FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[prodromos]

And where is that review (of https://planegeodesy.com/appendix-ii-evolutionism-refuted-by-the-ribosome)? But it's OK, I understand.

Don't look here! Quick, look over there!

 

[Tinker Grey]

I suspect that you'll be acutely embarrassed when the reality of the stationary, flat earth is released to the public. But perhaps not.

You'll be on your death bed and this will not have happened just like you'll be wondering why the 2nd coming hadn't happened.

I'd bet you if there was a way to collect.

 

[sjastro]

Show me the data.

I don’t have to show you any data because I don’t need to reinvent physics for your benefit which in this case states an object moving in a curved path is subject to real centripetal and fictitious centrifugal forces.

You introduced tangential velocity into this thread so by definition the flight path of the aircraft is curved and using your example of the NY Bogota route which is a straight line means the flight path is in a plane perpendicular to your flat earth.
Here lies the problem in your example, how does an aircraft maintain a constant cruising altitude when the flight path is curved when the earth below it is supposedly flat?
The problem disappears for a spherical earth and the aircraft travels along a great circle on the NY Bogota route.

 

[Bradskii]

And where is that review (of https://planegeodesy.com/appendix-ii-evolutionism-refuted-by-the-ribosome)? But it's OK, I understand.

Your web page claims about South American/Australian flights have been comprehensively debunked. By people who have actually made the flight. And by showing you routes on an app that we were specifically told to investigate.

Your response? 'Hey, ribosomes!'

What a joke. And again, where's the map that shows that Sydney to Santiago goes via (wait for it)...Los Angeles? We need to see why flight times to Santiago are 50% longer via LAX when you say it's the shortest route.

Please address what has been posted. And show us the map.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Don't look here! Quick, look over there!

... which begs the question: Are YOU a creationist or an evolutionist?

 

[Edwin Wright]

Your web page claims about South American/Australian flights have been comprehensively debunked. By people who have actually made the flight. And by showing you routes on an app that we were specifically told to investigate.

Your response? 'Hey, ribosomes!'

What a joke. And again, where's the map that shows that Sydney to Santiago goes via (wait for it)...Los Angeles? We need to see why flight times to Santiago are 50% longer via LAX when you say it's the shortest route.

Please address what has been posted. And show us the map.

You're confusing time and distance. Have you ever heard of stopovers?

 

[Dan2255]

I hear a lot of Christians saying that we live on a flat earth and nobody can go in or out the earth. Is the Bible clear on this subject?

When then if some believe the earth is flat and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west does Alaska have 6 months of nights and six months of darkness?

 

[Edwin Wright]

You'll be on your death bed and this will not have happened just like you'll be wondering why the 2nd coming hadn't happened.

I'd bet you if there was a way to collect.

I see that you're struggling with this. Thank you for your interest in Plane Geodesy. Take care.

 

[Edwin Wright]

It does?
Where?

You're on this thread, aren't you? Look no further.

 

[Bradskii]

You're confusing time and distance. Have you ever heard of stopovers?

Don't talk nonsense. Two of the three flight times I have personally experienced. From Sydney to LA and from Sydney to Santiago. Saying that going from Sydney to Santiago via LA (and I simply mean overflying it) is quicker than flying from Sydney to Santiago is absolutely preposterous. Monstrously so. It's galactically nonsensical.

Show me the map from which you have proposed this fantasy.

 

[Edwin Wright]

I don’t have to show you any data because I don’t need to reinvent physics for your benefit which in this case states an object moving in a curved path is subject to real centripetal and fictitious centrifugal forces.

You introduced tangential velocity into this thread so by definition the flight path of the aircraft is curved and using your example of the NY Bogota route which is a straight line means the flight path is in a plane perpendicular to your flat earth.
Here lies the problem in your example, how does an aircraft maintain a constant cruising altitude when the flight path is curved when the earth below it is supposedly flat?
The problem disappears for a spherical earth and the aircraft travels along a great circle on the NY Bogota route.

The REAL flight path is (for the most part) parallel to the flat earth. You would probably not want to be on a plane whose flight path was perpendicular to the flat earth. In any case, in terms of the FICTITIOUS heliocentric flight path, the issue under discussion was the latitude-dependent tangential velocity resulting from the earth's (alleged) rotation, not the (alleged) curvature of the earth per se. It's a pity that you find this so confusing.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Don't talk nonsense. Two of the three flight times I have personally experienced. From Sydney to LA and from Sydney to Santiago. Saying that going from Sydney to Santiago via LA (and I simply mean overflying it) is quicker than flying from Sydney to Santiago is absolutely preposterous. Monstrously so. It's galactically nonsensical.

Show me the map from which you have proposed this fantasy.

The following (non-armchair) flat earth testimony from someone who actually works in the aviation industry may serve to quell the "absolutely preposterous" ("monstrously so") and "galactically nonsensical" heliocentric fantasy":

Pilot / Aerospace Engineer Flat Earth Testimony - Links below

"The Next Level: The Truth Cannot Be Stopped" (Hibbeler Productions) 4-22 https://rumble.com/v12jakd-the-next-level-the-truth-cannot-be-stopped-hibbeler-productions-4-22.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=5006 Must

rumble.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

You're confusing time and distance. Have you ever heard of stopovers?

Stopovers are irrelevant. We can look just at the flight times and distances.

SYD-SCL - 7086 miles (12.5 hours)

SYD-LAX - 7536 miles (15.75 hours)
LAX-SCL - 5615 miles (10.75 hours)

 

[sjastro]

The REAL flight path is (for the most part) parallel to the flat earth. You would probably not want to be on a plane whose flight path was perpendicular to the flat earth. In any case, in terms of the FICTITIOUS heliocentric flight path, the issue under discussion was the latitude-dependent tangential velocity resulting from the earth's (alleged) rotation, not the (alleged) curvature of the earth per se. It's a pity that you find this so confusing.

I suggest you go back and read my post #909 which clearly explains how your example also inadvertently provides the case against a flat earth.

Since the story now involves flying parallel to a flat earth let’s look at the science and maths here and consider a commercial aircraft cruising at an altitude of 10,000 m.
In the case of the aircraft flying around a spherical earth, the gravitational field has a spherical symmetry and the acceleration ‘a' is directed radially downwards and varies with height according to the formula;

where:

G is the gravitational constant (6.67430×10⁻¹¹ N⋅m²/kg²)
M is the mass of the Earth (5.972×10²⁴ kg)
R is the mean radius of the Earth (6.371×10⁶ m)
h is the altitude above the Earth's surface.

At 10,000 m altitude;

a = 9.75 m/s².

This result is confirmed by accelerometer measurements.

For a flat earth gravity does strange things, it is only at the centre of a flat earth the gravitational field accelerates objects vertically downwards.
Since flat earthers are not terribly helpful on the physical shape of the flat earth such as its thickness, we mathematicians have had to make some assumptions.

(1) The flat earth is in the shape of a disk of radius R and has an infinitesimally small thickness.
(2) The mass of the earth is uniformly distributed throughout the disk.
(3) The disk sits in the x-y plane and the aircraft on the z axis which passes through the centre of the disk, in other words it is directly above the flat earth’s centre at a vertical distance or height z.

The acceleration equation is:

The acceleration for the aircraft at 10,000 metres is found to be;

a = 19.6 m/s² nowhere near the value of 9.75 m/s².

Things get worse if that was possible when the aircraft is off-axis where the equation becomes horrendously more complicated and requires the use of elliptic functions.

As one moves away from the centre, there is a horizontal component of acceleration which becomes stronger as the vertical component weakens.
At the edge acceleration is a purely horizontal and an accelerometer on the aircraft would read zero at the edge as it measures acceleration purely in the radial (vertical) direction.

​

Gravity is yet another example which destroys this flat earth nonsense.

 

[returntosender]

But wouldn't we fall off at the end if it's flat?

 

[Lost4words]

But wouldn't we fall off at the end if it's flat?

No because the rim is protected by 12 million polar bears who"s job it is is to stop people from going over the edge.

 

[Bradskii]

The following (non-armchair) flat earth testimony from someone who actually works in the aviation industry may serve to quell the "absolutely preposterous" ("monstrously so") and "galactically nonsensical" heliocentric fantasy":

Pilot / Aerospace Engineer Flat Earth Testimony - Links below

"The Next Level: The Truth Cannot Be Stopped" (Hibbeler Productions) 4-22 https://rumble.com/v12jakd-the-next-level-the-truth-cannot-be-stopped-hibbeler-productions-4-22.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=5006 Must

rumble.com

Some guy talking about your debunked coriolus affect. Not interested. And incidentally, the guy said at 5:40 (yeah, I wasted 8 minutes of my life watching it) that there is no GPS signals mid ocean. That is simply wrong. You can even use the Google Earth app on your phone to see where you are on any trans oceanic flight. And I honestly did this two days ago on a flight across the South China Sea coming back to Australia after a holiday. So that two apps on your mobile that show you're wrong.

But we're talking about flight time to Santiago. And how your route (via LA) is nonsensically wrong.

Show us the map.

 

[Lost4words]

Some guy talking about your debunked coriolus affect. Not interested. And incidentally, the guy said at 5:40 (yeah, I wasted 8 minutes of my life watching it) that there is no GPS signals mid ocean. That is simply wrong. You can even use the Google Earth app on your phone to see where you are on any trans oceanic flight. And I honestly did this two days ago on a flight across the South China Sea coming back to Australia after a holiday. So that two apps on your mobile that show you're wrong.

But we're talking about flight time to Santiago. And how your route (via LA) is nonsensically wrong.

Show us the map.

'The map' only exists in cartoon form.

 

[prodromos]

No because the rim is protected by 12 million polar bears who"s job it is is to stop people from going over the edge.

Trained by corgi's

 

[prodromos]

The following (non-armchair) flat earth testimony from someone who actually works in the aviation industry may serve to quell the "absolutely preposterous" ("monstrously so") and "galactically nonsensical" heliocentric fantasy":

Pilot / Aerospace Engineer Flat Earth Testimony - Links below

"The Next Level: The Truth Cannot Be Stopped" (Hibbeler Productions) 4-22 https://rumble.com/v12jakd-the-next-level-the-truth-cannot-be-stopped-hibbeler-productions-4-22.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=5006 Must

rumble.com

Poor deluded guy. He needs to go on a few flights between Australia and Africa or South America to cure himself of this delusion.