent space travel, orbiting satellites, and counties full of surveyors have all agreed on? Rather than attempting to deal with the question rather deal with why its being asked, especially when there is no they?

The difference is nature and all the natural events of the cosmos produced the earth as it currently is. Man had no hand in deciding what shape it should be.  Scientific endevour, exploration and research over centuries have brought our knowledge to a state where agreement has been reached based on centuries of data to reveal what nature has produced. The answer to what the shape of the earth is a reveal and not some decision cooked up in a dark room, its what is there. Flat earth neu-think does not operate in that way as they decide from the outset what the shape of the earth should be and they have decided that it must be flat. Their neu-think produces their neu-facts along with their neu-reality. Some have decided that  in their neu-reality the earth is not only flat but flat and infinite, which given the nature of the daily images of the earth delivered from multiple orbiting satellites is clearly hogwash. For flat earth's the truth is irrelevant  as they favour their very own neu-truth which they are in control of..

This need for people to create their own neu-reality devoid of actual facts is a real problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/17/greenland-losing-30m-tonnes-of-ice-an-hour-study-reveals

This story reveals that Greenland has lost trillions of tons of ice over the last few years possibly due to our changing climate.  The many experts who discovered that fact came to it by years of careful observations and measurements. They did not decide on the final number to satisfy their own beliefs they just revealed how much ice was there then and how much is there now to arrive at an answer. It was a calculation way beyond any normal person to carry out, not the arithmetic as that was simple, rather the data on which the calculation was based. There is no way for any single person to put forward an alternate answer unless they use the power of neu-think that allows them to create an alternate reality based on what their beliefs happen to be. Climate change deniers will automatically call the results into question based not on their own field work ,research and calculations rather their neu-think opinions will be based solely on their neu-think beliefs.

Flat earth belief based totally on neu-think is exactly the same devoid of any science and 100% made up nonsense. A nonsense that libertarians like Jack Black imagine is scientifically valid. People such as he feel like everyone is entitled to have valid opinions on complex matters on which they have no actual ability to asses such is their inherent complexity. Do you have an opinion based on the nature of the quark?

People on this forum have opinions about all sorts of things such as quarks and dark matter!  While they may offer an opinion in reality any opinion they may have is pretty much worthless as it's based on nothing. They may well repeat something they have read based on the work of experts and expert teams, but they are in no position to determine the validity of what they have read or determine which of the many alternatives may hold the key to the answer. Currently all sorts of scientific experts have put forward all sorts of scientific explanations for what dark matter is or is not if indeed it exists in the first place. Each opinion being based on research and collected data. Our knowledge has not reached any scientific consensus due to lack of hard facts. This does not stop people on this forum claiming to know the answer claiming to know the real nature of the cosmos and claiming to know about all sorts of stuff including quarks.

This is why neu-think is one of the biggest dangers we face as it allows people like Trump to reject the accepted truth that the experts have arrived at in favour of their own neu-beliefs which they have complete power over and they control.

It's all about power and control. Beware those who preach neu-think.

People like Jack Black appear to suggest that their views have some validity irrespective of what thinking they may be based on.

No, I don't.
Instead, I value rational thought, rather than the religious belief you cling to.

If we go back to the original question;

How about you go back to it properly, including focusing on the argument that was presented.
Allowing people to reassess their beliefs rather than having to dogmatically and religiously adhere to "THE TRUTH^TM".

Notice how you do nothing at all to address the argument?
All that kind of mentality does is reinforce the belief.

What is even more ridiculous is you appeal to what experts have done, rather than personal experience; only to conclude it is about power and controlling people.
So you have someone questioning something and your response is effectively "DON"T QUESTION JUST ACCEPT AND OBEY!"

So care to stop that and instead go back to the question, and deal with an attitude indicator on an aircraft?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 18, 2024, 12:24:42 AM

People like Jack Black appear to suggest that their views have some validity irrespective of what thinking they may be based on.

No, I don't.
Instead, I value rational thought, rather than the religious belief you cling to.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 18, 2024, 02:11:33 AM

If we go back to the original question;

How about you go back to it properly, including focusing on the argument that was presented.
Allowing people to reassess their beliefs rather than having to dogmatically and religiously adhere to "THE TRUTH^TM".

Notice how you do nothing at all to address the argument?
All that kind of mentality does is reinforce the belief.

What is even more ridiculous is you appeal to what experts have done, rather than personal experience; only to conclude it is about power and controlling people.
So you have someone questioning something and your response is effectively "DON"T QUESTION JUST ACCEPT AND OBEY!"

So care to stop that and instead go back to the question, and deal with an attitude indicator on an aircraft?

Timeisup is not clinging to any religious belief at all.

Meanwhile, you say you value rational thought? The thought that the planet is much bigger than they tell us, is a rational thought in your mind, is it? Timeisup, took the time to explain how in no uncertain terms, that is not a rational thought.

Timeisup has comprehensively addressed the argument by looking at why anyone would come up with such an absurd argument in the first place.

Timeisup's evaluation would do more to cause the reader to have a good look at themselves than you concentrating on the workings of an altitude indicator on an aircraft. How do you know the reader is even familiar with what an altitude indicator looks like, or how it mechanically functions in it's place in an aircraft? You don't know, and such explanations are meaningless to a person with zero aircraft knoledge.

Timeisup is arguing that if you are going to question a fundamentally accepted fact, like the size of the Earth, then make sure you have a valid reason for questioning it. Not because neo-truth is the new truth for some people.

Delve deeper, and stop criticising people who do.

Timeisup is not clinging to any religious belief at all.

Yes, he is.
He is trying to turn science into a religion, where you merely accept what the prophets (experts) say, without question and without thinking.

That is not rational thought, that is a religion.

Meanwhile, you say you value rational thought?

Yes, and that includes actually thinking about things, rather than blindly accepting, and then questioning when things don't seem to add up.

For example, if you hear about attitude indicators in a plane, and how they use a gyroscope, and how that allows them to maintain their orientation as the plane makes various manoeuvres, and that it shows the same attitude at different airports some distance away, it leads to the conclusion that there must not be a significant change in orientation; which doesn't make sense on a RE.

Timeisup, took the time to explain how in no uncertain terms, that is not a rational thought.

Timeisup has comprehensively addressed the argument by looking at why anyone would come up with such an absurd argument in the first place.

No, he didn't, as he entirely failed to address the issue raised.
They entirely ignored the argument.

That is not rational.

If someone presents an argument which appears to show a massive flaw with a model, you don't respond by saying that these other things show the model is fine so you are wrong.

That is also quite like how some religions will operate. For example, claiming to be a source of morality, while ignoring all the evil parts and brushing it aside when asked about it to instead focus on the good.
Just like when claiming that their god is loving, while ignoring all the evil it has done or commanded.
Just like when you show their religion contradicts reality, and they instead try to brush it away and focus on parts which do match.

It is not a rational approach at all. It is an entirely religious approach.
"I don't care about your argument that shows my religion is wrong; my religion must be right, look at all these things".

Timeisup's evaluation would do more to cause the reader to have a good look at themselves than you concentrating on the workings of an altitude indicator on an aircraft.

No, it wouldn't.
If anything, Timmy's evaluation will push them further along their current path, likely to believe there is a global conspiracy to hide the truth.
Their first post in this thread was this:

…. And people wonder why the human race is doomed when posts like this are produced. What on earth makes people think like this?

All that does is insults the OP, and shows just how fragile Timmy's belief is.
It doesn't do anything to address the argument, nor does it even attempt to support the idea that Earth is round and of its currently known dimensions.
It is just an insult at someone who dares to think differently.

And what was his next response?
Still nothing rational, instead just further insulting them by saying things including:
"Why are they unable to accept the truth supported by actual facts?"

This continues with just more insults, until their 6th and (currently) final post in this thread.
In that final post, they at least try to make some justification of their religion, but still does so in an incredibly poor way.
He appeals to experiences well beyond what most people have, including experiences of people orbiting Earth.
He also doesn't actually say what exactly it is or how it demonstrates that the Earth is round with a known radius.
In effect, he is appealing to the prophets of his religion, to yet again reject the argument presented.
He still does not show any fault with the argument.
And then continues by running off onto irrelevant topics like climate change and more insults.


That is not an attitude that would cause most readers to look at them selves.
He comes off as someone that has had their deeply held beliefs challenged by an argument they have no response to.
For this, they appear quite scared and flee from the argument like a scared child, as if addressing the argument would make their world come crashing down.
That is more likely to reinforce the idea that this argument is rock solid and demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the model which cannot be addressed.
Bringing up contradictory claims, especially with so many insults, and especially when these claims involve experiences well beyond what the average person has, would just cause people to think those claims are false, possibly part of a conspiracy.

Conversely, actually explaining why the argument is faulty has a much better chance.
Especially if you can produce a video showing that.
Because that is directly addressing the reason they have presented, showing it is flawed.

Timeisup is arguing that if you are going to question a fundamentally accepted fact, like the size of the Earth, then make sure you have a valid reason for questioning it.

No, they aren't.
They are saying that you can't question a "fundamentally accepted fact".
That if it is just a "fundamentally accepted fact" then there must be something wrong with you if you question it, regardless of what reasoning you have.
That people like Einstein where mentally challenged for not accepting the well established "facts" of the time.

If they were suggesting you need to have a valid reason, they would focus on the reason.
They would determine if the argument is valid, and more importantly, if it is sound.

Delve deeper, and stop criticising people who do.

Follow your own advice.
Actually delve into the argument rather than looking for cheap reasons to attack people.
And stop criticising people who do look into the argument and object to attacking the person.

Has anybody looked into the possibility that the section we call Earth is only a tiny section of a spherical planet? If this is the case, then we are in a relatively flat section of a giant planet, say, the size of Jupiter. If this is the case, we have a vast part of the planet that is unexplored, and the government is hiding it from us.

Someone has beat you to it.



They have an actual tube Earth (TE) so yeah.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 18, 2024, 12:24:42 AM

People like Jack Black appear to suggest that their views have some validity irrespective of what thinking they may be based on.

No, I don't.
Instead, I value rational thought, rather than the religious belief you cling to.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 18, 2024, 02:11:33 AM

If we go back to the original question;

How about you go back to it properly, including focusing on the argument that was presented.
Allowing people to reassess their beliefs rather than having to dogmatically and religiously adhere to "THE TRUTH^TM".

Notice how you do nothing at all to address the argument?
All that kind of mentality does is reinforce the belief.

What is even more ridiculous is you appeal to what experts have done, rather than personal experience; only to conclude it is about power and controlling people.
So you have someone questioning something and your response is effectively "DON"T QUESTION JUST ACCEPT AND OBEY!"

So care to stop that and instead go back to the question, and deal with an attitude indicator on an aircraft?

What argument...There is no argument. All I see is gross ignorance. An ignorance that you appear to love wallowing in......and why is that? Its o so obvious and rather pathetic.

What personal experience have you had with the fractured terrain on comet 67P along with its nucleus thermophysics and activity?

Well Jack what do you have to say about that?  You do realise, that one particular study out of hundreds of thousands makes a mockery of everything you appear to believe in such as your advocacy  for  personal experience trumping all. So Jack how about 67P Jack, let's hear about your personal experience.

What argument...There is no argument.

The argument in the OP which you have chosen to entirely ignore because it doesn't match your beliefs.
Where instead of even entertaining it, seeing if you can find a fault with it or if it is actually sound, or even accepting merely accepting the argument exists; you just dismiss it as ignorance.
All because you have a deeply held religious belief and you cannot handle and challenge to that belief.

Ignorance of one aspect of how a particular type of instrument works is far more understandable than your wilful ignorance of an argument that opposes your religious beliefs.

Here it is again if you decide you want to try be honest and rational for once in your life. See if you can find the fault with it.

We know that the section of the planet called Earth is flat since the airplane’s attitude indicator shows the aircraft’s relative position to the horizon, showing that any two airports are leveled. In the 1930s, they developed a vacuum pump to spin the gyroscopes of the attitude indicator and showed that the airplane was level with the ground relative to the airport where they took off. The pilots use it to see if the plane is climbing, banking, or descending, and when the airplane lands, it shows that the level is the same in both the airport where they take off and land. It is the case from John F. Kennedy International Airport (40.6446° N, 73.7797° W) to Athens International Airport “Eleftherios Venizelos” (37.9362° N, 23.9480° E). The two airports are level even though there should be an almost 50-degree difference; thus, the Earth is level. It does not matter if the pilot has a downward, upward, or level flight; the only thing that matters is that the two airports are at the same level.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 18, 2024, 05:19:50 AM

Timeisup is not clinging to any religious belief at all.

Yes, he is.
He is trying to turn science into a religion, where you merely accept what the prophets (experts) say, without question and without thinking.

That is not rational thought, that is a religion.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 18, 2024, 05:19:50 AM

Meanwhile, you say you value rational thought?

Yes, and that includes actually thinking about things, rather than blindly accepting, and then questioning when things don't seem to add up.

For example, if you hear about attitude indicators in a plane, and how they use a gyroscope, and how that allows them to maintain their orientation as the plane makes various manoeuvres, and that it shows the same attitude at different airports some distance away, it leads to the conclusion that there must not be a significant change in orientation; which doesn't make sense on a RE.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 18, 2024, 05:19:50 AM

Timeisup, took the time to explain how in no uncertain terms, that is not a rational thought.

Timeisup has comprehensively addressed the argument by looking at why anyone would come up with such an absurd argument in the first place.

No, he didn't, as he entirely failed to address the issue raised.
They entirely ignored the argument.

That is not rational.

If someone presents an argument which appears to show a massive flaw with a model, you don't respond by saying that these other things show the model is fine so you are wrong.

That is also quite like how some religions will operate. For example, claiming to be a source of morality, while ignoring all the evil parts and brushing it aside when asked about it to instead focus on the good.
Just like when claiming that their god is loving, while ignoring all the evil it has done or commanded.
Just like when you show their religion contradicts reality, and they instead try to brush it away and focus on parts which do match.

It is not a rational approach at all. It is an entirely religious approach.
"I don't care about your argument that shows my religion is wrong; my religion must be right, look at all these things".

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 18, 2024, 05:19:50 AM

Timeisup's evaluation would do more to cause the reader to have a good look at themselves than you concentrating on the workings of an altitude indicator on an aircraft.

No, it wouldn't.
If anything, Timmy's evaluation will push them further along their current path, likely to believe there is a global conspiracy to hide the truth.
Their first post in this thread was this:

Quote from: Timeisup on January 16, 2024, 02:45:59 PM

…. And people wonder why the human race is doomed when posts like this are produced. What on earth makes people think like this?

All that does is insults the OP, and shows just how fragile Timmy's belief is.
It doesn't do anything to address the argument, nor does it even attempt to support the idea that Earth is round and of its currently known dimensions.
It is just an insult at someone who dares to think differently.

And what was his next response?
Still nothing rational, instead just further insulting them by saying things including:
"Why are they unable to accept the truth supported by actual facts?"

This continues with just more insults, until their 6th and (currently) final post in this thread.
In that final post, they at least try to make some justification of their religion, but still does so in an incredibly poor way.
He appeals to experiences well beyond what most people have, including experiences of people orbiting Earth.
He also doesn't actually say what exactly it is or how it demonstrates that the Earth is round with a known radius.
In effect, he is appealing to the prophets of his religion, to yet again reject the argument presented.
He still does not show any fault with the argument.
And then continues by running off onto irrelevant topics like climate change and more insults.


That is not an attitude that would cause most readers to look at them selves.
He comes off as someone that has had their deeply held beliefs challenged by an argument they have no response to.
For this, they appear quite scared and flee from the argument like a scared child, as if addressing the argument would make their world come crashing down.
That is more likely to reinforce the idea that this argument is rock solid and demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the model which cannot be addressed.
Bringing up contradictory claims, especially with so many insults, and especially when these claims involve experiences well beyond what the average person has, would just cause people to think those claims are false, possibly part of a conspiracy.

Conversely, actually explaining why the argument is faulty has a much better chance.
Especially if you can produce a video showing that.
Because that is directly addressing the reason they have presented, showing it is flawed.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 18, 2024, 05:19:50 AM

Timeisup is arguing that if you are going to question a fundamentally accepted fact, like the size of the Earth, then make sure you have a valid reason for questioning it.

No, they aren't.
They are saying that you can't question a "fundamentally accepted fact".
That if it is just a "fundamentally accepted fact" then there must be something wrong with you if you question it, regardless of what reasoning you have.
That people like Einstein where mentally challenged for not accepting the well established "facts" of the time.

If they were suggesting you need to have a valid reason, they would focus on the reason.
They would determine if the argument is valid, and more importantly, if it is sound.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 18, 2024, 05:19:50 AM

Delve deeper, and stop criticising people who do.

Follow your own advice.
Actually delve into the argument rather than looking for cheap reasons to attack people.
And stop criticising people who do look into the argument and object to attacking the person.

You know, for a guy who breathes this shit day in and day out, you could do with some lessons in how to dress a person down.

Instead, I see you at every opportunity calling anyone who defies your cool logic, calling them a liar. Namecalling like that, isn't in the dressing down handbook. Isn't it also against the forum rules? You might want to double check on that.

Science is not a religion to Timeisup. Proving things to yourself however, seems to be your religion. The thing is, no flat earther ever does any actual experiments, and couldn't give a shit about gyroscopes or altitude indicators in planes. All they are doing with their arguments is arguing against mainstream tbought and authority at all costs.

If you can't make a flat earther think, you are wasting your time here.

Instead, I see you at every opportunity calling anyone who defies your cool logic, calling them a liar.

No, you don't.
Instead you see me calling people who have made claims, had them clearly refuted, only to make them yet again; i.e. people who are clearly liars, liars.

Science is not a religion to Timeisup.

The way he elevates experts, along with other claims they have made regarding it makes it a religion, or at least very much akin to one.

Proving things to yourself however, seems to be your religion.

Why?

The thing is, no flat earther ever does any actual experiments

Some do.
They typically only accept the results if it matches their beliefs, but some do experiments.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 20, 2024, 02:15:14 AM

Instead, I see you at every opportunity calling anyone who defies your cool logic, calling them a liar.

No, you don't.
Instead you see me calling people who have made claims, had them clearly refuted, only to make them yet again; i.e. people who are clearly liars, liars.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 20, 2024, 02:15:14 AM

Science is not a religion to Timeisup.

The way he elevates experts, along with other claims they have made regarding it makes it a religion, or at least very much akin to one.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 20, 2024, 02:15:14 AM

Proving things to yourself however, seems to be your religion.

Why?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 20, 2024, 02:15:14 AM

The thing is, no flat earther ever does any actual experiments

Some do.
They typically only accept the results if it matches their beliefs, but some do experiments.

You constantly contradict yourself.  On the one hand rejecting expert knowledge while at the same time invoking the external expert authority of the 'WE' word. Which way is it Jack? Do you reject all expert knowledge or not? if so how about you dispense with the "they" and 'We" words in your comments and use 'ME' and 'I' inserted. That goes for any proof you may wish to offer. Any proof that has involved hated 'experts' has to be removed.  When it comes to arguing about space and everything else its all down to you and your very own personal knowledge and experience.

In a word Jack, you can't have it both ways as thats been a common factor in all your dealing on this forum. You change your own beliefs and stance at the drop of a hat. Your two faced approach to debate just demonstrates how lacking you are in any morality when it comes to debate. You say others should be treated with respect:-

"“No, I believe that people should be free to question their beliefs and reassess them without facing ridicule”"

....and then you pour scorn on them at every turn calling them liars and delusional. What say you Jack? Remember all those facts I have presented above can be easily checked as they are all based on what 'YOU' have said.

You constantly contradict yourself.  On the one hand rejecting expert knowledge while at the same time invoking the external expert authority of the 'WE' word.

No, you set up strawmen to pretend I contradict myself.

Do you reject all expert knowledge or not?

No, I don't; and I have never said I do.
You just pretend that because I dared to challenge your belief by saying you don't just need to blindly accept what experts say to gain knowledge. That there are other ways and plenty of things you can find out for yourself without the need to appeal to experts; as well as the inherent problem of your religion having no original source for the knowledge.

In a word Jack, you can't have it both ways as thats been a common factor in all your dealing on this forum. You change your own beliefs and stance at the drop of a hat.

You mean I will object to BS regardless of which side is saying it?
That I want ignore faulty arguments just because they are made by a REer?

That shows honesty in debate, where I care about the truth and if the argument is sound, not the conclusion.

then you pour scorn on them at every turn calling them liars and delusional.

No. Not at every turn.

I say people should be able to question and reassess their beliefs without people like you entirely ignoring what they are saying and insulting them.
If however they have had the problems with their line of thinking explained multiple times, yet they continue the same false claims then that is not questioning and reassessing their beliefs.

Remember all those facts I have presented above can be easily checked as they are all based on what 'YOU' have said.

The "facts" i.e. the direct quotes.
The other crap can't.

Now again, care to actually try to address the OP in a rational manner rather than your entirely religious manner?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2024, 02:45:32 AM

You constantly contradict yourself.  On the one hand rejecting expert knowledge while at the same time invoking the external expert authority of the 'WE' word.

No, you set up strawmen to pretend I contradict myself.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2024, 02:45:32 AM

Do you reject all expert knowledge or not?

No, I don't; and I have never said I do.
You just pretend that because I dared to challenge your belief by saying you don't just need to blindly accept what experts say to gain knowledge. That there are other ways and plenty of things you can find out for yourself without the need to appeal to experts; as well as the inherent problem of your religion having no original source for the knowledge.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2024, 02:45:32 AM

In a word Jack, you can't have it both ways as thats been a common factor in all your dealing on this forum. You change your own beliefs and stance at the drop of a hat.

You mean I will object to BS regardless of which side is saying it?
That I want ignore faulty arguments just because they are made by a REer?

That shows honesty in debate, where I care about the truth and if the argument is sound, not the conclusion.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2024, 02:45:32 AM

then you pour scorn on them at every turn calling them liars and delusional.

No. Not at every turn.

I say people should be able to question and reassess their beliefs without people like you entirely ignoring what they are saying and insulting them.
If however they have had the problems with their line of thinking explained multiple times, yet they continue the same false claims then that is not questioning and reassessing their beliefs.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2024, 02:45:32 AM

Remember all those facts I have presented above can be easily checked as they are all based on what 'YOU' have said.

The "facts" i.e. the direct quotes.
The other crap can't.

Now again, care to actually try to address the OP in a rational manner rather than your entirely religious manner?

Knee jerk Jack.

You constantly contradict yourself.

The proof is you constantly refer to and claim knowledge of areas that no person, using personal experience, could ever gain.

What do you know personally about space flight?
What do you know personally about space?

The fact that you claim knowledge on these subjects and the fact that you claim all your knowledge from personal experience is a clear indicator of you not only lying but contradicting yourself.

While you torture people on this forum defending that they present evidence you yourself never ever present any for the claims you constantly make.

Not only do you contradict yourself but you are also a bare faced hypocrite.

Lastly why should anyone believe anything YOU say when all your alleged knowledge is just based on your own personal experience. What gives you the Devine right to be right?
What makes you think that what you personally think free from expert validation is right? Anyone who thinks they are right just by thinking it is just plain delusional.

The difference between you thinking you are right just because you thought it and I going along with a world of experts who all agree on a topic due to the best evidence is vast.

Following the advice of experts whose knowledge has been cross validated over time by many many people is preferable to your 'individual belief system'.

You only believing what you personally believe is the sign of a vastly deluded mind whose beliefs should be distrusted and rejected out of hand due to their nature. Where is your control? Where is your method of validation? Face it Jack you are just plain barking mad.

You constantly contradict yourself.

Really?
Then why is it you are yet to point out a single contradiction, and instead wish to make up lies about what I say to pretend I have contradicted myself?

you claim all your knowledge from personal experience

No I don't, stop lying.

all your alleged knowledge is just based on your own personal experience.

It isn't, and I have never said it is.

Now again, care to stop with all these blatant lies and instead try to address the topic?


Can you explain why the OP's argument is wrong?
Not that it contradicts your deeply held religious beliefs, but what is actually wrong with the argument?