• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are there any Flat Earth believers here?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I am not sure of the need of an altitude adjustment. The force of gravity is perpendicular to a plane and will keep it at the same level. And also, just as cars do not drive perfectly straight, a plane does not fly perfectly level. Even if there were adjustments for such a curve they would be smaller than adjustments for changes in updrafts, and continual human error in flight.

When you are at altitude? There are fewer and fewer updrafts, especially if you fly well above the cloud cover. Yes, there are high altitude jetstreams and such.

And yes-- gravity does have an effect-- but an engine driven airplane (not a sailplane or glider) tends to push thorough most of these, assuming you are not in a major storm front or other severe weather. I should have mentioned that. And really, gravity is the weakest of all the nuclear forces, is it not? :) The subtle difference between the gravitational pull at 10,000 feet, as compared to 15,000 feet? I doubt you could measure it without some very sophisticated equipment on board--likely heavier than the airplane.

But, 5,000 feet can make a visible difference to an observer in the plane....

My airplane trip was in 100% clear weather, with near complete lack of any clouds even. We had a mild cross wind that needed constant fighting (the plane had no real autopilot), and was tiring for the pilot.

But he loved talking about flying, and had observed the need to constantly correct the altitude, especially if there was no weather.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
if-the-earth-was-flat-cats-would-have-pushed-everything-21440098.png
 

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
I am sure his math is terribly flawed. One of his arguments mentioned going uphill as one went down the Mississippi. He probably based that on the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Of course the Earth is not a perfect globe because it is spinning. That means a surface of equal potential bulges out as one approaches the equator. Math is totally missing from their toolbox.

Just a quick question... when did you post any factual information? Lmao, all I see are insults and equivocation.

.....

You did not prove that evolution/darwinism is fact, and you did not disprove any of what I said. All you have done is throw ad homs and pretend like you have some valuable information that is not worthy of being shared...

The funniest part is how you honestly think that you have actually proven a point.

You are a pro at making assertions without factual information.

And then you think you’re some genius because ONE other clown is rating your posts... LMAO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
The part where you said a railway line in England was straight!

But honestly, if you want a rebuttal...assuming your math is correct (which I haven't bothered to check) and there is a straight line between London and Liverpool that passes through Birmingham (which there isn't but never mind) Birmingham would be approximately a mile above a point approximately midway between London and Liverpool and approximately a mile beneath the earth's curved surface. If the earth were flat, you would be able to see Birmingham from either London or Liverpool on a clear day - you can't of course because the earth is not flat and to be able to see Birmingham from sea level 90 miles away Birmingham would have to be a mile above sea level (assuming your calculation is correct) and it is - as you point out - only about 240 feet above sea level which means you'd only be able to see it from sea level within about 18 miles or so. If you don't believe me - the fare from London to Birmingham is eleven pounds on Virgin Trains - you can check for yourself. Or get on the London Eye and then figure out why you can only see about 25 miles from the top.

What in the world are you talking about? The post that I made that you are referring to says nothing about “being able to see” anything. You don’t need to be a mathematician to understand what it is saying either. It simply says that if the earth were round, then the railway would arc at a certain point in between the two points — which does not happen. The distance between the two points have been measured and examined, and there is no arc — the railway between the two points is evenly leveled the whole way through. So I don’t know why you’re talking about being able to “see” anything.

Nice attempt at a straw man, but it’s fallen flat on it’s face.

“The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
At the very end of the video:
"The earth is round, and you'll learn that the hard way, if you try and fly an airplane."

That triggered a memory of mine: For long distance air travel? As I recall, one of the corrections that pilots must make from time to time, is altitude adjustment. This is, if you travel through the atmosphere in a straight line, the earth's curvature will make the ground "drop away", or rather, by following a straight line, you will gain altitude with sufficiently long travel times. But this is even a thing in small, short trips-- I remember making a trip in a small, 5 person single engine airplane, from Tulsa to Wichita. And the constant adjustment of altitude by the pilot as we traveled that short distance.

Since airplanes are not naturally buoyant, like a balloon? They tend to travel in straight lines, unless the pilot makes corrective maneuvers using the controls.

So yeah... you could easily test for a flat earth, by maintaining a strict straight-line flight-- on a flat earth, your altitude would not change significantly, especially if you flew over the ocean.

But on a sphere? You'd have to make altitude corrections, to maintain the same height above the oceans. Which airplane pilots do.

Of course, taking a longish flight in an airplane, if the world was a flat, limited tea saucer? After 5-6 hours or so, you'd quickly come to an edge... unless, by magic, every single airplane launch automagically starts from the exact center? Or automagically turns (without the pilot's knowledge) to re-face back towards the center?

Gaaaahhh... I am saddened at the level of "Is Not"-ism among gullible and frankly, under-educated humans...

EXACTLY!!!! That is one of the EXACT points that I made earlier, and the people here were incapable of grasping such a basic concept.

This is what I said:

“If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute... Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.”

^ can one of you globe people explain that?

Airline pilots do NOT make those kind of adjustments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Just a quick question... when did you post any factual information? Lmao, all I see are insults and equivocation.

.....

You did not prove that evolution/darwinism is fact, and you did not disprove any of what I said. All you have done is throw ad homs and pretend like you have some valuable information that is not worthy of being shared...

The funniest part is how you honestly think that you have actually proven a point.

You are a pro at making assertions without factual information.

And then you think you’re some genius because ONE other clown is rating your posts... LMAO.

That is simply no t true. The problem is that due to your lack of education you use terms incorrectly and then get angry when you are corrected. You keep mistakenly demanding that people "prove" something. For example you demanded that I "prove evolution is possible". I did that. It was a rather foolish demand on your part since there are countless things that are possible that did not happen. I proved it possible with the factual information on the number of mutations that appear in every new generation. Of course we know that evolution happened, but you only demanded that I prove it possible.

Second you keep making false claims of "ad hominem" . That has not happened once. You make your lack of education obvious. Observing that and offering to help you to learn is not as hominem.

Do you want to go over the basics so that you do not repeat your obvious errors? You won't lose your next debate so badly if you learn the basics of science first.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What in the world are you talking about? The post that I made that you are referring to says nothing about “being able to see” anything. You don’t need to be a mathematician to understand what it is saying either. It simply says that if the earth were round, then the railway would arc at a certain point in between the two points — which does not happen. The distance between the two points have been measured and examined, and there is no arc — the railway between the two points is evenly leveled the whole way through. So I don’t know why you’re talking about being able to “see” anything.

Nice attempt at a straw man, but it’s fallen flat on it’s face.

“The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.”
Oh my, it is worse than I thought. You forgot about gravity. No wonder you do not have a clue.
 

Derek500

Wish I could change this to AUD
That is simply no t true. The problem is that due to your lack of education you use terms incorrectly and then get angry when you are corrected. You keep mistakenly demanding that people "prove" something. For example you demanded that I "prove evolution is possible". I did that. It was a rather foolish demand on your part since there are countless things that are possible that did not happen. I proved it possible with the factual information on the number of mutations that appear in every new generation. Of course we know that evolution happened, but you only demanded that I prove it possible.

Second you keep making false claims of "ad hominem" . That has not happened once. You make your lack of education obvious. Observing that and offering to help you to learn is not as hominem.

Do you want to go over the basics so that you do not repeat your obvious errors? You won't lose your next debate so badly if you learn the basics of science first.
Hey, Subduction Zone, it really is not worth trying to have a rational conversation with mentally unstable people such at flat-earthers or YEC's.

It's fun to watch, though. And you have taught me a lot!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hey, Subduction Zone, it really is not worth trying to have a rational conversation with mentally unstable people such at flat-earthers or YEC's.

It's fun to watch, though. And you have taught me a lot!
Thank you.

I do not think that it is a lack of intelligence that keeps them from understanding. I think it is a result of the fear that they have had drummed into them almost from birth. Anything that threatens their beliefs causes them to fear. They take correction as insult and find any excuse that they can to run away.
 

Derek500

Wish I could change this to AUD
Thank you.

I do not think that it is a lack of intelligence that keeps them from understanding. I think it is a result of the fear that they have had drummed into them almost from birth. Anything that threatens their beliefs causes them to fear. They take correction as insult and find any excuse that they can to run away.
I agree with you. Mostly it's not a lack of intelligence; to me it seems as if it is a fear of reality on their part.
 

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
That is simply no t true. The problem is that due to your lack of education you use terms incorrectly and then get angry when you are corrected. You keep mistakenly demanding that people "prove" something. For example you demanded that I "prove evolution is possible". I did that. It was a rather foolish demand on your part since there are countless things that are possible that did not happen. I proved it possible with the factual information on the number of mutations that appear in every new generation. Of course we know that evolution happened, but you only demanded that I prove it possible.

Second you keep making false claims of "ad hominem" . That has not happened once. You make your lack of education obvious. Observing that and offering to help you to learn is not as hominem.

Do you want to go over the basics so that you do not repeat your obvious errors? You won't lose your next debate so badly if you learn the basics of science first.

Trust me, I’m not angry at all.

I asked you to prove that evolution is a fact, and then you said “evolution happens everytime a newborn baby is born” LOL.

So then I said:

“The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.

Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still, no.”

^ that’s for your “evolution happens every time a child is born” nonsense.

Can you prove that humans evolved from apes, like darwinism suggests? Or that all organisms evolved from the same organism? That is what I meant when I asked for facts to substantiate the theory of evolution — but of course you are going to play games and talk about “evolution happening everytime a child is born”, because you know that there are absolutely zero facts in existence that substantiate the theory of evolution when it comes to evolution happening on a larger scale.

Let’s stop with the games.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
EXACTLY!!!! That is one of the EXACT points that I made earlier, and the people here were incapable of grasping such a basic concept.

This is what I said:

“If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute... Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.”

^ can one of you globe people explain that?

Airline pilots do NOT make those kind of adjustments.
Yes. Planes move along an elliptical flight path when maintaining a particular altitude. The path that planes fly is based on altitude and the horizon. The atmosphere follows the curvature of the earth. You do not need to make adjustments. More pressing is why planes fly the "great circle." This is the shortest path to a point on a sphere, not a flat earth.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Trust me, I’m not angry at all.

I asked you to prove that evolution is a fact, and then you said “evolution happens everytime a newborn baby is born” LOL.

Wrong, that is neither what you demanded or what I said. Go back and read the posts. You demanded that I "prove evolution possible" and I did. I am sorry but both your memory and your reading comprehension appear to be rather poor. You can go back, the posts are still there.

So then I said:

“The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.
All you have done here is to tell us that you have no understanding of evolution at all. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. And Answers in Genesis is not a valid source. You cannot refute that which you do not understand.

Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still, no.”

You are trying to use liars and idiots to define what science is. This is a gross mistake because that only makes You look like one too. I will more than gladly go over the basics of science with you but you keep running away.

^ that’s for your “evolution happens every time a child is born” nonsense.

That is not what I said. Once again you need to work on that reading comprehension.

Can you prove that humans evolved from apes, like darwinism suggests? Or that all organisms evolved from the same organism? That is what I meant when I asked for facts to substantiate the theory of evolution — but of course you are going to play games and talk about “evolution happening everytime a child is born”, because you know that there are absolutely zero facts in existence that substantiate the theory of evolution when it comes to evolution happening on a larger scale.

Let’s stop with the games.

By the legal standard of "prove" of course I can. Could you understand that proof? That is looking rather doubtful.
 

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
Yes. Planes move along an elliptical flight path when maintaining a particular altitude. The path that planes fly is based on altitude and the horizon. The atmosphere follows the curvature of the earth. You do not need to make adjustments. More pressing is why planes fly the "great circle." This is the shortest path to a point on a sphere, not a flat earth.

Impossible. That’s not what I was saying. I was saying the exact opposite.

You say that adjustments do not need to be made because the atmosphere follows the “curvature” of the earth?

NASA launches rockets adjusted to the earth curvature to boost it. Now you say the plane follows the earth curvature without adjusting to the curvature. You cannot have it both ways.

Either the plane follows the curvature....or it has to adjust for the curvature. Which is it?

All of the telemetry data show that it's a flat earth.
 

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
Wrong, that is neither what you demanded or what I said. Go back and read the posts. You demanded that I "prove evolution possible" and I did. I am sorry but both your memory and your reading comprehension appear to be rather poor. You can go back, the posts are still there.

I already told you — childbirth is not evolution. Mutations and gene drift are not evolution.

I know what the posts say, and I know what I wrote.

When evolution was first mentioned in this thread, it was mentioned in regards to all living organisms as having the same origin.

So then when I ask for evidence of evolution in that particular sense, you then say that “childbirth is proof of evolution”.

Do you see the idiocy in your logic?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What does gravity have to do with railroads and measurements???? LMAO please, stop.
You lost so much nonsense it is hard to understand your posts. You thought that the surface of the Earth does not curve between two stations. That tells us that you forgot about gravity or made some other ignorant error. Why do you think that they did not find an arm between two widely separated rail stations? It appears that you are claiming that a train leaving either station would be going slowly downhill and then levelling out and finish going slightly uphill, or did you forget about gravity again?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Impossible. That’s not what I was saying. I was saying the exact opposite.

You say that adjustments do not need to be made because the atmosphere follows the “curvature” of the earth?

NASA launches rockets adjusted to the earth curvature to boost it. Now you say the plane follows the earth curvature without adjusting to the curvature. You cannot have it both ways.

Either the plane follows the curvature....or it has to adjust for the curvature. Which is it?

All of the telemetry data show that it's a flat earth.
Why do you believe think it would have to adjust its flight? Once again you forgot about gravity.
 

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
You lost so much nonsense it is hard to understand your posts. You thought that the surface of the Earth does not curve between two stations. That tells us that you forgot about gravity or made some other ignorant error. Why do you think that they did not find an arm between two widely separated rail stations? It appears that you are claiming that a train leaving either station would be going slowly downhill and then levelling out and finish going slightly uphill, or did you forget about gravity again?

That’s not what I said.

So basically you are saying that gravity affects the form/structure of railroads and the way that they lay on top of the earth.

LOL!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top