Itheblaze
Active Member
- Messages
- 544
Is the Earth flat? No! I find it highly carbonated! Full of political gasses!
Is The Earth Flat?
- Thread starter TTZack
- Start date
Come into/steer towards a medium to large port city from at least 100 miles out at sea at night.
About 50-70 miles out you will notice an area on the horizon with a faint glow. This is the city's ambient light refracting and illuminating the atmosphere. Night vision helps to see it.
As you near port, the first thing you will see of it is a red blinking/pulsing light. Other red blinking lights will randomly appear over the course of the next few minutes, and perhaps accompanied by a few white strobe lights. For several minutes after you will see a line of blinking lights on the horizon. They are the communication tower caution lights from all the towers positioned atop hills around the area.
After that there will be clusters of mostly white or yellowish lights and what appears as a broken up white line on the horizon. This is the light from neighborhoods and commercial areas situated in the hilly regions of the area. You are seeing a collection of street lights and house lights, traffic lights, etc...
If there are any tall buildings in the area, they will also appear around the same time as light from the towers and hills.
As you get closer you can see an increasing growing picture of a city starting with the lights from the highest elevations first. You are literally looking at millions of points of reference to prove Earth is, in fact, spherical.
Last edited:
Lumbergooz
Active Member
- Messages
- 559
I agree with members who said earth is not flat but rather like a donut without a hole in the middle. the proof is in some areas you can see the other side of the sea although you should not if you want to believe the curvature they told us in schools...so earth is not flat and not a sphere...that s one reason why we want to make a time travel machine to be able to see it from outside....I do not believe a tiny bit of what the NASA feeds simply because; if they hid free energy inventions for 100 years so far, that means you should not believe them on anything else...
Try to understand what I've been posting. If you have any question, please feel free.
Go do as I have suggested. The reason why I choose to focus on the ocean as a point of reference is because it is something you can observe and measure independently. You don't need anything other than your brain and eyes (and maybe binoculars) for it to be proven to you.
Anyone who has spent enough time around the ocean to pay attention has observed Earth's curvature. Approximately 74% of the Earth's surface is water. You can go anywhere within sight of a sea and observe for yourself. You can plainly see that you are looking across a gigantic curved plain. You only need a large enough sample of the sea and a few relative points to judge.
Magellan circumnavigated Earth first, hundreds of years ago. Many others have done it since. Millions upon millions upon millions have sailed all over the world and have observed the simple concepts I have explain above, and have done so many many thousands of times each.
The Earth has been charted and mapped, even relative to the stars and other planets, for thousands of years. The Mayans actually tracked the sun and our solar system through a 3600 year cycle relative to the galactic equator, creating their calendar that is accurate to within seconds across the entire 3600 year cycle. The axis and seasons, relative to the revolution around the sun and position of Polaris says a lot, in and of itself. Explain that with a flat Earth theory. Every other planet in the whole universe is a sphere, including our moon, because gravity works as it really does, but Earth is somehow different and special, counter intuitive to everything we know about it?
There are countless observable fact based points of reference all over reality to demonstrate that the Earth is a sphere. As many countless people and facts can attest, 'Flat Earth Theory' has already been put to the test a long time ago. It does not fit reality. It's bullshit.
Look across the ocean at ships through binoculars. It's obvious.
Lumbergooz
Active Member
- Messages
- 559
I have seen experiment sending staight beam on the 2 sides of Ontario lake..it proves that curvature is far less than what we were told in school...You can simply check it ..its all over google & utube....also note that ships & planes are forbidden from flying above north & south poles(the tip point) by US to hide the world opening there...also the same is scrambled by google earth...
If Earth was flat, the base of the CN Tower would have to be 600 ft. below water level.
Olcott, NY waterfront is 39.55 miles from the tower at the same elevation.
Do the math. You are dealing with about 350 linear feet of line of sight for every 1 foot of tower/elevation lost, over a 40 mile distance.
Olcott, NY waterfront is 39.55 miles from the tower at the same elevation.
Do the math. You are dealing with about 350 linear feet of line of sight for every 1 foot of tower/elevation lost, over a 40 mile distance.
In terms of aviation, do you know what the difference is between the common terms "mach speed" and "speed over ground" is?
Speed over ground is relative to the surface of Earth, just like in a car or train or anything else.
The speed of sound waves traveling through the air is mach. Thus mach speed is measured relative to mach, which varies depending on altitude. The higher the elevation, the less dense or thinner the air gets. Sound waves travel slower through less dense thinner air. Therefore there is a curve ratio of altitude per mach speed. Mach at sea level is 768 mph, but at around 35,000+ feet, is about 200 or 250 mph.
That difference between 768 and 200 something is due to the CIRCumfrence of the Earth being lesser than that of the atmosphere at a higher altitude.
If you had two fighter jets racing from point A to point B. One of them was at 35,000 feet altitude, the other at 500 foot altitude, just above tree tops, both flying at the speed of sound, ...the one flying at 500 feet will win because it has a lesser distance to travel.
They would both have an equal distance to travel if the Earth was flat.
Speed over ground is relative to the surface of Earth, just like in a car or train or anything else.
The speed of sound waves traveling through the air is mach. Thus mach speed is measured relative to mach, which varies depending on altitude. The higher the elevation, the less dense or thinner the air gets. Sound waves travel slower through less dense thinner air. Therefore there is a curve ratio of altitude per mach speed. Mach at sea level is 768 mph, but at around 35,000+ feet, is about 200 or 250 mph.
That difference between 768 and 200 something is due to the CIRCumfrence of the Earth being lesser than that of the atmosphere at a higher altitude.
If you had two fighter jets racing from point A to point B. One of them was at 35,000 feet altitude, the other at 500 foot altitude, just above tree tops, both flying at the speed of sound, ...the one flying at 500 feet will win because it has a lesser distance to travel.
They would both have an equal distance to travel if the Earth was flat.
That was kind of a sloppy inadequate explanation. ...to further clarify and summarize;
There are two common ways for pilots to judge aircraft speed. One factors in air density and altitude while the other is relative to the Earth's surface. When calculating and comparing the two, the math all checks out relative to the circumference of the Earth. The math demonstrates a curved surface. If the Earth was flat, the whole equation would be different.
The difference between low and high altitude flight in terms of distance traveled per speed over ground demonstrates a circumference. When you apply and compare the physics of air density and altitude relative to mach, it fits, therefore serving as further confirmation of a spherical Earth.
If we really want to expand on this, we can dig into the actual math. I did this years ago and am feeling kind of lazy though.
Another thing to consider: Pilots commonly choose a course that factors in curvature of the Earth as to more efficiently manage fuel.
There are two common ways for pilots to judge aircraft speed. One factors in air density and altitude while the other is relative to the Earth's surface. When calculating and comparing the two, the math all checks out relative to the circumference of the Earth. The math demonstrates a curved surface. If the Earth was flat, the whole equation would be different.
The difference between low and high altitude flight in terms of distance traveled per speed over ground demonstrates a circumference. When you apply and compare the physics of air density and altitude relative to mach, it fits, therefore serving as further confirmation of a spherical Earth.
If we really want to expand on this, we can dig into the actual math. I did this years ago and am feeling kind of lazy though.
Another thing to consider: Pilots commonly choose a course that factors in curvature of the Earth as to more efficiently manage fuel.
Miscellaneous
Active Member
- Messages
- 609
Thanks for asking @TTZack now some members are taking this too seriously to the point of it being boring.
- Messages
- 12,510
Japrim, you took this one way seriously!
While I'm sure the Earth is a sphere for pretty much all the reasons mentioned before, I still like to sometimes ponder at how it could be otherwise. What are the clues that might let a person think that despite all the evidence we have, the Earth might still be flat?
One of the classics was this one: Why aren't planes flying above the North pole? Wouldn't it be the fastest way from Canada to Russia, for instance? I don't remember the reason they won't fly over there though... or do they?
While I'm sure the Earth is a sphere for pretty much all the reasons mentioned before, I still like to sometimes ponder at how it could be otherwise. What are the clues that might let a person think that despite all the evidence we have, the Earth might still be flat?
One of the classics was this one: Why aren't planes flying above the North pole? Wouldn't it be the fastest way from Canada to Russia, for instance? I don't remember the reason they won't fly over there though... or do they?