Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?
Laura said:
I've given this whole problem some thought and it occurs to me that this is a great opportunity to educate folks. So, let's bring on the claims of the flat earthers and do some work.
That means that those of you who have watched the videos need to bring up the questions that are relevant.
Here are some of observations that have puzzled me, not having considered them before looking into the topic:
If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
From _http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball!.pdf
I understand that a plane wouldn’t just fly off into outer space because of atmospheric density, and gravity could be maintaining it at attained altitude, parallel to the curvature. But how does gravity correct the nose dip?
...
200 proofs said:
The Notre Dame Antwerp spire stands 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level. With the aid of a telescope, ships can be distinguished on the horizon and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, however, at that distance the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon!
There are many of these examples of objects and landmasses seen at impossible distances, which should be occluded by curvature. Atmospheric refraction would be the answer, but as that is a function of temperature gradients, pressure, and humidity, it does become a lot more impressive how the image of light travels far around the bend, more or less intact through those varying factors along the way?
...
Polaris, which according to wiki is a temporary pole star (there allegedly was a different pole star before AD, will be different again in some amount of years). The pole star is always visible due north and makes for some pretty pictures with long exposure, in which all the other stars seem to revolve around. The spinning globe travels trillions of miles through space each year, yet Polaris maintains its central position. This is explained by the immense distances to it, which have been extended over the years as to correct the model, and now it’s apparently estimated to be between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles away, a difference of 666,000,000,000,000, over six hundred trillion miles). How does Polaris stay aligned with our globes traveled distances?
It's almost unfathomable that there is no parallax in the zodiac (fixed constellations) or movement of the pole star with the distances traveled in millennia, even though we are in the same galaxy. Maybe it’s just a problem of imagining the distances of space, (and a bit of a grudge against ad hoc'ing to make things fit, even though it's not the same as inventing 'dark matter'). Also:
200 proofs said:
There are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were a rotating, revolving, wobbling ball. For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a ball-Earth the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky.
Despite having a 32.5 degree tilt this should not be possible (according to stellarium)?
:(
