Is the Earth Flat?

[The Liturgist]

The world is hollow, and I have touched the sky.

That was a great episode of the original Star Trek! One of the few Third Season episodes I really like, along with The Tholian Web, The Enterprise Incident, Wink of an Eye, The Cloud Minders, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, The Day of the Dove, That Which Survives, and the wacky, bizarre and hilarious I, Mudd (I really wish Harcourt Fenton Mudd had appeared in The Trouble with Tribbles as the plot of the Tribble-selling dude would have been perfect for his character).

The rest were really disappointing, and some were outright cringeworthy, especially the hippy episode, Turnabout Intruder, Spock’s Brain (which is infamously bad) and my own least favorite, Plato’s Stepchildren, which gets an undeserved pass because of the non-consensual kiss between Kirk and Uhura (had they kissed of their own accord rather than being telekinetically compelled, that would be a different matter).

 

[The Liturgist]

Au contraire, the geometry of the flat earth does not preclude its circumnavigation.

It actually does, because it would require ships and aircraft to make subtle turns during their transit, even at relatively short distances, and it would cause the Great Circle Route approach to navigation, which has been proven to save time, to not work, since the geometry that makes the Great Circle Route work does not apply.

Also you ignore the fact that there are flights between Australia, South Africa, and South America which take the expected amount of time, and the claim these flights do not exist has been proven to be pure nonsense.

 

[The Liturgist]

An inertial navigation system (INS) equipped with an inertial measurement unit (IMU).

So get a few hundred Flat Earthers who can spend about $4,000 each, charter a plane, and fly over Antarctica with an INS and IMU. Since these instruments do not generate significant RF interference, it should be possible to use them at all times except during takeoff and landing. Problem solved.

I refuse to believe that the Flat Earth community can’t get a few hundred people who can each afford to drop a few thousand dollars to charter a plane to fly over Antarctica. So I suggest you put your money where your mouth is. You don’t even have to charter it from Kelsey or World Airways. You might get better prices (and worse safety) by hiring an Argentine or Chilean aircraft.

 

[Edwin Wright]

So get a few hundred Flat Earthers who can spend about $4,000 each, charter a plane, and fly over Antarctica with an INS and IMU. Since these instruments do not generate significant RF interference, it should be possible to use them at all times except during takeoff and landing. Problem solved.

I refuse to believe that the Flat Earth community can’t get a few hundred people who can each afford to drop a few thousand dollars to charter a plane to fly over Antarctica. So I suggest you put your money where your mouth is. You don’t even have to charter it from Kelsey or World Airways. You might get better prices (and worse safety) by hiring an Argentine or Chilean aircraft.

I'm talking ship, not plane. Get with the program!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm talking ship, not plane. Get with the program!

Do you also think heavier-than-air powered flight is impossible?

 

[Edwin Wright]

It actually does, because it would require ships and aircraft to make subtle turns during their transit, even at relatively short distances, and it would cause the Great Circle Route approach to navigation, which has been proven to save time, to not work, since the geometry that makes the Great Circle Route work does not apply.

Also you ignore the fact that there are flights between Australia, South Africa, and South America which take the expected amount of time, and the claim these flights do not exist has been proven to be pure nonsense.

The part about the subtle turns applies on either surface. Emergency landings have disproven the ball and its great circles time and time again.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Do you also think heavier-than-air powered flight is impossible?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[Lost4words]

ou need to understand basic perspective to realize that the power lines photo DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form suggest earth curvature.

Here’s why:

When you are looking at a long row or train of objects (buildings, lamp posts, transmission towers, etc.) of equivalent height and spacing, every object (or portion thereof) below eye level appears to ascend towards the horizon, whereas every object (or portion thereof) above eye level appears to descend towards the horizon.

If the vertical distance from the eye or camera lens to the lower part of the object train (in this case, the tower bases) is less than the vertical distance from the eye or camera lens to the upper part of the object (in this case, the tower structures), the perspective line from the lower part of the object (i.e., the tower bases) intersects the eye level line (i.e., the line from the eye or camera lens to the horizon) at a distance closer to the observer than the perspective line from the upper part of the object (i.e., the tower structures), What this means is that the vanishing point of the tower bases) is closer than the vanishing point of the tower structures, hence giving the illusion that the lower part of the object has "shrunk" and “disappeared” over the (alleged) curvature. (In the photo you presented, the illusion seems to be enhanced by the tower train appearing to veer to the left in the distance, although this is not germane to the underlying argument.)

The observer in this case is from a vantage point above the tower bases but well below the tower tops. It would be nice to know the actual height of the observer and the (above water) height of the tower bases and tower tops.

It's that simple. Your argument (historically raised in respect of the “disappearing” hulls of ships allegedly due to fictitious earth curvature) was debunked many years ago (actually as far back as the nineteenth century). I am surprised that you even raised the matter.

When I have more time, I will incorporate the above explanation into my website (Plane Geodesy) and will include a suitable drawing to clarify the matter further.

The earth is not flat...simples

 

[Hans Blaster]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

People who believe 1 obviously false thing frequently believe more. The "flat Earth" is obviously false.

 

[prodromos]

You need to understand basic perspective to realize that the power lines photo DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form suggest earth curvature.

It absolutely does.

When you are looking at a long row or train of objects (buildings, lamp posts, transmission towers, etc.) of equivalent height and spacing, every object (or portion thereof) below eye level appears to ascend towards the horizon, whereas every object (or portion thereof) above eye level appears to descend towards the horizon.

And without any earth curvature, they would both meet at the horizon, which on a flat earth is eye level. In the photo, however, the vanishing point is above the horizon, because the surface of the earth is falling away from eye level. This has been demonstrated again and again by photographing the horizon from different elevations using a water level to show eye level relative to the horizon.

If the vertical distance from the eye or camera lens to the lower part of the object train (in this case, the tower bases) is less than the vertical distance from the eye or camera lens to the upper part of the object (in this case, the tower structures), the perspective line from the lower part of the object (i.e., the tower bases) intersects the eye level line (i.e., the line from the eye or camera lens to the horizon) at a distance closer to the observer than the perspective line from the upper part of the object (i.e., the tower structures),

Nope. Completely false. The above has no basis in reality.

What this means is that the vanishing point of the tower bases) is closer than the vanishing point of the tower structures, hence giving the illusion that the lower part of the object has "shrunk" and “disappeared” over the (alleged) curvature.

The vanishing point for both is eye level, which on a flat earth would correspond with the horizon. You do not have two horizons because you only have one eye level.

The observer in this case is from a vantage point above the tower bases but well below the tower tops. It would be nice to know the actual height of the observer and the (above water) height of the tower bases and tower tops.

It would make no difference even if eye level was above the tower tops.

It's that simple. Your argument (historically raised in respect of the “disappearing” hulls of ships allegedly due to fictitious earth curvature) was debunked many years ago (actually as far back as the nineteenth century).

Claims of debunking have likewise been debunked.

I am surprised that you even raised the matter.

Ditto.

When I have more time, I will incorporate the above explanation into my website (Plane Geodesy) and will include a suitable drawing to clarify the matter further.

I have a suspicion that you will never find enough time.

 

[The Liturgist]

The part about the subtle turns applies on either surface. Emergency landings have disproven the ball and its great circles time and time again.

How do you figure?

 

[prodromos]

Emergency landings have disproven the ball and its great circles time and time again.

Except they haven't.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm talking ship, not plane. Get with the program!

What difference does it make?

 

[Edwin Wright]

What difference does it make?

A ship can circumnavigate the flat earth along the 56th South parallel. An intercontinental flight across Antarctica is not possible.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Except they haven't.

Except they have.

 

[The Liturgist]

Except they haven't.

Indeed, if you study the flight plan for any commercial flights you will note that alternate and diversion airports are seldom on the same exact airway the aircraft is flying. Hence the term “diversion.” By the way, if you want to deep dive into the nitty gritty of flight planning, an AA 777 pilot has a wonderful YpuTube channel, blancolirio

He also covers NTSB reports and has other interesting aviation related content, and unlike MentourPilot doesn’t have sponsors.

 

[prodromos]

What difference does it make?

Logistically, we are talking months at sea and all the necessary supplies, as opposed to a day of flight.

 

[The Liturgist]

A ship can circumnavigate the flat earth along the 56th South parallel. An intercontinental flight across Antarctica is not possible.

Prove it: hire a plane, and see what happens. If the flight crew sees a giant ice wall, they will execute a terrain escape maneuver, since they don’t want to die and lack ejection seats. Worst case scenario: you are debunked and arrive in Melbourne, best case scenario you discover the supposed hidden world alleged to exist in the silly flat Earth documentary The Next Level.

 

[Edwin Wright]

People who believe 1 obviously false thing frequently believe more. The "flat Earth" is obviously false.

Heliocentrism is obviously false.

 

[The Liturgist]

Logistically, we are talking months at sea and all the necessary supplies, as opposed to a day of flight.

Imdeed, it would cost a heck of a lot more and prove nothing, since Quark Expeditions did a cruise around all of Antarctica on a Russian nuclear icebreaker in 1998 or 99.