Do planes on your globe fly straight and level, or do they fly downwards to keep altitude as the earth curves away?
Altitude relative to what, Jerome?
Any update on this, or are easily answerable questions simply going to be ignored? Also please to point out the "observational science" that points to a stationary earth.
Do planes on your globe fly straight and level, or do they fly downwards to keep altitude as the earth curves away?
Altitude relative to what, Jerome?
Any update on this, or are easily answerable questions simply going to be ignored? Also please to point out the "observational science" that points to a stationary earth.
To the earth. Asking stupid questions shows one's stupidity and exposes that they live in a world of faith, not science.
Your curved earth needs to be accounted for in flight. Curiously, planes fly straight and level. They do not fly downwards to maintain altitude.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Twice a year, in early February and at the end of October, with good weather, the Canigou can be seen at sunset from as far as Marseille, 250 km away, by refraction of light. This phenomenon was observed in 1808 by baron Franz Xaver von Zach from the Notre-Dame de la Garde basilica in Marseille.
lol, at the perfect light 'refraction' which perfectly follows the curvature of the earth.
The top of the mountain should be over 2 miles below the curvature, even if the observer is 1,000 feet in the air.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Scientism fear porn, the same as asteroids blowing us up, all nonsense.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
For example, Chicago can be seen from Michigan, over 50 miles away, and the curvature calculation based upon the claimed size of the globe says Chicago should be 1,700 feet below the curvature.
I didn't check your math, let's assume you're somewhat correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome
This Chicago city skyline in this picture looks strange to me. From the lake the Sears (Willis) tower usually looks like 3 boxes of narrowing widths on top of each other. I only see 2 and they're stretched out of proportion. It also seems awfully alone in the skyline - almost like the extremely tall buildings surrounding it are not visible at all!
Does Jerome even understand what he's showing us?
This is a picture of the Chicago skyline from significantly closer.
In Jerome's picture, I'm pretty sure the 3 lights to the right of the Willis Tower is the very top of the AT&T Corporate center, a 1,000 foot tall building.
Jerome's picture doesn't exactly show the city of Chicago cut off at 1700 feet, but it shows it cut off at somewhere around 1,000 feet, and the portion we do see is remarkably elongated, as if the atmosphere is distorting and lensing the image of the city, which would probably explain why we can see more of the city than we should, even assuming Jerome did the math correctly.
So basically, he's trolling, again. I'm not even sure why I bothered.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Last edited by specious_reasons; 05-14-2017 at 05:26 PM.
Next claim you guys will need to make is that we don't see the actual sun setting, that we see the sun's image refracted over the curvature of the earth.
The excuses you need to explain away why no curvature can be detected or observed, particularly when observational evidence is provided to show things which should not be seen at the claimed earth's curvature, is a testament to the religious faith you have in scientism.
You ignore science, observable, testable, and repeatable, in favor of faith to explain away why your model does not work.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Flat-earther is just a bit too crazy to pull off. It would be like being an anti-gravver or Trump supporter, just too nutz to find any good well made bullshit.
Underwater women's studies black theology basket weaving, to be exact.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Ari, gravity does not exist except in maths. High Priest Neil Tyson admits as much.
Every phenomenon you see, like dropping the mic, can be easily explained by the well understood physics in buoyancy.
The mic drops because it is denser than the air. The beach ball floats because it is less dense than the water.
There is no need for gravity, everything we observe is already explained. The magic not understood to this day gravity force was made up to explain the planets theory.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
The difference in densities defeat gravity all the time, this is because gravity is fictional.
Check this out:
What is gravity? You can not answer scientifically, nor can Neil Tyson.
What is buoyancy? The difference in density, which can be observed, tested, and repeated scientifically.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Gravity is the name for the phenomenon that is observed.
Every observation is explained by buoyancy.
Gravity is unexplained fiction made up to explain the planet models created.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Ari, spaceflight is fiction, so presenting something claimed from space is invalid.
You have to have the false claims from the NAZI started organization NASA to give you any evidence of your beliefs. None of which anyone outside of government funded space agencies can observe, test, nor repeat.
Anything NASA presents can not be peer reviewed in any valid way.
NASA is pure science fiction.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Gravity is WOO you dolt, even Niel Tyson says so. It is unexplained, and everything attributed to this fiction can be explain by that which is explained through real science, the observable, testable, repeatable method.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Just like every other narrow minded person, you deny anything that you have not observed yourself.
Odds are you don't believe in a creator, so does that mean you are narrow-minded because you have not observed a creator yourself?
See how you are tripping over yourself with logical fallacies? Its because you can not deny that gravity is science fiction WOO, and this fact disturbs you.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
You got confused, I meant the existence of gravity. Sure you can argue the cause, but the existence is pretty hard to argue against. Just the same, flat-earth would be much easier to defend if it was arguing against a theory of why the earth is round and not against the fact of the round earth.
Ari, you don't even understand what you are saying you are so caught up in the scientism.
Gravity is said to be the cause. You can not argue there is a cause, therefore its gravity because there is a cause.
We have a scientific, observable, testable, repeatable, explained cause for the phenomenon you ascribe to gravity, its called buoyancy.
Your claim that the unexplained gravity did it is no different, and as unscientific, as saying god did it. Things fall down, therefore gravity, things fall down, therefore god. Its the same nonsense argument.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Re: Drive by science
Altitude relative to what, Jerome?
Linear Mode
