Is the Earth Flat?

[prodromos]

You have completely missed the concept presented in this argument. You are comparing someone walking through the carriage of a traveling train (whereby his or her walking velocity (or an angular component thereof) is simply added or subtracted to the velocity of the train, depending on what direction they are traveling relative to the direction of the train) to a plane taking off from one location at (alleged) earth tangential velocity v1 and landing at (alleged) earth tangential velocity v2, the latter circumstance being conceptually identical to a person throwing a ball from an inner location on a merry-go-round to a person at an outer location on a merry-go-round, the ball missing the person at the outer location and therefore exiting the merry-go-round. In the case of the train, the person stays with the train and therefore attains the changing velocity of the train in addition to his or her walking velocity. In the case of a plane flying with a northerly or southerly component, the plane departs from a runway (and therefore leaves the surface of the earth) that is (allegedly) moving with one velocity and arrives at another runway that is (allegedly) moving with another velocity - an impossible task if the earth were actually spinning. This is basic dynamics. You really need to think about this.

The earth rotates with an angular velocity of 15° per hour. That is 0.25° per minute, or 0.0042° per second. The merry-go-round in your analogy above will easily have an angular velocity of 1500° per minute (roughly 4 complete revolutions per minute) which is several orders of magnitude faster than the earth.

Please have a think about that in regard to your above claims.

 

[The Liturgist]

In our Parish we use the Greek Kyrie when we use setting 1 of the the Divine Service; regarding the Litany of peace, I rather like the "over lap in the litany; LSB Evening Prayer, it begins at 8:33.

And I really like your parish. Also Facebook has added a video playlist similiar to that on Youtube so churches like yours and St. Magnus the Martyr in London which stream there but not on Youtube can be categorized.

I find myself wishing Twitter would stream videos given its new management.

Oh speaking of something topical to this thread, there is a good flat Earth satirical channel called SciManDan. Another good one is Schroedinger’s Cat, who focused initially on Flat Earth and then on Sovereign Citizens, but sadly he died about two years ago. I would have wished to see his commentary on the SovCit and racist ideology of Darrell Brooks, but on the other hand what happened in Waukesha was so horrible to behold, a part of me feels our Lord spared him something.

 

[The Liturgist]

The earth rotates with an angular velocity of 15° per hour. That is 0.25° per minute, or 0.0042° per second. The merry-go-round in your analogy above will easily have an angular velocity of 1500° per minute (roughly 4 complete revolutions per minute) which is several orders of magnitude faster than the earth.

Please have a think about that in regard to your above claims.

Also that angular velocity can be readily detected using high precision laser gyroscopes.

 

[The Liturgist]

The earth looks pretty flat to all of its inhabitants ... except for those who have spent time 35,000 feet plus from it ...

Indeed, and at FL390 or FL400, which long distance flights like LAX-LHR routinely hit for fuel management purposes, since the higher you fly the less wind resistance and the more fuel efficiency overall, especially if power management in the descent phase is done correctly, the curvature looks striking to me.

It is not as striking as what we see from cameras taken up in U2s (cue complaints of fishbowl lenses), Blackbirds and their secretive Oxcart predecessors, or Concorde, but it is still discernible.

 

[Lost4words]

Even if you tied a flat earth believer to a high altitude ballon and he saw the curve of the earth he would say it was just a canvas backdrop!!!

 

[Mark Quayle]

You have completely missed the concept presented in this argument. You are comparing someone walking through the carriage of a traveling train (whereby his or her walking velocity (or an angular component thereof) is simply added or subtracted to the velocity of the train, depending on what direction they are traveling relative to the direction of the train) to a plane taking off from one location at (alleged) earth tangential velocity v1 and landing at (alleged) earth tangential velocity v2, the latter circumstance being conceptually identical to a person throwing a ball from an inner location on a merry-go-round to a person at an outer location on a merry-go-round, the ball missing the person at the outer location and therefore exiting the merry-go-round. In the case of the train, the person stays with the train and therefore attains the changing velocity of the train in addition to his or her walking velocity. In the case of a plane flying with a northerly or southerly component, the plane departs from a runway (and therefore leaves the surface of the earth) that is (allegedly) moving with one velocity and arrives at another runway that is (allegedly) moving with another velocity - an impossible task if the earth were actually spinning. This is basic dynamics. You really need to think about this.

A south-flying plane is still as 'stuck' to the earth as a south-bound train, because it flies through a medium (air) which is 'stuck' to the surface of the rotating globe. The air is not stationary any more than the moving surface is. There is no impossibility.

 

[Edwin Wright]

The earth rotates with an angular velocity of 15° per hour. That is 0.25° per minute, or 0.0042° per second. The merry-go-round in your analogy above will easily have an angular velocity of 1500° per minute (roughly 4 complete revolutions per minute) which is several orders of magnitude faster than the earth.

Please have a think about that in regard to your above claims.

The issue on either the merry-go-round or the (allegedly) rotating earth is not the angular velocity per se (the objects on either platform have the same relative angular velocity regardless of their radial location), but rather, the tangential velocity which is the angular velocity multiplied by the radius (expressed in radians). The tangential velocity is directly and exclusively proportional to the radius, thereby increasing as the distance from the radial axis increases, both on the merry-go-round and on the (allegedly) rotating earth. Hence, an object leaving either platform at a smaller radial distance retains the tangential velocity associated with its original location and is still traveling at that tangential velocity when it attempts to make contact with the platform at a greater radial distance (where the tangential velocity is concomitantly greater), resulting in a problematic contact dynamic. I hope this clears things up.

 

[Edwin Wright]

A south-flying plane is still as 'stuck' to the earth as a south-bound train, because it flies through a medium (air) which is 'stuck' to the surface of the rotating globe. The air is not stationary any more than the moving surface is. There is no impossibility.

It must take a lot of velcro to stick the air to a spinning ball.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Correct. From what I'm reading there, his whole line of thinking depends on the notion (though he didn't say so) that the air is still while the earth spins under it. By what he is saying, the plane in the process of landing on an equatorial north-south oriented runway at, say, 100 mph, would also be 'flying' sideways at 1000 mph. One wonders why he didn't figure in the revolution of the earth about the sun, and the solar systems revolution about the galaxy, etc.

Re-read the webpage: Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth and bring up the referenced NASA document. Many airline pilots know that the earth is a stationary plane but keep quiet about it to preserve job security. In military ballistics, the (alleged) rotation of the earth is seriously considered because it would have to be if the earth rotated. But in actual practice, it never does enter into the calculations for the simple reason that the earth does not rotate.

 

[JSRG]

Re-read the webpage: Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth and bring up the referenced NASA document. Many airline pilots know that the earth is a stationary plane but keep quiet about it to preserve job security.

If "many" airline pilots know it but keep quiet because of job security reasons, then why don't they blow the whistle after they retire and have no need to worry about job security anymore?

 

[Edwin Wright]

If "many" airline pilots know it but keep quiet because of job security reasons, then why don't they blow the whistle after they retire and have no need to worry about job security anymore?

They need to keep their pensions.

 

[prodromos]

It must take a lot of velcro to stick the air to a spinning ball.

It's called gravity. There is also this mechanical principle called inertia.

 

[Edwin Wright]

It's called gravity. There is also this mechanical principle called inertia.

Without the vaulted firmament over the flat, stationary earth to contain the pressurized atmosphere, the atmosphere would be immediately exhausted into the vacuum of space claimed by the globe model. Also, because of that vacuum in space claimed by the globe model, rocket engines (relying upon the thrust of exhaust gases against the pressurized atmosphere) would not function in space. It is just simple dynamics.

Just one more thing, the nature of what we are calling gravity remains very, very problematic. Of all the physical constants, it is the (so-called) gravitational constant that seems to keep changing (which is not surprising since it is tied to a contrived density profile of the earth). See the article from Forbes (Scientists Admit, Embarrassingly, We Don't Know How Strong The Force Of Gravity Is).

 

[JSRG]

They need to keep their pensions.

I do not believe that endorsing conspiracy theories puts their pensions at risk. Can you show evidence of this?

 

[HantsUK]

I thought that this thread had gone a little flat recently. But oh no, it's been resurrected, and so continues to go around in circles.

 

[HantsUK]

... because of that vacuum in space claimed by the globe model, rocket engines (relying upon the thrust of exhaust gases against the pressurized atmosphere) would not function in space. It is just simple dynamics.

The exhaust gases thrust against the rocket, not against the atmosphere (if any). The gases escape out the back, and the rocket moves forward. Conservation of momentum.

Just one more thing, the nature of what we are calling gravity remains very, very problematic. Of all the physical constants, it is the (so-called) gravitational constant that seems to keep changing (which is not surprising since it is tied to a contrived density profile of the earth). See the article from Forbes (Scientists Admit, Embarrassingly, We Don't Know How Strong The Force Of Gravity Is).

Just because something might be difficult to measure, or difficult to explain, does not mean that the 'something' does not exist. Gravity is not problematic. But measuring the gravitational constant is more difficult and less accurate than other physical constants.

Trying to weigh an excited and energetic puppy on scales is difficult. But that doesn't in any way mean the puppy does not exist.

 

[prodromos]

Without the vaulted firmament over the flat, stationary earth to contain the pressurized atmosphere, the atmosphere would be immediately exhausted into the vacuum of space claimed by the globe model.

If there was a "vaulted firmament" as you claim, then the earth's atmosphere would be in a sealed pressure vessel and air pressure would be constant regardless of altitude. Climbers in the Himalayas would not need to carry oxygen and passenger jets would not need to be sealed to prevent pressure loss at high altitude. That the earth's atmosphere has a pressure gradient measuring from 1 atmosphere at sea level all the way down to zero atmospheres at 10,000km above sea level has been proven beyond any question.

Also, because of that vacuum in space claimed by the globe model, rocket engines (relying upon the thrust of exhaust gases against the pressurized atmosphere) would not function in space. It is just simple dynamics.

More evidence that flat earthers simply cannot do science. The thrust of the exhaust gases is against the nozzle of the rocket engine, not against any pressurised atmosphere. They work perfectly fine in a vacuum.

Just one more thing, the nature of what we are calling gravity remains very, very problematic. Of all the physical constants, it is the (so-called) gravitational constant that seems to keep changing (which is not surprising since it is tied to a contrived density profile of the earth). See the article from Forbes (Scientists Admit, Embarrassingly, We Don't Know How Strong The Force Of Gravity Is).

Every calculated value of the gravitational constant falls within a range of 6.6757 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 to 6.6719 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 That is more than accurate enough for orbital calculations in space flight. Architects used to use values of Pi in calculating arches that were way less accurate, yet the structures they designed are still standing many decades later

 

[Edwin Wright]

If there was a "vaulted firmament" as you claim, then the earth's atmosphere would be in a sealed pressure vessel and air pressure would be constant regardless of altitude. Climbers in the Himalayas would not need to carry oxygen and passenger jets would not need to be sealed to prevent pressure loss at high altitude. That the earth's atmosphere has a pressure gradient measuring from 1 atmosphere at sea level all the way down to zero atmospheres at 10,000km above sea level has been proven beyond any question.

More evidence that flat earthers simply cannot do science. The thrust of the exhaust gases is against the nozzle of the rocket engine, not against any pressurised atmosphere. They work perfectly fine in a vacuum.

Every calculated value of the gravitational constant falls within a range of 6.6757 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 to 6.6719 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 That is more than accurate enough for orbital calculations in space flight. Architects used to use values of Pi in calculating arches that were way less accurate, yet the structures they designed are still standing many decades later

If there was a "vaulted firmament" as you claim, then the earth's atmosphere would be in a sealed pressure vessel and air pressure would be constant regardless of altitude. Climbers in the Himalayas would not need to carry oxygen and passenger jets would not need to be sealed to prevent pressure loss at high altitude. That the earth's atmosphere has a pressure gradient measuring from 1 atmosphere at sea level all the way down to zero atmospheres at 10,000km above sea level has been proven beyond any question.

More evidence that flat earthers simply cannot do science. The thrust of the exhaust gases is against the nozzle of the rocket engine, not against any pressurised atmosphere. They work perfectly fine in a vacuum.

Every calculated value of the gravitational constant falls within a range of 6.6757 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 to 6.6719 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 That is more than accurate enough for orbital calculations in space flight. Architects used to use values of Pi in calculating arches that were way less accurate, yet the structures they designed are still standing many decades later

If there was a "vaulted firmament" as you claim, then the earth's atmosphere would be in a sealed pressure vessel and air pressure would be constant regardless of altitude. Climbers in the Himalayas would not need to carry oxygen and passenger jets would not need to be sealed to prevent pressure loss at high altitude. That the earth's atmosphere has a pressure gradient measuring from 1 atmosphere at sea level all the way down to zero atmospheres at 10,000km above sea level has been proven beyond any question.

More evidence that flat earthers simply cannot do science. The thrust of the exhaust gases is against the nozzle of the rocket engine, not against any pressurised atmosphere. They work perfectly fine in a vacuum.

Every calculated value of the gravitational constant falls within a range of 6.6757 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 to 6.6719 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 That is more than accurate enough for orbital calculations in space flight. Architects used to use values of Pi in calculating arches that were way less accurate, yet the structures they designed are still standing many decades later

 

[Edwin Wright]

If there was a "vaulted firmament" as you claim, then the earth's atmosphere would be in a sealed pressure vessel and air pressure would be constant regardless of altitude. Climbers in the Himalayas would not need to carry oxygen and passenger jets would not need to be sealed to prevent pressure loss at high altitude. That the earth's atmosphere has a pressure gradient measuring from 1 atmosphere at sea level all the way down to zero atmospheres at 10,000km above sea level has been proven beyond any question.

More evidence that flat earthers simply cannot do science. The thrust of the exhaust gases is against the nozzle of the rocket engine, not against any pressurised atmosphere. They work perfectly fine in a vacuum.

Every calculated value of the gravitational constant falls within a range of 6.6757 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 to 6.6719 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 That is more than accurate enough for orbital calculations in space flight. Architects used to use values of Pi in calculating arches that were way less accurate, yet the structures they designed are still standing many decades later

Concerning the value for G, I quote from the article in question: "This is why it was such a shock, in 1998, when a very careful team got a result that differed by a spectacular 0.15% from the previous results, when the errors on those earlier results were claimed to be more than a factor of ten below that difference. NIST responded by throwing out the previously stated uncertainties, and values were suddenly truncated to give at most four significant figures, with much larger uncertainties attached." There is an inherent issue of experimental repeatability that does not appear to be the case with other physical constants. Read the original Cavendish paper of 1798 (Henry Cavendish, “Experiments to determine the Density of the Earth,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Volume LXXXVIII (1798), XXI., pp. 469-526).

 

[Edwin Wright]

If there was a "vaulted firmament" as you claim, then the earth's atmosphere would be in a sealed pressure vessel and air pressure would be constant regardless of altitude. Climbers in the Himalayas would not need to carry oxygen and passenger jets would not need to be sealed to prevent pressure loss at high altitude. That the earth's atmosphere has a pressure gradient measuring from 1 atmosphere at sea level all the way down to zero atmospheres at 10,000km above sea level has been proven beyond any question.

More evidence that flat earthers simply cannot do science. The thrust of the exhaust gases is against the nozzle of the rocket engine, not against any pressurised atmosphere. They work perfectly fine in a vacuum.

Every calculated value of the gravitational constant falls within a range of 6.6757 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 to 6.6719 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2 That is more than accurate enough for orbital calculations in space flight. Architects used to use values of Pi in calculating arches that were way less accurate, yet the structures they designed are still standing many decades later

Concerning rocket thrust, any force (including any force associated with expelling gases) requires a pivot point or fulcrum from which to act. For example, when you push a car that is stuck in the mud, your feet are pivoting against the ground so that muscular force can be directed onto the car. Similarly, for gases to push against a rocket, they have to pivot against (initially) the ground and then the atmosphere. Think of blowing up a balloon and then releasing it from your fingers. The balloon takes off by expelling pressurized air pivoted against the surrounding ambient air. The rocket engine nozzle cannot be the pivot point because it is part of the rocket. Getting back to that car stuck in the mud, try pushing the car by pivoting against the bumper that is part of the car instead of the ground. The pivot point or pivot mass must be external. If there is no pivot point, i.e., no pivot mass, as in the case of a vacuum, the rocket goes nowhere.