Youtube comments of Andrea M (@H3CL).
-
19
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@liftingtheveil8361 As expected, you either have no idea of what I am talking about or refuse to listen. There is no such thing as a personal horizon in the first place so I can already see al the lies you fell for. Yes I know how you think the Sun moves, and I told you that since you think the Earth is 24000 miles across, then you can calculate the Sun's horizontal distance from your location. From my town, Turin, Italy, the Sun's horizontal distance, according to your model, cannot be more than 10936 miles. So, if that's the horizontal distance and the vertical distance is 3000 miles, its elevation angle would be 15.4 degrees. This, is the basic geometry that debunks your model. Because I see it set, aka drop to 0 degrees in elevation angle everyday. Wopsie
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Your comment is laughable on so many levels: first of all "Science is made of hypothesi and theories" you say... No, those are just part of the scientific method and I bet you can't even tell them apart, like every flerf in the world, you don't even bother to learn the difference. Second, "no one is able to answer why we see too far"...?!?!? Really?? Didi you even try to look for an explanation or are you only willing to jump to conclusions? Because that is what you are doing right now. "Math, Physics and mechanics are the truth"... Oh boy, you are now listing terms at random... and guess what, all of them are strongly linked to science if not part of it so no, wrong again. Science has no proof? No, you just don't want to look for it, you only listen to what allows you to get to th conclusion you want, like a whiny little kid. Your own research has failed, miserably, and you will continue to fail if you put your trust into random conmen on the internet who lecture people about tropics they know nothing about. You are still a sheep.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tylerwatson8423 I am sorry but what you said is false. The Sun never change apparent size, you need to watch videos shot with a solar filter, otherwise the glare and other lens related effects come into play that make it impossible to discern the actual Sun. Yes I have seen many sunsets, it sets by disappearing bottom first at a constant speed, this is another thing that cannot happen because perspective says that when something recedes away from the observer at constant speed, it appears to slow down. There is no denying this. The Sun gets to 0 degrees in elevation angle and then disappears without shrinking, I already told you why the magnification would have to be infinite for us to see what we see. Moreover, if it was a matter of distance you would have to be able to see the Sun at midnight as well, for the whole night for that matter, you just need a telescope. Not just pop it back into view two seconds after sunset. Sorry but again, this does not cut it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Ta-bd7tx Who cares about scriptures and you are using your ignorance as a valid argument. If the Sun was local you could see it even at 4 am with a telescope according to your hypothesis, why is it not possible? It would never set, it would never get below 15,4 degrees in elevation angle, that's basic geometry. All the "flaws" you pointed out are nothing but your inabilities to grasp basic science. Water finds nothing, it's not sentient and takes the shape that balances out all the forces acting upon it, gas must not be contained, it spreads out from areas of high pressure to areas of lower pressure while within the atmosphere. Helium is affected by Gravity, what you said is embarrassing. So no, your personal incredulity, scientific illiteracy and opinions are not valid arguments.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
- You cannot see as far as you want, because the Earth is NOT flat. Once an object has totally gone beyond the horizon you CAN'T bring it back no matter how powerful your camera's zoom is, and there are plenty of videos showing it, yet you are able to dismiss it anyway.
- The horizon is NOT always at eye level, you can prove it with a theodolite app on an airplane, again there are videos showing it. And even without those, you would have no means to back up your statement, only parroting what those conmen on youtube spoon-feed you.
- No, the "machine" does not teach us that the earth curves at 8 in x mile because equation is WRONG, again another clear demonstration that while you love calling those who don't believe you "sheep", you are indeed the sheep yourself because you never take the chance to verify what those idiots on YT tell you.
- Sunsets can never work on a Flat Earth, and you do not understand how perspective actually works.
- Long range non-stop flights in the Southern hemisphere can only happen on a Globe.
- Nothing on a FE makes actual sense.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@carlosalarcon9389 You cannot science at all. If earth was a flat infinite plane you would not have a horizon, it would fade away into the distance, it would not be a net line like we see it everyday. And yes, I know how liquids behave, you have the most wrong approach here, you have to point at something that I am NOT supposed to see on a globe, not your excuses. I am supposed to see no curve on the surface of that cup, I am not surprised, therefore it is not a valid proof. Like I said and apparently you did not understand, liquids take the form that balances out all the forces acting on it. Gravity can bend water, even your finger can bend water. Try again.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@GrahamA63 You clearly did not read what I wrote. If we see the stars rotate counterclockwise around Polaris AND AT THE SAME TIME in the opposite direction around the Southern Cross, this proves (or at the very least, points towards the fact) that we are on a spinning sphere. Polaris has not always been our North star, some 6000 years ago it was Thuban, and in another 6000 years it will be different again. We move extremely slowly compared to the distances between stars in the universe so obviously in 40 years nothing changes. And stars move too, we are not the only ones moving. Now, neglecting the fact that you probably think that a theory in science is the same as a hypothesis, the example you gave about the gas can is invalid. You are inside the atmosphere and the gas inside the container has a much higher pressure, therefore if you remove the container the gas spreads out, this is nothing unexpected. The Atmosphere has a strong pressure gradient, if you increase your altitude you will get to a point where the pressure is so weak it becomes 0, and the vacuum of space begins. Pretty straightforward and no laws are violated, unlike many flerfs claim. You want my best proof? Take out any flat map and draw a line between Sydney and Johannesburg, then draw another line between Dubai and LA. Good, now take notice of the fact that the first flight takes 14 hours and the second takes 16. Wopsie.
3
-
@GrahamA63 The map I am using is Gleason's, which is by the way a projection of the globe, as stated in his patent. But any flatearth map used is fine, the scenario makes no sense anyway. Air currents don't matter, on the flat map the distance between Sydney and JNB is more than 23400km, impossible to cover in 14 hours no matter the strength of the wind, let alone in 11,5 which is the duration of the return flight. You need a supersonic airplane. On the globe however, where things get closer together the further south you go, the distance shrinks to 11030km, which makes the flight possible.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@budimansinaga7706 No, they don't. If you did the math, a 3000 miles high sun would never go below a certain angle, yet we all see it reach the Horizon and disappear bottom up. You simply cannot dispute this. From my location, when the sun is the farthest away, at midnight in the winter solstice, it would be at 18.9 degrees with the horizontal, which is way higher that the tallest obstacle I would have in the way. Face it, basic math destroys flat earth, and you don't know how perspective really works. And no, you don't feel a constant speed, you can test this easily by yourself. Do you feel constantly pushed against the seat of an airplane going 500mph? NO, you don't, because you only feel accelerations, but you deliberately dismiss this evidence because, once again, it destroys your model.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ZighyBlue So to you the Sun sets because it is too far for us to see? Yet we all see it, with our naked eye, reach the horizon, without changing size and disappear from the bottom up? Again, it would not happen on a FE, do the damn math. It's a right triangle, the horizontal side is your distance from the Sun and the vertical size is fixed at 3000 miles. The angle between the hypothenuse and the horizontal is the position the sun occupies in your field of view. As you can see it can't be 0. When the angle is 90 degrees the Sun is right above your head, when the angle is 0 it is at your eye level, at sunset, but having a fixed vertical distance of 3000 miles and a variable horizontal distance, that angle can never be 0. The Earth simply can't be flat, the Sun would not set. End of story.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robegatt No honey, according to the model the sun circles around the tropics, so, since I am at 45N, the farthest away it will ever be it's at midnight, on the 23.5S latitude. This is a horizontal distance of 10690 miles. Since it is 3000 miles high, I get an angle of 15.3 degrees. Not enough to make it disappear into the horizon. The highest obstacle in the way? The Alps, at only 0,86 degrees in my field of view. Again, not high enough to make it disappear. Oh, it's too far to see? Are you serious? The sun is a ball of plasma that is the primary source of heat and you claim I could not see the light because it is too far away? Come on man, come on...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robegatt LMAO look at how easily you get triggered, like a little bitch.
- "I just say what makes sense to me". Who the fuck are you? You did not come up with a single demonstration for what you are assuming, just empty statements. You claim the Earth is flat so you are a flat earther, period.
- So since an ant is smaller the light doesn't reach it? Are you even serious? The smaller you get the harder it is for you to see a light? Where did you get this from? I told you, you can see the light source even if it does not directly illuminate you. If you can see the lightbulb from far away in the dark room, so can the ant. If you have anything to say against it, I suggest you brought PROOF this time, not your personal opinion and incredulity.
- No, I did not skip a single question, I gave an answer to everything you said. I even provided a link to the video that clearly explains how gyroscopes work and there are many on YT that show how they change orientation through time.
- You can see Venus at night, it makes sense, but you cannot ALWAYS see Venus at night, which also makes sense on a Globe. Again, you are showing personal incredulity, not providing solid evidence of the Earth not being a Globe.
- At sunset you only see the clouds illuminated from above? Did you seriously just say that? Did you ever get out of the house!? You can literally search "sunset clouds" on Google to see with your own eyes how stupid your sentence is.
- The half illuminated moon would make perfect sense if you cared to take into consideration the Heliocentric model for a second and tried to think in three dimensions for a change.
2
-
2
-
@UCKtfyWM8419ymByiuxdNItQ And again, let me tell you why that range is simply ridiculous. Exactly half of the world is day and exactly half is night, ok? You simply cannot dispute this (which is already impossible to obtain with a local sun because a local light cannot illuminate half a disk). Good, this means the area that the sun illuminates has to have a radius of something close to 10000km, the distance from the Equator to the North pole. Yes it actually is slightly smaller to account for the movement it makes between the tropics but it does not matter. If those light rays have to reach a distance of 10000km, they have to be pretty powerful. The strength of an electromagnetic radiation (yes, light too) decreases with the square of the distance and again, if you have different formulas, bring them out now. This means that the radiation that leaves the sun and reaches the ground from a distance of 4 to 6 km is going to be almost 100 MILLION times stronger than the one people experience at the edges of the area that is illuminated. It would kill them instantly.
And yeah, again, you cannot be this desperate to think that the Sun is below the typical cruising altitude of an airplane.
If your next move is to tell me once again that YOU HAVE OBSERVATIONS AND PICTURES it shows you cannot debate properly.
Besides, if the Sun was really that low I could not even see it above my head, but I see it right now, at 45N latitude, so no, it simply cannot be that low. Feel like I am talking to my 5 year old son exploring the world for the first time...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robegatt In the northern summertime, when the sun is circling around the 23.5 N tropic, I (and many other people I should say) witness the Sun setting over the Thyrrenian sea, and it sets pretty close to the Islands offshore, which allows me to say that it's path remains not too far from perpendicular to the wester Italian shoreline. Now, since the FE model states the sun is orbiting above the surface, it is indisputable to claim that the Sun would travel an angular distance of 15 degrees per hour. Now, the average latitude of the coastline is 14E, which means that at local noon at 1200 the sun is approximately at 23,5N, 14E. Now, sunset at that time of the year is at around 2000 local time, which means that the Sun has covered a distance of 120 degrees of longitude (8 hours x 15 degrees/hour). This would put the Sun at his new position, at 23.5N, 106W, which is close to the west coast of the US. It would simply be impossible to watch it set in said location, if it was that far to the right of the observer, ona flat Earth. Is this clear enough?
2
-
@robegatt "Since nobody ever measured the distance from the North Pole to NZ we can assume this". Says who exactly?
No, the flight in the opposite direction does not circumnavigate the world in the same direction, it flies in the opposite direction and takes a bit more because of the jet-streams. I don't think you fully understood what Degrasse was saying, there is no longitude compression whatsoever.
And going back to the sun argument, you were contradicting yourself with your last hypothesis, as when you tried to explain sunset with foreshortening and the fact that it gets too far for us to see it, it is already too far above Mexico according to your calculations, but we clearly see it until it disappears in a matter of minutes, this goes against light attenuation laws. And now that I checked again, the sun sets even later, which means the sun is even farther an more northwards according to FE.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisbarber5155 Oh you have? How cute. Hate to break it to you but talking about something for a long time does not make it true, I mean, people have been talking about FE since 1997 and it still failed to prove itself to be even remotely considerable, apart for, you know, people like you who are so far behind the rest of humanity as per educational level that it is the only thing they are able to comprehend and that can give them even the slightest amount of self-satisfaction. And another thing, being a sheep does not necessarily mean being part of the majority of people, it means doing something without thinking or repeating verbatum what someone tells you without applying a shred of critical thinking or trying to understand what they are saying and that is EXACTLY what YOU are doing because guess what, I have seen that document you are referring to: it is called "Linear Aircraft Model" and it is NOT used for flight training, I know because I am about to finish mine. You only heard some conmen online saying that they found the words "flat non-rotating Earth" within those pages and you suddenly felt so full of yourself that you went around the web telling people what you just "learned" without knowing the first thing about it. NASA has nothing to do with civil aviation, that document is useless to pilots, even the military. Oh and by the way, the fact that they had to specify that, means that the Earth is NOT flat nor stationary, otherwise why bother specifying it? None of my training manuals like General Navigation, Radio Navigation, Principles of Flight, etc ever mentioned the fact that they were based on a spinning Oblate spheroid Earth because it would have been a useless, obvious information. Happy sleeping back there.
2
-
@kareldegreef3945 Thanks but I already know the truth even without having flown over Antarctica. I flew as a pax from Sydney to Johannesburg in 2018, on any FE map that distance is more than 23300 km, which is way beyond the reach of any airliner in service today and we covered it in 14 hours, quite impossible. Also the flight paths I followed flying at different latitudes and the behavior of my instruments already prove I am flying on a globe so whatever you know comes from Confirmation Bias, a tendency to only look for those clues that confirm your hypothesis, which is not scientific at all. Your conmen are pathetic people who either know nothing or exploit your ignorance to gain following and in some cases money, like that pathetic FE app made by that charlatan named Weiss. So no, it does not take time, it takes ignorance and wanting to get to the conclusion you want, fearing the complexity of the world we live in and choosing the simplest paths. I really hope I'll only be able to "handle that" when my dementia will start to kick in in 50 years or so, enjoy yours.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Mandela Effect? A glitch in reality? You can't be serious. No, the position of the engines helps wing flutter suppression, look up what that is. There is no magic involved here, just engineering. Old engines had a different shape and therefore they needed to be mounted in a different position below the wing, it's not that hard to embrace reality. Jet fuel is a hoax? Said who, exactly? They? Who is this "they"? Again, I refuse to believe you are serious. You are saying the exact opposite: they use compressed air to START the engine, they need FUEL to keep it running, get your facts straight. Of course they don't hold the same amount of fuel it would fit in an Olympic pool it must have been an exaggeration, did you even bother to check the numbers? That pool holds 2.5 MILLION liters, no airplane holds that much fuel. The F-16 example? So, since airliners hold their fuel in the wings, then all airplanes must too, right? Wrong, most military, supersonic airplanes hold their fuel in the fuselage, right because their wings are too thin to hold any in. Stop listening to conspiracy theories and learn how to learn.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@99.9percent9 1. No, once part of the hull is gone no amount of zoom brings it back, plenty of video evidence.
2. No, 8 inches x mile squared is a parabolic equation that your charlatans came up with, you cannot use it on a sphere. Again, you people think you know what you are talking about but cannot even tell a parabolic equation from a spherical one. Hilarious.
3. The flight from Doha to LAX works perfectly on the globe. Want to know which flights don't? QF63/64 and LA800/801.
4. Atmospheric lensing does not mean the atmosphere works as a magnifying glass, it does not. It bends light like a lens, it magnifies nothing. The idea that water droplets in the air can create a massive magnifying lens is ridiculous, they only reduce visibility in the form of fog or mist.
5. Horizon proves the Globe, it would not exist on a FE
6. You don't know how perspective works. Using random, generic concepts is not evidence of anything.
Your model is so easy to debunk. You are the enslaved one, not everyone else. Dubay is a charlatan and a liar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robegatt Wrong. You even don't know how geographical coordinates work. According to the FE model the Sun Changes orbit from 23.5N to 23.5S depending on the season, which means it will NEVER orbit above the 45 degree latitude. Yeah, I did not study deep enough, says this smart guy. The flat distance? So on the FE the distances are different? And nobody noticed? Again, come on man, come on...
Let's go back to my example. I was talking about the winter's solstice, when the midnight Sun is the farthest away from me it will ever be throughout the year, it is on the other side of the "Map", on the 23.5S latitude. This means it is at 45 (to the pole) + 90 (to the equator) + 23.5S. Every degree is 60 NM in distance, this equals a 10690 statute miles horizontal distance. Again, I would still see the sun if it was local and at 3000 miles from the surface since it forms a 15.3 degree angle in my field of view.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robegatt OK let's see If I can answer to everything you claimed in one go.
- Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfF00JYmGhc&t=648s
Go at 48:20 and watch the mighty Globebusters debunk themselves.
- The Sun is smaller in the FE model: I know that, and I know how you say it acts as a spotlight (which is not able to light exactly half of a disk, which it should since exactly half of the world is day and half is night). If the rays do not reach my part of the surface it does not mean I cannot see the Sun at the position I told you about. It is so bright that I would see it in the distance even if it is not illuminating my area. Besides, since you see the stars, how the fuck do you have the guts to tell me that the sun is too far to see since it is considerably closer and brighter? Your hypothesis is already vacillating.
- Exposure does not "make objects appear bigger or smaller", that is a really superficial rebuttal. It makes very bright objects appear bigger because of the halo that surrounds them. Cameras do not have the same sensitivity as the human eye, if the sun and the glare around it are beyond this sensitivity limit, a bigger, equally bright halo will surround it making it look bigger, which is something that gradually fades away during sunset when the lighting gets dimmer. Go on, debate this, show me the math that exactly tells you how far away the Sun must be for you not to be able to see it anymore.
- "The drift in mems are because of the technology more expensive mems have less drift.." I never said gyroscopic instruments use mems gyros, they DON'T, they use mechanical gyros. Again, you are cherry-picking the meaning of words.
- I was not talking about a regular compass, I was talking about the gyrocompass, totally different instrument that does not use magnetism. Again, you are way too superficial when addressing a topic that goes well beyond your comprehension.
- A scientific article about a gyroscope? Jesus, just google it, there should be plenty if the video already is not satisfying to you.
1
-
@robegatt - Almost 2 hours long: I did not need you to watch the whole thing, i told you exactly which part to look at. That is not a debunking video... That man talking is Bob Knodel, the leader of the Globebusters, along with Mark Sargent and others. It's the opposite of a debunking video so no, those are not actors. No, I did not come to the conclusion that the Earth is not flat because of this video, you are extrapolating stuff, you are imagining things, but then again, not a single on of you has not done that so no surprises here. If you are still not convinced about the working principles of a gyroscope then here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHGKIzCcVa0
- Ok, lets' discuss the example you made with the lightbulb and see how it contradicts what you were saying earlier, about the Sun not being visible because it is just too far away. Yes, of course the rays do not reach the whole floor but... wait, you still see the light in the room from the other side, even if it is not lighting you directly... So what I said stands, you would still see the Sun at that position even if its rays are not reaching the area around me.
- Exposure: I said the exact opposite in fact, the Sun looks bigger when it is brighter. There is even a flat Earth channel called Phuket Word that proved the Sun not changing size, which is kind of hilarious.
1
-
@robegatt Compass: Oh yes, trust wikipedia to find out how navigation works. I told you, I hold a Commercial Pilot's License, I know what I am talking about. And again, you don't know what you are talking about here, navigation can work in many ways, if you have a sophisticated airliner you don't use a gyrocompass, you use other apparati like the IRS. I said another thing, which was that the heading adjustments needed to follow great circles are different from latitude to latitude and work in the OPPOSITE direction below the Equator. If the Earth was flat the convergence of the Meridians would be the same everywhere, which means those adjustments would not vary anywhere on Earth, but they do so no, the Earth is not flat. You are still the superficial one.
Gyros: Yes I told you you made a BAD EXAMPLE as those gyroscopes work very differently, the MECHANIC gyros fitted in those instruments WORK DIFFERENTLY, the drift is due to the physical properties of the gyro, no technology involved there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robegatt - "Mine are observations that fit more with the FE model". Ok, so either your observations are off or you struggle to accept the fact that your eyes are not a perfect tool for doing measurements, even if you aid them with telescopes or binocular lenses, apparently. And, again, "my observations" are not proof of anything unless it's what everyone else sees.
- Oh, sorry, my bad, "a man the size of an ant", this surely changes everything, right!? No, it does not, your example is still dumb as fuck, and here is why: if you see a light in the street, really far away, does that mean that light is illuminating you? NO, IT IS NOT, it only illuminates a small portion of the road underneath it but you still see the light source, even if it is really far away, because it is a light in the dark. The same way you see the strobe lights of an airplane far above your head, it DOES NOT ILLUMINATE YOUR FACE but you still see it. What is your next excuse? That "the Sun is farther away than the airplane and the street light?" If you can see the Sun above you at 3000 miles of altitude, you can still see it at the farthest distance it will ever be from you on your FE model (11400 miles in my case) according to the math that describes the way light propagates as the source recedes away. Do you not agree? Do you have a new better formula than the inverse square law? Bring it out!
- Again you are very superficial here, because you can only see Venus close to Sunrise or Sunset, since in that time you are perpendicular to the direction of the orbit and are able to glance briefly at the planets in the inner orbits. In Winter this is even easier as the Sun sets much earlier and rises much later than any other time of the year.
- "Sometimes I see this, there fore the Earth is flat". Really convincing, you said it yourself sometimes the light hits the lower side of the clouds, so why do you dismiss this evidence? Besides, not a really good observation either, what time was it when you saw the sun only illuminate the upper side of the clouds? How high were those clouds? How high were you when you took those pictures? You are deliberately ignoring all of these variables that are extremely important. But that is how you people always do your experiments. You only humor those who fit your cause. Sometimes the Sun could light the upper side of the clouds on the Globe if the circumstances permit it, but it could NEVER illuminate the lower part on the FE.
- The moon is above YOU, and you can't even be sure of it's exact position in space with your bare eyes. The Sun is much bigger than the Earth and just like you don't see the shadow of a really high flying airplane that goes in front of the sun, the light coming from the Sun can and does reach the Moon. And now that we are at it, how exactly do you explain eclipses on a FE? According to you model they are always 180 degrees apart. And what about gravity? I guess it is just a theory huh?
1
-
@robegatt - And I am asking you to show me how it is possible to you that something as bright as the Sun can already be out of view at 11400 miles distance when it is burning bright at 3000. It is not at 3000 miles on the FE? Is it farther? Well that would only make sunsets more impossible. Foreshortening only applies to objects, not light sources, it simply means "something looks smaller when it is far away", but if light is being emitted by that object, then it is a totally different story, as you can still see the light even if the object is too small for your eyes to see, just like ships do with lighthouses. And again, the same goes with strobe lights, you can't see the tip of the wing, but you still see the light. I really don't know how much clearer than this I could get.
- "You seem to say you can see an airplane at whatever distance LOL". Pretty funny huh? No, you keep misunderstanding basic English. Of course there is a point beyond which the light will no longer be visible, no one is arguing that... But yeah, I am the one bending sentences to convenience. And look how you spelled "insecure and afraid" in bold, as if you were trying to scare me. No, my goal is only to see how far human ignorance and denial can push itself to.
- Yes well, 2 hours means 30 degrees of rotation, you can still see the inner orbits. And again, too superficial. What time of the year was? What latitude where you standing at? What exact direction were you eyes looking at? Too vague, still too vague. "I have witnessed something" is not enough to make it proof. I always witness the summer Sun descend and set behind the horizon over the Tyrrhenian sea, without changing it's size one bit, but I don't use it as evidence because I can't demonstrate it here. I see it disappear bottom first, without any shrinking, you can easily look at it because it is not bright at all.
- I can assure you that every single animation of the FE model I saw pictured the Sun and the Moon at the same opposite distance, if those are wrong then you go tell them.
- Alright listen, look for that Moon answer from somebody else, I am not an astronomer, I am a pilot, you don't ask for medications on youtube, you go to a doctor. Unless you think every doctor in the world is a paid shill that is just going to lie to you.
- You ditched the whole clouds at Sunset argument. Don't you have anything else to say about what I said? The gyro argument too, I assume you are admitting defeat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robegatt If this is the case, what I said before stands: it would never set on a Flat Earth because it will always be at an angle with the horizontal. Besides, 6000km is even higher than the 3000 miles I used for my calculations, so this makes sunsets even more impossible, this time the angle I get would be of almost 19 degrees. The pictures of the clouds are not proof of what you said because you cannot tell where the Sun was or what the local time was when those were taken, you simply cannot be this superficial about it. No cloud can be as high as 6000 km so the Sun would not illuminate them from the lower part alone, you just debunked yourself. When the sky is covered the lower part of the cloud is not illuminated like in those pictures so the comparison is invalid. Foreshortening only applies to objects that do not emit light, you would still see the Sun with those numbers, for all the reasons I talked about earlier. I really don't know what else I can say at this point.
And this time it is also more impossible for you to say that I don't see the Sun at night because it is too far away: If it is so bright at noon, where its distance from me on a FE would be of 6458 km, I would still see it when it's the farthest away, at 18520km, light just does not dissipate that quickly. Parallax does not apply to that video, it is a completely different phenomena, that I have described earlier.
1
-
@robegatt Holy shit, I never thought a grown man could be so stubborn.
- No, I am not saying that if the lamposts get smaller the lights remain at the same level, that is not what I said and you are using a straw man argument. I said even when the lampost is too far for your eye to see, if it emits light you can still see the light, without seeing the lampost. Of course once the light is way too far you cannot see ti anymore but you CAN NOT compare a goddamn lampost light to the Sun, this is ridiculous because the intensity of the light changes everything and you know it, you are dismissing it deliberately. I told you exactly why I would still see the Sun at Night with calculus and numbers, you are making assumptions based on your own logic. Jesus the light from a streetlight is not very bright and it only illuminates a radius of like 10m of the tarmac, but you still see the light even at 100m distance! That is 10 times the radius of the area it illuminates, and maybe even more. How the fuck are you going to tell me that if I see the Sun at 6000km, so bright that it creates daylight for thousands of km, it is already gone at a little more than 3 times that distance! That is mental!
- You are ditching again the subject you cannot dispute, in every single sunset video you see the sun reach the horizon, I told you that with those distances in mind it would never reach below 19 degrees. If you disagree, show me NEW MATH, not assumptions.
- Again with this foreshortening, you are SUPERFICIAL, of course things appear to get lower if they are higher and then recede away, but you have to get the numbers right, everything changes if you change the distances, you simply cannot disagree with this. No one has ever been able to see the Sun at night with binocular lenses, which you should be able to do on your FE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robegatt Yes, I am sure it is just an excuse like you said, I am sure you read those documents and know exactly their purpose. Besides, if it says "for these calculations we are going to assume a flat non-rotating Earth" it means that to them, it is NOT. It is logic 101. And you are showing personal incredulity and using your own logic, it is not enough to disprove anything. "Well, ThiS SounDs lIke an ExCuse to MeeEEh!!!". Oooh, ok then , we'll tell the engineers at nasa that some guy on the internet, which claims to be able to measure the distance of the sun with a stick and a shadow, as if we were in the 12th century, says their papers make no sense. Thank you, no PhD R.G. we really need more people like you.
1
-
@robegatt You are still asking useless questions based on YOUR superficial logic. You are still, way too superficial, and look for excuses when addressing topics that go well beyond your comprehensive capabilities. Those documents are very, very old, computers were not as sophisticated as they are today, apparently those approximations allowed for precise calculations, your logic is nothing. This being said, I love being a psychopath, according to someone like you. In you ideal world, scientists should not be allowed to use expensive and precise equipment to make their measurements because you cannot afford to reproduce them, so they should stick with simple experiments so that people can replicate them. This is idiotic and you are simply paranoid. Independent research is only useful if done with the right equipment and the right educational background, if you can't afford either of those things, it's your fucking problem. If people had the same way of thinking as flat earther's, we would still be living under rocks. Yes, you are a no PhD ignorant person, and are simply crying when someone points it out because you know it is fucking real. You have a shitty job and a boring life and a paranoid mind, this is why you are doing this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robegatt Modern airplanes use a combination of sophisticated on board navigation systems like the IRS/INS and GPS and make use of ground-based radio aids for more precision while flying. Now, two things you have to understand: planes never fly following a constant heading but they follow Great Circle routes, which involve a constant heading change but the route is shorter. If the Earth was flat the convergence of the meridians would be the same everywhere, but it is not, therefore the change in heading needed to follow the GC changes with respect of the SINE of the latitude. And the adjustments are on the opposite direction below the Equator, again something only possible on a globe. If that was not the case pilots would have noticed it because yes, while they fly using the A/P the magnetic compass would still show a change in heading that does not match reality. This of course only happens if you are not flying on the Equator of along meridians as those are already GCs. Like I said, on the Equator, the airplane would have to constantly turn in order to follow East or West heading, but it is the only place where such corrections are not needed. And again, flight durations in the Southern Hemisphere alone disprove the FE. Yes, they are very hard to find at the moment because we are still in the middle of the pandemic and the countries in the Southern Hemisphere are isolated as they have the biggest number of infected people.
Here is however a flight report made 3 years ago that might interest you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRFPnXuMmRI&ab_channel=SimplyAviation
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robegatt Still no answer aboou the flight time huh? That's a shame.
Don't worry, here is something else to tickle your brain: look up any picture you want about a sunset over the thyrrenian sea like Punta Ala for example, I have been there and took pictures, just like you love to do. You can clearly see, by using the islands as a reference, that the Sun is pretty close to being at 90 degrees with the coast at around 8 o clock in the summer. Now, according to the FE model, at 8 o'clock LMT in the summer, the orbiting sun should be 120 degrees in longitude to the West, don't you think? 15 degrees per hour, pretty simple. That means the sun would be close to the West coast of the US. Way too far on the right according to the FE model. Care to explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robegatt Ok... No, we really have to go over some things here:
1. You showed a map of the winds around Antarctica (on a map of the Globe, weirdly enough) but here is the fact: winds change constantly. Yes, there are somewhat permanent jetstreams but their speed is not constant throughout time, you cannot snap a picture of the wind circulation of one day and say "done!", it just is not enough. You also made a very, very serious error in here. You started from a random 900km/h airplane speed, added an arbitrary 300km/h wind and got a GS of 1200km/h which could happen, sure, but very rarely. Then your (huge) mistake was taking that speed and multiply it by 12 hours. That is not how we do things in the real world, you cannot pick the top speed and divide the distance by that to get the duration of the flight, the flight starts with the airplane on the taxiway, then it needs time to move, get to the runway, take off, accelerate and reach cruising speed and altitude. You got 14000km (which is also wrong) but the actual Great circle distance between AUK and STG is 9678 km. As you can see, if we divide that by 12.5 hours we get an AVERAGE ground speed of 774,24 km/h. Much more realistic. The flight back takes approximately 14 hours: 691 km/h of average ground speed, already a much more realistic speed difference.
2. Neil DeGrasse talks about the not perfectly spherical shape of the Earth, I really don't want to explain this in detail, you can easily look this up but I will tell you this: you must have misunderstood what he said, because stuff does not shrink only in the southern hemisphere, the actual distance of one degree of latitude varies by the same amount BOTH in the Northerns and in the Southern hemisphere. Besides, that difference is extremely small, not worth discussing for the calculations we are making right now, as the difference in the radii of the Earth is only 22km.
3. Yes, I did not have any map with me, Italy has an inclination with respect to the local meridian and those sunsets were taken by definitely not looking at 90 degrees with the coast, but still, with the calculations I showed before, that I have now gotten ore precise using the calculations on a Polar Stereographic Chart (which is what FE is based on) and those cameras would have been pointing at a heading of 327 degrees, definitely not towards the Tyrrhenian sea, It is almost a northerly orientation that would have allowed them to see the Alps with a powerful enough zoom.
4. Again with this "The Sun's light can no longer reach your retina" thing. I told you, through a very, very practical example that if you see a town, really far away at night, its lights are not illuminating you but you still see them at a distance much greater than they are from the ground. So, since the slant distance of the Sun , at least at my location, only varies between 6458km and almost 19000km, it is simply not possible for me not to see it at night, even if it is not illuminating my area directly. And, again, According to the calculations that I showed you earlier and that you did not prove to be wrong yet, the Sun would never be lower than 19 degrees, but I, and everyone else in the World, see it going at the same height of the horizon, it is simply impossible because, just like you defined it an asymptotic (this is how you spell it btw) line, it can be reached if an object is infinitely far from you. An asymptote is by definition something you can never reach, but the Sun does, all the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robegatt Good, Let us go over every single thing that you pointed out.
1. AIRPLANE SPEED: “The speed of airplanes like those is around 900 km/h regardless of the sound speed”. I bet you simply googled B787 speed and stuck to that result because you obviously know absolutely nothing about aerodynamics, principles of flight, meteorology and so on. If you really want to get to my level, I suggest you purchase EASA ATPL books and study those, your research does not cut it, not by a fucking long shot. Yes, I know the ground speed depends on the winds, aha, thank you so much, very useful al always, and so does Mach and sound speed, darling. Mach 0.79 in ABSENCE of wind at SEA LEVEL in ISA conditions (you know what those are, right? I mean, after ALL the research you did…) is 968km/h, but take your airplane at 36000ft, with -57 °C and you get another result, 838km/h. You know the formula, right? So we are in the clear with these result. Stop fucking lecturing me about airplanes, if you have doubts I’ll clear them for you, your superficial research brought nothing. A BA 747 once reached London from CHG in less than 5 hours because of an exceptionally strong jet-stream that gave it a top Ground Speed of 1258 km/h. I wonder why it did not break the sound barrier. Oh no wait, I do not wonder because I know what I am talking about. And it never happened again ever since, you cannot use exceptions to make your calculations not your cause.
Moreover, again with your fallacy with calculations, you CANNOT take the top speed an multiply it for the flight time ti measure the distance, YOU FAIL to take into account the time taken (I can’t believe I have to say this one again, I was pretty clear) for the initial taxi, the take off, the climb, the descent, the landing, the taxi out to the gate. ALL OF THOSE are considered to be within the flight duration. The flight DOES NOT start with the airplane going at full speed and it does not end with the airplane going from top speed to rest in 1 second. There is a report of the flight back, at one point it shows a ground speed of 483 mph, so… yeah…
2. “22km is the radii difference and has nothing to do with the pear shape”. Yes, it does, it is literally what makes the actual distances differ from 60 NM per degree of latitude. I am not a geologist, there might even me some irregularities in the Southern Hemisphere but you just cannot cut 4000km in your calculations to make your final result fit your cause, if there is a difference it is at best 5/6km, or if it is more, it cannot be enough to make your calculations make sense. The link you gave me explains nothing of what DeGrasse was saying, and whatever he said, is surely oversimplified for the audience that knows nothing about the topic.
Again, I am a bit confused with your calculations… You assumed an isosceles triangle for your calculations but that is wrong, the distances of the two cities from the north pole are DIFFERENT, not very much but if we want to be precise here, it matters. The distances are 14096 km for Auckland and 13 718km for Santiago. If you cut that to 9000 km you are simply ridiculous, you are making shit up to fit your cause. 9000km from the North Pole DOES NOT EVEN REACH THE EQUATOR, so you failed, and miserably I should say. With our new more accurate distances and an angle of 115 degrees, we get a third side length of 23458km. Well beyond the range of every airplane that has ever flown.
And I am going to say this once more: yes, the top speed of those winds can reach 300km/h however, you cannot just assume that it happens for 12 hours in a row, that is NOT what happens in the real world, the speeds change regularly.
Here: https://ibb.co/Wp2msm9
3. The heading depends on where you are in respect to the island where the sun sets”. No, it does NOT. If you look for sunset pictures taken anywhere along the west coast of Italy, you would see they ALL look to the West, they don’t change heading to follow the local Sun, you can see that Punta Ala sunsets have the Sun close to Elba, Those snapped at Napoli have the Sun close to Ischia, the heading does NOT change. I uploaded this picture that shows where you would have to point your camera at if you wanted to take a picture of the setting sun, in Summer, from Napoli, like plenty of pictures show. As you can see, you would have to point it almost to the North, following the coast, you simply cannot dispute this.
In the following image the Sun is where it should be at our 20:00 LMT, which is even earlier than summer sunset. Every line on the map is 15° so it was easy to place.
https://ibb.co/BtjrJ7z
4. “lol… are you telling me that you can see the lights of a city from whatever distance” NO, AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THIS. Stop twisting my words to your pleasing. I am saying that you can clearly see lights in the distance, well beyond the point where they directly illuminate you like the local Sun is supposed to do. If you are below a street light, it directly illuminates you, if you are within the cone of light that it casts it directly illuminates you, but if you walk outside that cone it will no longer illuminate you but YOU STILL SEE THAT LIGHT. From very, very far away, even from a distance that is 20 times greater than the height of that lamp. Maybe even more than that. That lamp is MUCH DIMMER than the Sun. Now, since your new distance is 6000km vertically, I would have a minimum slant distance of 6458 and a maximum slant distance of 18606km. That is not even THREE times as far, the distance is definitely not enough for its light not to reach my eyes. AND, it never goes below 19 degrees. Do you have anything to say against this? Show me your calculations then.
But wait, since we are both in Italy… Are you going to tell me that even in Summer you don’t see the sun to be almost above your head? Because I do… According to your model it should never be at more than 68 degrees above our heads. Come on man, come on…
5. “The Sun never reaches the ground the same way the hallway blah blah blah…”. You simply CAN NOT compare the two. Let us assume that the ceiling of that hallway is 1.5m higher than your eye level it is pretty close to reality, it only takes like 30m for it to reach an angular size of 2.86 degrees, you CAN NOT ignore the distances when you make such examples. Like I showed you before. The Sun would NEVER go below a certain angle, because in order to do that, it would have to go FARTHER than your “model” states, much farther, in fact for it to reach the same angular distance of your 30m hallway, it would need to go 120100km away from you. Simple trigonometry. 19 degrees is the height of that hallway 4.35 meters in front of you. Once more the FE Sun has proven to be impossible.
5. “My numbers are approximations, i don’t know the exact longitude, I don’t know the exact speed of the airplane… but I know the numbers I used are good”. This, makes no sense. If you don’t know any of those things you cannot know if your numbers are good, that right there, is an excuse, nothing more.
6. “The Map was not made up, was from some kind of weather report (I love this already)”. Do not try and interpret a wind chart once more. I did not say you made that map up. Eastbound winds and westbound winds are not too far away, maybe 1 hr flight huh? Do you think I can take you seriously after this? Maybe it looks that way to you but in a polar Stereograpihc projection like that one, the distances are much greater than they seem. “The airplane would have to go to a different latitude to use the westbound winds”. No, they don’t. They do not change their route to look for the most favorable wind. And don’t try to argue this.
Off you go.
1
-
@robegatt 1. What you said makes no sense at all. The airplane only accounts for the winds only at take off and landing? Pure bullshit. Airplanes ALWAYS account for the winds, even during cruise, if you have a wind from the right you have to account for it otherwise you are going to fly off course. What you said is truly nonsense, and again, based only on your own uneducated (on the topic) logic. The sound moves through a medium, if the medium moves, the relative speed of sound in that medium with respect to the ground changes. You are using meaningless sentences. “There is no additional relative wind…” this means nothing. Where exactly did you hear me say there is another relative wind? And, again, your groundspeed of 1200km/h is something that has been recorded ONCE. Jesus look for other trip reports, they ALL show the screens where they show GS and it is NEVER that high. You cannot use that exception to make your calculations, you simply can’t, that flight took 12.5 hours every single time, if the winds were stronger or weaker than predicted, there would be a slight difference but that is it. And again, you dismissing the tame taken on the ground simply because the flight is so long shows how superficial you are. How desperate you are when trying to handle a topic that you did not study in depth. Oh, we did not take the flight so we cannot know for sure, you say. Look for other trip reports of flight in the S hemisphere, I found more than just that one you know, all with very similar durations, all that can be easily and immediately explained with the globe, without looking for the needle in the haystack to make your calculations fit reality.
2. You are cherry picking the interview. I watched it and of course, he used an exaggeration to give us, uneducated people a clear image if what he wanted to talk about but CLEARLY the earth is NOT shaped like a pear. Those differences exist apparently, but you keep on cutting the distances at your pleasing only so that they can fit your calculations, that is the most pseudoscientific approach I have ever seen. People did measure it, you say that nobody did because of what reason exactly? Unfunded belief, that is what it is. People live in the Southern hemisphere, if there were those discrepancies like you described them, someone would have noticed.
“If we use 18000km it is a 13 hour flight”. Yeah, 1384 km/h of average speed throughout the flight, makes a whole lot of sense.
“Btw the winds are always there as they are streams” Again, thank you for a lecture on a topic that I covered using an 867 pages book. I fucking know what jet streams are, I said their speed is NOT constant, I did not say they disappear like a sea breeze, you are deliberately misreading me, or you lack comprehension abilities. And I said you cannot assume those winds blow constantly at their top speed, for 13 hours in a row, it is NOT something that happens and, once again, you cannot base your calculations on exceptions. Tell me if I have to say this once more because at this point, you are not even reading.
Ok with that “in the flat plane the distances are less” you are again making shit up, you are basically saying that in the flat model the distances are different from reality. And again you treat the S hemisphere as if no-one had ever gone there, you are delusional. I showed you again, in order to get a reasonable flight time, you would have to cut the distance down to a point that is ABOVE the Equator. So, since according to you people DID measure the actual distances in the Northern hemisphere, you have to agree that there is a distance of 10000km from the North pole, and to make your calculations match reality, we would have to bring NZ and Santiago above the Equator, your arguments are preposterous. I did not mix the model, I used real distances on the FE map, if those don’t match well, the matter is settled.
3. Oh my god. Yes, I know the Sun sets in different places throughout the year, that happens in the Globe model as well, but I can’t help but notice something here… you completely ignored the picture I linked. Why? I showed exactly why none of those pictures make sense in summer, you said nothing about it, why? Did you see the Sun set over the Alps like your model suggests? I think we really have a problem here...
I know the Sun sets in different spots, but the difference is simply not as big as the FE model depicts it, and my picture shows it, easily. Go on man, take a look and tell me exactly what is wrong with it, if you dare.
4. Wrong again. You are treating vision as if there is a distance beyond which you simply don’t see anything and this is DEAD WRONG. All of this depends on the size of the object you are observing and if we are talking about light sources, the intensity of the light. You know I am right, you are dismissing the numbers and are again using unfunded beliefs. And you are making a paradox here, you are basically saying “since the sun is way way way brighter than the streetlight, you cannot see it when you are in the dark” it is the opposite of what happens in reality. The brighter the light, the farther you can see it while not being illuminated, You can see the sun at 6548 km, you can see it a less than three times that distance. If that streetlight was 5m tall, according to you at 15m distance I could not see it already, not really believable don’t you think? The distance ratio is the same, and we are using a light that is much less bright than the Sun. One more unfunded belief against this and I am really done.
5. “you cannot measure distances on a curved surface and angles”. Why? Explain exactly why you cannot do it, since it is done every single day. You did not give a satisfying rebuttal, at all. No, they should not waste money on people like you, because your incredulity is worth less than nothing to them and to everyone else.
Well, if I cannot measure the distances on FE using real life data, I guess your model is not that strong huh? Or maybe I should throw in numbers at random like you do (and then even get those numbers wrong) so that they fit my cause. Sounds very scientific.
6. I told you, airplanes do NOT change route to chase the most favorable winds, you are deliberately not understanding what I say.
7. What? Flights disappearing into nothingness? I see a flight from Perth to Auckland, I see another one from Johannesburg to Singapore (that is another flight that might interest you since it is south of the Equator) no flight has disappeared into nothingness. If you are referring to the fact that in this moment there is no direct flight from AUK to STG i told you, it is due to the pandemic, LAN has suffered huge losses and countries in South America have the highest amount of covid cases per day, so it is clear that if that flight is not deemed as profitable for the airline, they won’t simply schedule it until the demand goes back up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manyjacob5761 You have a very interesting concept of scientific fact. First of all, a theory in science is NOT a hypothesis, as a matter of fact, a theory is even stronger than a law. The term theory in science has a very different meaning than in common language, so you are already misusing it. Gravity has been proven in 2015, it has been detected and measured, but unfortunately not with the tools you have in your shed, so sorry if you cannot repeat the experiment or understand the math behind it. Yes, technically it is not a force, but it can be considered and measured as one. If you cannot grasp this concept, it is not my problem. If you are about to say that experiment was a hoax, it is not my problem.
The level instrument works with gravity and since the gravity vector always points towards the center of the Earth, it will show level everywhere. There are plenty of videos showing how far away ships disappear bottom first, that already shows curvature. I am really sorry if our planet is too big for this to be seen with your own eyes. You are just part of a cult.
1
-
@manyjacob5761 No, I am not saying that it is true because I am unable to detect it, I am saying it is true because it makes sense with everything else I have studied, including the shape of the Earth. Gravity is the ability of a large mass to bend space-time, to put it simply, and I don't find that hard to believe. There are people who dedicated their lives to study and make experiments to come to this conclusion, I am certainly not going to listen to some people on the internet who say they have a different view without being anything more than a mechanic or so. I am not a physicist so my knowledge about gravity is limited, but it's the glue that keeps everything together. The density HYPOTHESIS that Flat Earthers use to justify why things fall "down" is provable wrong and has been, muptiple times. The Earth is simply not flat, I am a commercial pilot and I have seen the effects of curvature and spin, just like every other pilot in the world.
1
-
@manyjacob5761 Alright then, I am not an expert with Gravity, I know they were able to detect and measure gravitational waves in 2015, don't know how, I am just going to trust the experts.
When it comes to density, it does not work as it is not a force. You need a force to make mass accelerate, like the basic equation says. The atmosphere itself already disproves this hypothesis as it gets denser the closer you are to the surface, it could not happen just with density, you need a force (or something that acts like one) to pull it towards the ground in order to obtain the pressure gradient. Then, clouds are denser than air, yet they float. How is this possible?
I did not mean I saw the curve, I did not fly high enough, but the behavior of gyroscopic instruments and the way navigation works already disproves the flatness of Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manyjacob5761 First of all, being a "Globie" does not mean being right all the time, so you might as well have copied and pasted what an idiot said. I don't accept everything people tell me just because they believe the Earth is round, that just idiotic to assume. Yes, I do "blindly" accept what someone who dedicated his own life to studying and researching physics tells me, because he knows more than me, just like I accept what my doctor tells me when I ask for his advice, because he studied the human body much more in depth than I did in high school, and that is enough. I do not have a degree in medical science, so HIS logic is probably much more useful than MINE. And here we are at the same old point brought up by you people, defenders of the "critical thinking" and "using you own logic" and "have an open mind" and bla bla bla all that sh!t. It is just a lame excuse, nothing more. You are talking about astrophysics, something that, I repeat, goes well beyond your comprehension (I can tell by the way you say things, like "measuring light years by time", it makes no sense at all) and your own logic brings you to conclusions that DO NOT apply to reality, like the example of clouds that I gave you and that YOU totally misinterpreted because, as always, you are only capable of grasping what you want to grasp. I NEVER said clouds float because gravity, I was saying it already disproves your hypothesis of density because they should fall "down", being in a medium that is less dense. As for the latter example, you don't even know what a pressure gradient is, because you would not explain it simply with density. Air is within his own medium, has no reason to be denser close to the surface, unless a force acts on it, period. Lastly, If you gained your "knowledge" from some kind of book, then it is no longer your own logic, is it? You just contradicted yourself. You people simply live in your own magical world where everybody else is just a sheep and you and only you have the real answers BECAUSE YOU THINK FOR YOURSELVES (almost), which is why we never find flat Earthers having important jobs, programming GPS, flying airplanes, building radio systems or just doing something useful to society. Good luck to YOU.
1
-
@manyjacob5761 Same old story here again, you people just trying to quote something you read or someone else said, without being able to fully use it as a passable argument: (tip: this... Tip: that... Pathetic). Again, you are not using your own logic, you are using someone else's, you are a sheep too. And if you truly understood what that book says, you would contradict me using full sentences, not ridiculous tips. Water has three phases, the gasses that make up the atmosphere have the same ratio everywhere, so what you said is ridiculous but yeah, that magical book has a different perspective wow! What if I wrote a book that says why the speed of light is 3 m/s? Would you believe what I have to say just because I wrote a book? You are a living example of how easy it is to manipulate ignorant people.
And again, nice way to tap out, pal.
1
-
@manyjacob5761 Again, it is the same old lame excuse you people always use to feel special, like I already said. You can do as much research as you want, but if you come to conclusions that are NOT consistent with reality in EVERY SINGLE PART of it, then you wasted your precious time. No, what is dumb is questioning what the real experts say, you only do so when you fear the complexity of the universe we live in, like you people do. I guess you don't even have a degree, it would be inconsistent with your point of view. Imagine this, you dedicate your own life to experimenting and researching and when you come to your precious conclusion, someone walks up to you and says "well, this is pretty but I have a different view" or "Yes, but I read something else on the internet", what would people tell him? That they respect his different conclusion because he used his own logic in 20 minutes? No, they are gonna bless his heart and pat him on the head.
Where should we go from here then? Should we abolish schools because every book has been written by other people? Should we teach children to start over new with each end every subject just because it is more important to use their own brain and logic? Yeah, stick with your alternative solutions, champion, and please, do not procreate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christianpulido8360 I already told you how to calculate the distance. Take your FE map and plot a line between the two cities, then compare that distance with something known, like the distance from the Pole to the Equator, which is 5400NM, then use easy proportions to get the final result. Or you can use geographical coordinates to calculate the distances from the cities to the Pole, then use the difference in Longitude to find out the angle between those two lines and then use the cosine formula to calculate the length of the third side of that triangle which is the distance. Again, you are ignoring some details because you know you cannot explain this on your world. I already told you that you can take other routes that take the same 14 hours but stay North of the Equator all the time and see that they are less than half the length. No, airplanes do not fly twice the speed of others. And stop starting from the conclusion, I can calculate the distance between those two cities on the Globe as well, again you are debating with pure nonsense. Go ahead and explain the flight, let's see who the liar is here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DaI-rx3xg I felt it every time I took off, and the instruments proved to me that I flew on a Globe so, where do we go from here? Are you about to tell me that your experience is worth more than mine? At least mine can be reproduced, just go to your nearest flight school, take an introductory flight, and witness the gyrocompass drift as the Earth rotates beneath you. If you don't think that cuts it, I suggest you go and learn how gyroscopes work. No pilot, aircraft engineer or anyone that works within the aviation industry is a Flat-Earther, so what you said is wrong, or those pilots were making fun of whoever asked the question. Science is not a religion, religion is. Besides, why did you ask someone to debate Dubay? You must think he tells the truth or that he is indisputable, therefore you trust what he says, period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@artmusabalinesia4080 Oh yes, I am the one who left half of his brain somewhere else. They did take a picture of Earth from the Moon, you saying "it's obviously fake" is not enough, smart guy. Same as saying "the weird things like flag, shadow etc...", personal incredulity does not cut it, sorry. Try again.
Besides, "We all know this, we all know that". Who? Who exactly is this "we"? No, again, not enough to disprove anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nothing would change a flerf's mind because they are irrational, paranoid and ignorant people who will only believe what they want, it is not a matter of evidence or science or logic because if it was, we'd have none of them. They are NOT winning any debate, they bring out proofs and points that can be debunked with the knowledge of a toddler, maybe they are better at speaking and connecting to people but only the most ignorant would see them as winners in any debate (which by the way, the greatest gurus always avoid, weird...).
Kent Hovind brings science?? The fk are you talking about? Have you ever seen the debate between that charlatan and Professor Dave? You call that bringing science to the table? No creationist has ever been able to properly use science otherwise they would not be creationists, just like flat Earthers.
And you might have done all calculations you want but you are also incapable of considering that YOU might be wrong also because all the evidence we have points towards the Globe and everything else is nonsense. Neil Tyson claims it is a Globe and everything else is cherry-picking. So go ahead, show us the math that will outsmart everyone else, I am deeply curious about that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zachisthebomb I disagree. If those flights, real life flights, check out only on a globe, then the globe must be right. The point is, even other maps have distortions and this is for the same reason, they are all planar representations of a globe. Mercatore's projection, for example, only matches real proportions on the equator, and the scale gets more and more distorted the closer you get to the poles. Same thing goes with Lambert projections, they are only realistic on the parallel of origin, then you get distortion the farther away you move from it. You can get maps that are similar to the FE which are called Polar Stereographic Charts, but they are either North or South projections and never display anything further than the Equator because it's already on the other side. Those charts are the ones with the greatest distortion and are therefore only used in rare occasions such as polar navigation.
Yes, you are right, I don't know every pilot in the world but I can easily tell you there is no way a pilot can be a Flat Earther. They are either retired with dementia or they are lying, most of the times is the latter. I have seen a video that is quite popular among Flat Earthers that shows a guy walking to the pilots in the cockpit and asking questions like "It's flat, right? Like, no curvature at all, right?" to which they reply saying "oh yes, you are totally right, flat as a pancake" or something like that. I don't think there is any doubt that they were sarcastic, you can tell by the look on their faces or the tone of their voice. Besides, according to FE's they should be paid to keep silent about it, why would they say it then? They said some pilots have lost their job after coming out about it, no sign of that anywhere. Everything we learn not only by theory, but with flying too, tells us there is no way the Earth can be flat, let me briefly tell you why:
- Navigation. First thing that pops into my head is that on a flat earth, if you wanted to fly say, due West, you would keep on making adjustments to the right to maintain heading 270, because the magnetic North Pole would constantly change its relative position from you. But in reality, this only happens in the Northern hemisphere, while on the Equator no adjustment is needed and the opposite thing happens in the Southern hemisphere, you would have to change heading to the LEFT. This alone should be enough, but I could go on with more detailed and boring explanations.
- Instruments. Small prop airplanes use gyroscopic instruments to retain information about heading or pitch and roll. A gyroscope maintains its position through inertial space, that has been demonstrated, which is why we have to adjust the gyro mounted in the gyro-compass, because the Earth spins and that spin slightly changes the indications of the instrument along the flight. It's a small adjustment, but it is needed. The artificial horizon has an erection mechanism because the Earth is round and the vertical component of Gravity changes from place to place, if it was Flat that mechanism would not be needed.
There is much more if you want me to go on, even stuff not related to aviation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1