Author Topic: Cosmology Poll (Read 19689 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #255 on:** October 02, 2022, 06:52:40 PM »

Technically, the question of movement has more to do with stationary than flat earth, but the fact that the fastest plane in existence would have to adjust down about 1,000 feet per second to maintain the same atmosphere clearly suggests that it does not have to correct for curvature. No pilot has ever been taught that he has to dip the nose regularly to stay level.

St Giles · « **Reply #256 on:** October 02, 2022, 07:37:24 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on October 02, 2022, 06:49:13 PM

NO GLOBE EARTHER HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS YET. WHICH IS WHY I MUST REMAIN IN THE "FLAT EARTH" CAMP for this and other reasons.

No flat earther has bothered to try understanding the explanations for it. It's like you and Lad completely skipped my post. I'm not trying to have anything both ways. How can I be more clear?

It's like trying to swim up stream? A stream flows down hill by gravity or whatever force you think pulls stuff down. The atmosphere is not a stream. It's more like a giant ocean over the whole earth: mostly still, but with some currents. If you have a storage bin of water to simulate a small scale ocean, and place a toy boat or submarine in it and drive down the road at a constant 50mph, that boat will not go flying from one end of the bucket to the other at 50mph.

And what's this obsession with gravity pulling stuff around the earth? Obviously you guys didn't read my post. Stop arguing your FE theory if you won't even consider and refute the counterarguments presented to you. My mind is open to changing my understanding of the nature of the earth, please open yours and argue worthily or keep quiet.

Something I realized recently after taking a closer look at the Dimond v Cassman debate was that sedevacantists put way too much faith in their own personal judgements and interpretation of scripture and church teaching, ect. I think Dimond made a lot of good points, I thought Cassman did to, but also made some poor arguments. But, this is still what I gathered from Dimond, and now Lad, (can't remember of Matthew is sede) about how sedes think. Whereas on the other side of the spectrum would be the NO who believe whatever they are told, and somewhere in the middle (where virtue lies apart from either extreme) I find is where the SSPX fits, though imperfectly, but better than any other group I know.

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 02, 2022, 06:52:40 PM

Technically, the question of movement has more to do with stationary than flat earth, but the fact that the fastest plane in existence would have to adjust down about 1,000 feet per second to maintain the same atmosphere clearly suggests that it does not have to correct for curvature. No pilot has ever been taught that he has to dip the nose regularly to stay level.

Like you would know with such certainty. It is very rare that any normal pilot flies faster than 600mph let alone 1500mph. Maybe a 2300mph plane does have to pitch down fast at such speeds. Have you flown one? And you call my posts garbage, utter hogwash, BS, and me a pathetic brainwashed fool? Take a careful look in the mirror just in case there's a mote or a beam in your eye, and lets proceed politely.

St Giles · « **Reply #257 on:** October 02, 2022, 07:49:02 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on October 01, 2022, 03:34:36 AM

Strangely, the altimeter does not factor in
curvature:

I believe you. Why would it need to? what matters is the distance between the plane and the closest ground, but to make things simple they use average sea level as their zero altitude level. Whether flying over a flat earth or a ball (lets assume no mountains or hills) there will always be one point on the ground that is closest to the plane.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #258 on:** October 03, 2022, 04:52:18 AM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on October 01, 2022, 01:33:04 AM

This is interesting, but I'm not up for verifying it right now so somebody might want to do that?

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23flatearth%20mountains&src=typed_query&f=top

Does anybody know anything about who wrote this concordance?

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #259 on:** October 03, 2022, 05:01:30 AM »

Quote from: St Giles on October 02, 2022, 07:49:02 PM

I believe you. Why would it need to? what matters is the distance between the plane and the closest ground, but to make things simple they use average sea level as their zero altitude level. Whether flying over a flat earth or a ball (lets assume no mountains or hills) there will always be one point on the ground that is closest to the plane.

What does average sea level mean?
There is only one sea level.
It's the same sea level everywhere on earth.

There is never any "your sea level" or "our sea level" or "North American sea level" and "Australian sea level".

Just one sea level that everyone uses worldwide.

The video also shows how water is level just like the path of the plane which "levels out" at cruising altitude.

I asked pilots if adjustment is made nose down for the curve and they said no.

It also demonstrates how water needs a container and how the land of Australia and North America provide one.

The Antarctic Circle provides the outer container. Look into Operation Highjump.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #260 on:** October 03, 2022, 05:02:39 AM »

Has anybody looked into these?

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #261 on:** October 03, 2022, 06:23:46 AM »

Quote from: St Giles on October 02, 2022, 07:37:24 PM

Maybe a 2300mph plane does have to pitch down fast at such speeds. Have you flown one?

I can't answer the deep science stuff, but I agree and don't like the ad hominems that fly on this topic in either direction. It takes the fun out of it.

Anyway, this guy has a lot of interesting info.
At 22:37 he shows why the SR 71 (which flys at 2200mph) DROP factor is crazy ridiculous to consider:

https://youtu.be/x0KA5Ozg-uo?t=1357

Ladislaus · « **Reply #262 on:** October 03, 2022, 06:55:18 AM »

Quote from: St Giles on October 02, 2022, 07:37:24 PM

Like you would know with such certainty. It is very rare that any normal pilot flies faster than 600mph let alone 1500mph. Maybe a 2300mph plane does have to pitch down fast at such speeds. Have you flown one?

No, but I've listened to interviews with former fighter pilots who have testified to such, including one who's a diehard flat earther, and multiple other pilots who are flat earthers, and they all say the same thing, that there's no notion of having to dip the nose of the plane down. No, his plane did not go as fast fast as the SR71 (it was either an F-15 or F-16, can't recall), but the same principle would apply, except would not have to be done at the ridiculous pace that would have to happen with SR71. That ex-US-AirForce fighter pilot testified that the way the navigation and targeting systems work, they simply could not work on a globe earth. There was another pilot who actually runs a flight school ... said the same thing. And then I heard another interview with a pilot from Australia who regularly flew back and forth to the West Coast of the US, who also came to the conclusion that the earth is flat, due in particular to his flight route, where he would always see Alaska off to his left and could never figure out why, but then saw a flat earth map and immediately realized what was going on.

Have you ever heard a pilot who says that they do have to dip the nose of the plane as they go around the curve?

Despite your insinuations, I don't simply make stuff up. No, I have not flown a fighter plane, and neither have you ... so that's a wash. But unlike yourself, who is absolutely unwilling to look at the evidence objectively, I have in fact listened to and watched people who are in fact expert in the various questions under discussion.

So willfully ignorant are you about this subject, that you don't even know that most Globe Earthers concede that pilots do not have to dip the nose of the plane down. They propose other theories, the most common one being that gravity pulls the nose of the plane downward ... but I've never heard a proponent of Globe Earth claim that pilots dipped the nose of their planes down. So this puts your ignorance on display.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #263 on:** October 03, 2022, 07:23:43 AM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on October 03, 2022, 06:23:46 AM

I can't answer the deep science stuff, but I agree and don't like the ad hominems that fly on this topic in either direction. It takes the fun out of it.

Anyway, this guy has a lot of interesting info.
At 22:37 he shows why the SR 71 (which flys at 2200mph) DROP factor is crazy ridiculous to consider:

https://youtu.be/x0KA5Ozg-uo?t=1357

Yes, this guy his hilarious.

Another curious thing that someone did an experiment about ... So the globers claim that we have eclipses because the sun is exactly 400x farther away than the moon and exactly 400x larger (pay no attention to the fact that our distance to the sun can allegedly vary by about 3%, certainly enough to botch up the perfect total eclipse), but a gentleman did an experiment. He had a light source that was roughly twice as far away and twice as large as an object that he put in between the light and his vantage point (the camera). It looked nothing like what a total eclipse would look like, as the light bled all the way around the object (and that makes perfect sense if you think about it). You can do a simple experiment. Just look up at a light bulb somewhere. Now take a round object that's smaller, put it in front of your face, and move it away from you until it just about perfectly covers up the edge of the light bulb. Does it go pitch black? Or does the light bleed around the object. Then this gentleman took an object that was the same size as the light, and put it just in front of it (a few inches) and then it look exactly like an eclipse. Because the object was so close, it blocked out the light completely. But if the larger object is farther away, that could not happen, as the light would simply bleed around it. Now, you need to do this in a room that's otherwise darkened, so at night with just a small light bulb across the room. There can't be ambient light coming from some other source.

All of this stuff is just obvious if you think about it a little bit ... with an open mind.

ServusInutilisDomini · « **Reply #264 on:** October 03, 2022, 11:57:01 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 03, 2022, 07:23:43 AM

Yes, this guy his hilarious.

Another curious thing that someone did an experiment about ... So the globers claim that we have eclipses because the sun is exactly 400x farther away than the moon and exactly 400x larger (pay no attention to the fact that our distance to the sun can allegedly vary by about 3%, certainly enough to botch up the perfect total eclipse), but a gentleman did an experiment. He had a light source that was roughly twice as far away and twice as large as an object that he put in between the light and his vantage point (the camera). It looked nothing like what a total eclipse would look like, as the light bled all the way around the object (and that makes perfect sense if you think about it). You can do a simple experiment. Just look up at a light bulb somewhere. Now take a round object that's smaller, put it in front of your face, and move it away from you until it just about perfectly covers up the edge of the light bulb. Does it go pitch black? Or does the light bleed around the object. Then this gentleman took an object that was the same size as the light, and put it just in front of it (a few inches) and then it look exactly like an eclipse. Because the object was so close, it blocked out the light completely. But if the larger object is farther away, that could not happen, as the light would simply bleed around it. Now, you need to do this in a room that's otherwise darkened, so at night with just a small light bulb across the room. There can't be ambient light coming from some other source.

All of this stuff is just obvious if you think about it a little bit ... with an open mind.

I mean... There's a million ways to prove a true thing. The only times I start doubting the FE is when people shame me for pride and try to emotionally manipulate me of accusing basically everyone of being evil. Even then it's only for a second. There are just too many proofs.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #265 on:** October 03, 2022, 02:45:08 PM »

Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on October 03, 2022, 11:57:01 AM

I mean... There's a million ways to prove a true thing. The only times I start doubting the FE is when people shame me for pride and try to emotionally manipulate me of accusing basically everyone of being evil. Even then it's only for a second. There are just too many proofs.

This hostility against FEs, the stong, often violent, emotional reaction against it is one of the surest signs that it's been programmed into people's minds and psyches by propaganda. If someone came to me and started going on about how, oh, the moon is actually a hollow spaceship inhabited by aliens (that's a real theory out there), I would not waste any time or energy attempting to refute this. If something is THAT "crazy," then why bother with it? You'd just walk on by while making that familiar circular motion beside your ear while whistling, and never give it a second thought. This kind of reaction demonstrates two things, namely, 1) that people have developed some serious psychological attachment to the globe (which doesn't happen by accident in the normal course of affairs) and 2) that there is in fact something to it, that there's some significant evidence in its favor that's not that easy to refute. If just one of these 2 were not the case, we would not get these reactions from people. If someone told me that the Oceans were made of suphuric acide, or of Jello, or that the core of the earth was filled with chocolate pudding, I would not be particularly upset or offended by this, and at most I'd feel sorry for the poor bloke that was obviously losing his mind. But I would not spend hours of my time and energy attempting to "refute" it. And their reaction also means that it MATTERS, that there are some very serious and significant implications that come from the earth being flat ... against the old "Why does it matter?" argument ... generally proferred by those to whom it matters exceedingly, given how hostile they become at the mere mention of Flat Earth.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #266 on:** October 03, 2022, 02:48:05 PM »

Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on October 03, 2022, 11:57:01 AM

I mean... There's a million ways to prove a true thing. The only times I start doubting the FE is when people shame me for pride and try to emotionally manipulate me of accusing basically everyone of being evil. Even then it's only for a second. There are just too many proofs.

I now feel a brief emotional pang when I hear people say the earth rotates or that the sun is larger than the earth lol

Matthew · « **Reply #267 on:** October 03, 2022, 03:50:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 03, 2022, 02:45:08 PM

This hostility against FEs, the stong, often violent, emotional reaction against it is one of the surest signs that it's been programmed into people's minds and psyches by propaganda. If someone came to me and started going on about how, oh, the moon is actually a hollow spaceship inhabited by aliens (that's a real theory out there), I would not waste any time or energy attempting to refute this. If something is THAT "crazy," then why bother with it? You'd just walk on by while making that familiar circular motion beside your ear while whistling, and never give it a second thought. This kind of reaction demonstrates two things, namely, 1) that people have developed some serious psychological attachment to the globe (which doesn't happen by accident in the normal course of affairs) and 2) that there is in fact something to it, that there's some significant evidence in its favor that's not that easy to refute. If just one of these 2 were not the case, we would not get these reactions from people. If someone told me that the Oceans were made of suphuric acide, or of Jello, or that the core of the earth was filled with chocolate pudding, I would not be particularly upset or offended by this, and at most I'd feel sorry for the poor bloke that was obviously losing his mind. But I would not spend hours of my time and energy attempting to "refute" it. And their reaction also means that it MATTERS, that there are some very serious and significant implications that come from the earth being flat ... against the old "Why does it matter?" argument ... generally proferred by those to whom it matters exceedingly, given how hostile they become at the mere mention of Flat Earth.

Awesome post, Lad. I fully agree. Very good points here. You might not realize these points, if you don't stop and think about it. I mean, hostility to Flat Earth is everywhere. But when you stop and think about it, that rabid opposition makes no sense -- IF people didn't all know (OR AT LEAST SUSPECT) deep down that Flat Earth is true

It's like you're attacking a crazy person's delusion or something. That WOULD explain the emotional outbursts, time investments made, and overall hostility towards the theory.

Cognitive dissonance.

Matthew · « **Reply #268 on:** October 03, 2022, 04:02:56 PM »

St. Giles --

Your posts are irrelevant to my independent, common-sense argument. My argument has nothing to do with anyone else's argument, it's an A or B dilemma that ADMITS OF NO THIRD POSSIBILITY.

Choose one:
A) The atmosphere (and anything IN the atmosphere) follows the ground below it, due to gravity. Basically it's like all those air molecules were connected to the ground below with a solid, stiff, invisible rod. According to mainstream science, the Globe model, the Earth spins at 1,037 MPH. So the atmosphere would be travelling at that same speed to keep up with the ground beneath.

B) The atmosphere is NOT thus coupled to the earth below. The earth spins at 1,037 MPH, but the air kind of floats there independently instead.

Insurmountable Problems with A)
Travelling east to west should be impossible, since the air is moving so fast in the W-E direction. However, this impossibility has not been observed in reality.
And yes, it would be a 1,037 MPH wind. If you stand still and a 30 MPH wind blows on you, OR you stick your head outside of a car driving 30 MPH on a completely still day, the net effect is the SAME on your face. It's a 30 MPH wind.

It's not open for debate. It's simple logic. If you grant that 1. the Earth rotates 1,037 MPH and 2. the column of air above the earth is somehow bound to the ground below it, then it LOGICALLY CONCLUDES that THE AIR IS MOVING at 1,037 MPH in a counterclockwise direction, or West-to-East. There should be a HUGE difference in your relative travel speed with respect to the surface below, whether you go E-W or W-E. But this has not been observed.

Insurmountable problems with B)
If the air is NOT bound to the surface below it, then you should be able to hover a hot air balloon or helicopter in the air several hundred or thousand feet up -- the air is not bound to the ground below remember -- and wait for your destination to appear below you. However, this has not been observed. Ergo.

Tradman · « **Reply #269 on:** October 04, 2022, 09:35:47 AM »

Matthew rightly points out: A) The atmosphere (and anything IN the atmosphere) follows the ground below it, due to gravity. Basically it's like all those air molecules were connected to the ground below with a solid, stiff, invisible rod. According to mainstream science, the Globe model, the Earth spins at 1,037 MPH. So the atmosphere would be travelling at that same speed to keep up with the ground beneath.

Even worse, the atmosphere would have to travel faster and faster as you move away from the ball, to maintain some consistency in the 'envelope of air'. At the point furthest out, where speeds are at their greatest and well beyond 1037 mph, the atmosphere has to stop in order to meet up with space going 0 mph.

Oh the tangled web they weave.

Poll

What model do you believe most accurately describes the cosmos?

Author Topic: Cosmology Poll (Read 19689 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Cosmology Poll

St Giles

Re: Cosmology Poll

St Giles

Re: Cosmology Poll

Miser Peccator

Re: Cosmology Poll

Miser Peccator

Re: Cosmology Poll

Miser Peccator

Re: Cosmology Poll

Miser Peccator

Re: Cosmology Poll

Ladislaus

Re: Cosmology Poll

Ladislaus

Re: Cosmology Poll

ServusInutilisDomini

Re: Cosmology Poll

Ladislaus

Re: Cosmology Poll

DigitalLogos

Re: Cosmology Poll

Matthew

Re: Cosmology Poll

Matthew

Re: Cosmology Poll

Tradman

Re: Cosmology Poll