Yo Guys, I gotta Red Pill you about the real shape of the Earth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh DeJong

Well I had about as much "proof" as anyone else has for their theory. I just thought it was an accepted theory for the flat Earth argument. Like that flight that made an emergency stop in Alaska on the way to LA.

And with this model couldn't you just fly in a straight line from one end of the globe too the other since you're going straight through? I mean aside from the celestial sphere of course.

---

What I meant was that do you have any examples, links, evidence etc that might persuade someone to reconsider the Southern flight path argument? Because as far as I know the flight times work only for a spherical model, and I have spoken with Australians who have taken those southern flights and the times add up for what we would expect. And I don't have reason to believe they were shills or liars.

Regarding flying between one side to the other, it would in essence be going into 'outer space' which is actually 'inner space'- the air density would become too low for an aircraft to maintain altitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

So in the concave model, the moon must produce it's own light, right? How could we see the moon at all if the Sun was on the other side of whatever-you-call-that-thing-in-the-middle. So it's noon in China and I see a full moon.

So the moon must produce it's own light in your model, yes?

If the moon produces it's own light, then why do we have the phases of the moon?

---

In the concave model the moon reflects the sunlight, and to answer your question we would be able to see the moon because as I explained earlier and showed in the illustration, light bends up toward the center, causing the sunlight to loop around the central celestial sphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primalredemption

A plane moving at 600 mph would travel 1 mile every 6 seconds. This is a curvature drop/rise of 8 inches over a distance of 63,360 inches or an angle adjustment of .007 degrees. Now to get an idea how big this angle adjustment is, take out a protractor and make a marking about 8 microns up. Good luck with that though since it's 5 times smaller than the human eye is even capable of seeing xD

So in other words it's insignificant.

Even if it were significant- say 100 feet per mile- the different in air density would be enough to change the lift on the wings to reach equilibrium. You would be entering denser air which applies more upward force upon the wings.

---

I think you should rethink your calculations. It's eight inches squared per mile. A flight of 3000miles would have to adjust for 4809081.1222 ft. In height. That's 1,603.027 every six seconds. To give you an idea, planes decend at 3000ft per minute. That's an adjustment rate 5.3 times faster than the rate of decent for landing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primalredemption

In the concave model the moon reflects the sunlight, and to answer your question we would be able to see the moon because as I explained earlier and showed in the illustration, light bends up toward the center, causing the sunlight to loop around the central celestial sphere.

---

Your diagram showed this light bending, but it doesnt show how light would bend all the way around. The images you've posted show a clear area where the light bends and strikes the outer "shell" of the Earth.

But when the Sun is on the exact opposite side, over China, how would that reflect off the moon to allow me to see it as full.

So can you draw me a picture or show me a diagram of how the Sun is on the exact opposite side from me, but the moon is full. How is that possible? And if the moon was reflecting light from the sun, wouldn't the phase of the moon change during the night, since the sun is moving around?

This whole light bending thing doesn't really explain the full moon at midnight, nor how the moon is full all night, even though the sun is moving around behind the ether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humanfit

I think you should rethink your calculations. It's eight inches squared per mile. A flight of 3000miles would have to adjust for 4809081.1222 ft. In height. That's 1,603.027 every six seconds. To give you an idea, planes decend at 3000ft per minute. That's an adjustment rate 5.3 times faster than the rate of decent for landing.

---

It's actually 8 inches per mile squared and is a rule of thumb that only works for marginal distances on the earth. Regardless, you are setting up the problem wrong. Remember it's a function of the distance squared. Which means it's an exponential increase in curvature beyond the first mile. The first mile will be an 8 inch drop, the second will be a 32 inch drop, the third will be a 72 inch drop, etc. But this is measured from the starting point to the end point. The plane itself only has to adjust 8 inches for each linear mile, regardless of where it is on its flight path.

Does this make sense? At the 1 mile mark the plane has adjusted its velocity to be tangential with the surface of the earth at that point. The next mile won't be a 32 inch drop as you are calculating, but an 8 inch drop because it's like starting back at the 0 mile mark.

Thanks my math was there, words are just out of order ;) eight inches per mile squared. How is it just a rule of thumb? The point is they fly leveled off not at standard point above or below the horizon level.

Well there goes that "evidence" I guess. It just seemed odd to me that those seemingly way out of the way flight paths turn into straight lines on the flat Earth map. Like I said I'm still fairly new to all this, and I'm not really 100% committed one way or the other. I just find it fascinating that after all this technological advancement we've made we're essentially back in Galileo's time when everyone was just sorry of spitballing lots of different but totally plausible options.
I haven't even decided which is scarier. Hurling through infinite space or realizing this Earth is literally all there is of creation (or whatever you wanna call it)?

Yeah I know what you mean.

I think it's a human tendency to want to give everything a definite shape. But it is possible the Earth has no shape at all. It could just be a System- as Tesla proposed. Just as light is actually a wave and only collapses into a particle when observed, Earth could very well be a projection of our own consciousness- pure potentiality that exists only as information until "decoded" or collapsed into physicality by our consciousness.

"If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, did a tree actually fall?"

A simple line experiment would do however XD but no one has the time or money to set one up. No one in the alternate earth research department at least.

So no explanation for full moon at midnight?

So that brings me tally up to 3 i think. Why doesn't the sun appear larger at noon if the earth is concave? How can I see a full moon when the Sun is on the exact opposite side of the firmament from me if it does not produce it's own light? Why does the phase of the moon not change during the night as the sun moves around the firmament?

I don't need to ask you about planet formation, or gravity, or why your moon always faces us, or how big the Sun is and how far away. It's primitive observations that I can make without math or science. Just observation, logic, and reason.

All these observations make sense on a round Earth. Is it improbable that the moon appears the same size as the sun? Sure. But something being observably true and improbable is not a logical paradox. It just means that either something unlikely happened, or you are incorrect in your calculations of the probability.

This is what most people who believe the Earth is round fail to realize. They have not actually done the thinking and reasoning necessary to know it themselves. They have simply taken other people's word for it. That's why I'm such a big fan of this subject. It quickly gets to questions about how we know something, what real proof is, and how to think critically.

What's equally strange to me is people who DO think things out enough to realize what's true, but choose to cling to fringe theories that don't explain observable reality very well.

It's almost as if the emotional attachment to the idea is stronger than reason.

Craig, there seems to be a pattern here. You ask a question and I answer it in a sufficient way (in my mind at least). Then a few posts later you ask the same question again as if it wasn't answered. Why not phrase a new question based off the answer I give you- that way we can have a discussion that leads somewhere.

Given the illustration I provided you should be easily able to answer your own question of "how can the moon be full when the sun is on the opposite side". Look at the picture - light bends. I'm not saying it's 100% indisputable fact. I'm saying that according to the model it is pretty simple to figure out based on "observation, logic and reason".