The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

[poptart]

One more time: Centripetal force.

But think about level cruise flight like the rock on the end of a string. Spin the rock in a circle and the string holds the rock at a constant distance from your hand. The string acts like gravity does on a plane flying.

At the equator, the earth is said to be spinning at about 1 mile per 3.6 seconds.



So a question for mvscal, LieSeater, and all the other brainiacs in this corner of the interweb...

If you set up a cannon to shoot a cannon ball straight up into the air 2,000 ft, about where will it land in relation to the cannon?

Why will it land there?

[Goober McTuber]

If you set up a cannon to shoot a cannon ball straight up into the air 2,000 ft, about where will it land in relation to the cannon?

Hopefully right on your head.

Why will it land there?

Because there is a God.

[poptart]

If the brown is the earth and you are at settled cruising altitude just above it in this diagram, if you fly from one end of the brown to the other, is the plane flying on a straight line or is it flying on a downward bend?

Neither. This is one of the parts of flight you and your video buddy don't get. I would be flying at a constant altitude above mean sea level. Not nose down to use your words.

Gravity.
If nothing changes with the plane or atmosphere the plane will stay a flight level due to gravity. As soon as something changes though you have to change something to maintain your assigned altitude.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Why do you deny that you fly on a globe -- while saying that you do?

If you wanted to raise your altitude significantly, taking the plane off of it's current altitude earth-hug (which btw, is undeniably following a DOWNWARD curve -- because gravity forces something DOWN), what would you do with your plane?

[Moving Sale]

At 30,000 ft it would be more than 8in/mile.

Sin,
Pythagorus

If it is 8.000" at the surface, it is probably somewhere around 7.999" at 30,000 ft.

Looks like you suck at geometry as much as everything else. Think about it for a minute, dumbass. As the radius of the arc gets larger, it becomes flatter. It will curve less over a mile.

Yea if you were landing on your orbit sphere, but you're not. You are still landing on the smaller earth sphere so the fall is greater. I know math is hard.

[Left Seater]

At the equator, the earth is said to be spinning at about 1 mile per 3.6 seconds.



So a question for mvscal, LieSeater, and all the other brainiacs in this corner of the interweb...

If you set up a cannon to shoot a cannon ball straight up into the air 2,000 ft, about where will it land in relation to the cannon?

Why will it land there?

We have to make a ton of assumptions here. 1) There is no wind. 2) The cannon ball is a perfect sphere and has zero imperfections. 3) The cannon itself has no bias and shoots the cannon ball directly along the Y axis with no travel in the X or Z axis.

Assuming all of those things are true. For all of us on the Earth's surface the cannon ball would fall back into the barrel of the cannon. However, if we called Moving Sale who is still sitting on the moon and asked him what he saw, his observation would be completely different. He would see the cannon ball travel in an arc and land back in the cannon barrel.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[Left Seater]

Listen to the interview.

Starts at about 10:15.

I listened, and found it very amusing. I was laughing so hard at times two other pilots had me play it out loud in the lounge. Comedy gold.

Couple of highlights and there are many more like these:

11:30 mark, talks about fudging flight data and numbers of southern hemisphere flights. Hundreds of thousands of people who have taken these flights and pilots and dispatchers and all the flight tracking sites are all in on this conspiracy.

42:50 mark, more reference to Southern Hemisphere flights. Talks about someone solving this issue.

1:05:55 mark, puts the flat earthers into the same category as LTS and 9/11 folks. Now things make more sense.

[Left Seater]

If you wanted to raise your altitude significantly, taking the plane off of it's current altitude earth-hug (which btw, is undeniably following a DOWNWARD curve -- because gravity forces something DOWN), what would you do with your plane?

How many times are you going to ask this question? Each time you do it brings you intellect further into question.

If I want to raise the altitude I can drop weight or increase lift. I can increase lift by increasing thrust. Jettisoning weight isn't an option.

[Left Seater]

Unanswered questions by Pop (and the remainder of the flat earth cult).

How do non stop flights operate around the Southern Hemisphere?

How is it possible that Southern Hemisphere cities have times of the year with well over 15 hours of sunlight a day?

How is it possible that we can't see the sun at all at times, yet it is 2500 miles above the surface of the earth?

How is it possible that we can't see stars that are visible hours later in the Southern Hemisphere?

How have ships transited the Southern ocean and also made a complete loop around Antarctica?

How do you explain commercial flights across Antarctica?

What is gained by keeping the flat earth info from citizens of the world?

Why isn't there a single photo of this alleged Ice wall holding in the oceans?

Why hasn't there been a single deathbed confession from one of these folks that "know the truth and are keeping it from us'?

[Mikey]

If you fly a straight line you'll also be gaining altitude, eventually pretty quickly. At some point there's not enough air to provide sufficient lift.

Now when the aircraft gets lighter, it would gain altitude to overcome gravity up to a point where the atmosphere is too thin to maintain altitude with the less dense and expanded air molecules under the wings to maintain the same lift. ATC assigns an altitude so you maintain it as assigned and "pilot" the aircraft. Hope that helps.

Thanks for clearing that up Mikey. I do understand your point in theory. Overcoming gravity even with a fixed weight will lose that possibility unless you have a tremendous velocity which can't happen in a commercial aircraft as you know. :wink:

I guess I didn't go back far enough to have caught that. I only check in on this thread once in a while. There's some really major stupid going on here.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

So a question for mvscal, LieSeater, and all the other brainiacs in this corner of the interweb...

If you set up a cannon to shoot a cannon ball straight up into the air 2,000 ft, about where will it land in relation to the cannon?

Why will it land there?

You understand that even in flight, gravity still controls the ball, right?
The ball leaving the cannon still has the forward momentum of the rotation of the Earth...and then less so, accounting for drag, etc...

[mvscal]

You understand...

I laughed.

[poptart]

I thought you were going to get back to me with proof that my equations for explaining Wire Boy's delusions were false.

There was absolutely no need to waste time on it.

I took your conclusion/ASSumption -- and CLEARLY showed that the curvature you claim is still simply -----> NOT THERE.
In fact, it's nowhere close.


You remain in denial.

[poptart]

If I want to raise the altitude I can drop weight or increase lift.

And if you did these things, and drew a line from the point you began doing them to a point say, 50 miles later, we would see a straight line (or upward curve) as opposed to the downward curve you are on as you follow the curve of the earth.

Reality 101

[poptart]

I agree that the cannonball will land near the cannon.

Why?
The earth is not moving.


duh

[poptart]

Unanswered questions by Pop (and the remainder of the flat earth cult).

How do non stop flights operate around the Southern Hemisphere?

How is it possible that Southern Hemisphere cities have times of the year with well over 15 hours of sunlight a day?

How is it possible that we can't see the sun at all at times, yet it is 2500 miles above the surface of the earth?

How is it possible that we can't see stars that are visible hours later in the Southern Hemisphere?

How have ships transited the Southern ocean and also made a complete loop around Antarctica?

How do you explain commercial flights across Antarctica?

What is gained by keeping the flat earth info from citizens of the world?

Why isn't there a single photo of this alleged Ice wall holding in the oceans?

Why hasn't there been a single deathbed confession from one of these folks that "know the truth and are keeping it from us'?

1. Most of these questions have already been discussed.
Honestly, a few of them are SO incredibly stupid that I feel embarrassed for reading them again.

2. I have more questions than answers, and have said so REPEATEDLY in this thread.

3. Look 'em up if you want. It's not very hard to get opinions on these things.

4. You will fight any answer that conflicts with your beloved model. It matters not what is posted by me.

5. I've not posted any model which I claim is THE EARTH.

6. You're a lost cause, imo.
DEEPLY entrenched in your brainwashing.
Swimming in it.

The spinning fairy tale globe with the bending waters -- spinning around the sun, zooming through space -- is frankly SO childishly ridiculous and IMPOSSIBLE that I really sit in amazement at the people who fight so vigorously to hold onto it.


Enjoy the globe up you ass.

[Moving Sale]

If you shot a cannonball in the air and somehow got it to land back in the cannon the ball would have traveled in an arch because the cannon has been moved by the earth's rotation.

[poptart]

:wink:


Yep.

[Atomic Punk]

He doesn't believe the Earth moves. It has been proven it does, but he is mentally shut to facts of math, science, and simple observation. He says he doesn't know and it will take time, but he isn't looking for truth. He relies on a false belief and uses Google to back up his misguided and highly uneducated beliefs. Taking Scriptures out of context to suit his beliefs mocks God-given intelligence.

No sense in arguing with a fool.

[Moving Sale]

Fair enough. If you are standing in a bus going 50 miles an hour and throw a ball in the air and catch it with your hand in the same place you threw the ball, the ball would have traveled in an arc because your hand has moved due to the bus moving.

[Atomic Punk]

The ball would have traveled in an arc from the release point from the hand due to the forward movement of the bus from the relative starting point to when it was caught. You could do the same thing if the Earth wasn't rotating and the bus moving. You could demonstrate the same thing if you were walking and tossed the ball straight up and caught it from the release point. So, that won't be a good example.

[poptart]

Taking Scriptures out of context

I'm the guy who is taking the Scripture at face value.

You are DEEPLY confused.

[Atomic Punk]

You can take Scriptures at literal value, but you won't find a consensus of Bible scholars that will agree with you. Much of the language is metaphorical and simlies... another thing you don't understand. Yet, you rely on a small sample of Google sources to support your views. Believe what you want, but you are proven wrong with math, science, the usage of language and observation.

[Left Seater]

we would see a straight line (or upward curve)

Reality 101

You have gone so crazy that a straight line curves in your world.

Straight jacket 101.

[Moving Sale]

Fair enough. If you are standing in a bus going 50 miles an hour and throw a ball in the air and catch it with your hand in the same place you threw the ball, the ball would have traveled in an arc because your hand has moved due to the bus moving.

No shit, Sherlock. But that arc would be relative to what? The rotation of the Earth is inertial. Do you know any point in this expanding Universe that is not in motion relative to something else?

The point is I think pop does. Keep playing checkers Counselor.

[poptart]

I thought you were going to get back to me with proof that my equations for explaining Wire Boy's delusions were false.

There was absolutely no need to waste time on it.

I took your conclusion/ASSumption -- and CLEARLY showed that the curvature you claim is still simply -----> NOT THERE.
In fact, it's nowhere close.


You remain in denial.

Weak sauce, explorer. When confronted with the math and visual evidence that proves you are completely full of shit, you tack to a different course of insanity rather than address it. Your boat of fraud is sinking, captain.

Happy to add you to the growing *LIAR* list.


From page 26, your conclusion of wire boy's findings was this...

Of particular note, that list includes CN Tower, which stands 1,814' height. The math tells us that 1,349' of it should be visible to Wire Boy's camera. And that certainly appears to be the case from his video

- 88


To which I accurately responded on page 27...

Due to time constraint, this is in response to Smackie and 88 -- regarding measurements and wire boy's antics.
88, I don't have time to go through your post from yesterday, so let's assume your conclusion is accurate -- and let's also subtract 50 ft for the Tower being up a bit from the water.
I've looked at many pics and that seems generous, honestly.
415 feet need to be hidden under the horizon in this case.



Rogers Center is 282 ft tall.
That building to the right of the tower, with the dark blue outline -- is about 400 ft tall then, right?
So in wire boy's pic, everything below that building needs to be... GONE.

So look at his pic again...




We're nowhere close to it, folks.

Even taking your bogus conclusions and assumptions as reality, visual evidence shows us that you are dead wrong.

The curvature you assure us of ----> is simply NOT THERE.

Not even close.


Why do you lie?

[poptart]

the ball would have traveled in an arch

Doesn't matter, anyway.

An arch is the same as a straight line.

- Lie Seater

[poptart]

You can take Scriptures at literal value, but you won't find a consensus of Bible scholars that will agree with you.

It doesn't matter to me if "a consensus of "Bible scholars" agree with me or not.

Luther was not exactly welcomed, as you may know.

[Left Seater]

the ball would have traveled in an arch

Doesn't matter, anyway.

An arch is the same as a straight line.

- Lie Seater

Add perspective to the list of simple things you can't comprehend.

But the fact you are reduced to name calling and not answering direct questions is the most telling.

[poptart]

Listen to the interview.

Starts at about 10:15.

I listened, and found it very amusing. I was laughing so hard at times two other pilots had me play it out loud in the lounge. Comedy gold.

Couple of highlights and there are many more like these:

11:30 mark, talks about fudging flight data and numbers of southern hemisphere flights. Hundreds of thousands of people who have taken these flights and pilots and dispatchers and all the flight tracking sites are all in on this conspiracy.

42:50 mark, more reference to Southern Hemisphere flights. Talks about someone solving this issue.

1:05:55 mark, puts the flat earthers into the same category as LTS and 9/11 folks. Now things make more sense.

I have no idea why you would think you have the balls to take that kind of posture.

Surprisingly (or not), you the pilot, seem to know very little about the basics of the conversation.


I posted this about the casino that Moving Sale said he could view from 20 miles away...

The earth supposedly curves at the rate of 8" per mile.
Use the earth curvature calculator.
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

At 20 miles away, and with someone viewing from a height of 6', 64 yards-worth of the casino is supposed to be UNDER THE HORIZON.

It's basic fact.

To which you incredibly (or not) posted...

Pop, you are asking us all to open our eyes and THINK. Go back and reread the above section I quoted here and then THINK hard on what you have posted.

If the earth is supposedly curving at a rate of 8 inches per mile, there is no possible way that app is providing correct info. Seriously THINK about this. Go back and look at your curvature calculator. Still don't see it? Let's go look at your calculator. Put in an eye height of 6 feet. Then put in the target distance of 20 miles. If the earth is curving at 8 inches per mile, then someone should be able to see something at ground height 9 miles away, not the 3 miles your app claims.

[math]1 foot = 12 inches; 6 feet = 72 inches; earth curvature of 8 inches per mile; 72 inches in height divided by 8 inches per mile = 9 miles; or in other words the horizon is 9 miles away from someone with an eye height of 6 feet. If we then draw a circle with a radius of 9 miles from that horizon point it will intersect where our person with an eye height of 6 feet is standing. The opposite point of that circle will be 18 miles from where our person is standing. That means anything over 6 feet high would be visible at 18 miles from the original person with an eye height of 6 feet.[/math]

So either your 8 inches per mile is wrong or your app is wrong or both. But they both can't be correct. THINK about it don't just punch in numbers and vomit out what it says.

You, the pilot expert, came in and tried to sell that earth curvature is 8" per mile... CONSTANT, saying there is just 6 feet of curvature over 18 miles for someone 6 ft tall.

I mean, WTF?



And yet since then, you've repeatedly come at me, chiding, me, bombing me with questions.

Shit, dude, do your own research.
It's very evident that you need to.

If you're buzzin' airplanes all over the place and have thought the earth is curving at that rate, I mean... wow.
And after embarrassing yourself that way, you're going to chide the instructor in the interview?
Whatever.

Beyond that, if that was what you assumed earth curvature to be, it tells me that you never really thought about it.
You've never needed to.

Because it's NOT IN EXISTENCE, imo.


I've already said a dozen time now, and a few times to YOU specifically, I don't KNOW all the answers.
There are many things I am exploring and many more that I am sure I will explore.

I have no model I claim is THE model.

The ball earth is on trial.

[Goober McTuber]

You can take Scriptures at literal value, but you won't find a consensus of Bible scholars that will agree with you.

It doesn't matter to me if "a consensus of "Bible scholars" agree with me or not.

Luther was not exactly welcomed, as you may know.

So now you're equating yourself with Luther?

So what will your followers be called? Popovers? Tartians? Flatliners? How about Lunatics.

[mvscal]

Ignorant fucktards works.

[smackaholic]

Listen to the interview.

Starts at about 10:15.

I listened, and found it very amusing. I was laughing so hard at times two other pilots had me play it out loud in the lounge. Comedy gold.

Couple of highlights and there are many more like these:

11:30 mark, talks about fudging flight data and numbers of southern hemisphere flights. Hundreds of thousands of people who have taken these flights and pilots and dispatchers and all the flight tracking sites are all in on this conspiracy.

42:50 mark, more reference to Southern Hemisphere flights. Talks about someone solving this issue.

1:05:55 mark, puts the flat earthers into the same category as LTS and 9/11 folks. Now things make more sense.

I have no idea why you would think you have the balls to take that kind of posture.

Surprisingly (or not), you the pilot, seem to know very little about the basics of the conversation.


I posted this about the casino that Moving Sale said he could view from 20 miles away...

The earth supposedly curves at the rate of 8" per mile.
Use the earth curvature calculator.
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

At 20 miles away, and with someone viewing from a height of 6', 64 yards-worth of the casino is supposed to be UNDER THE HORIZON.

It's basic fact.

To which you incredibly (or not) posted...

Pop, you are asking us all to open our eyes and THINK. Go back and reread the above section I quoted here and then THINK hard on what you have posted.

If the earth is supposedly curving at a rate of 8 inches per mile, there is no possible way that app is providing correct info. Seriously THINK about this. Go back and look at your curvature calculator. Still don't see it? Let's go look at your calculator. Put in an eye height of 6 feet. Then put in the target distance of 20 miles. If the earth is curving at 8 inches per mile, then someone should be able to see something at ground height 9 miles away, not the 3 miles your app claims.

[math]1 foot = 12 inches; 6 feet = 72 inches; earth curvature of 8 inches per mile; 72 inches in height divided by 8 inches per mile = 9 miles; or in other words the horizon is 9 miles away from someone with an eye height of 6 feet. If we then draw a circle with a radius of 9 miles from that horizon point it will intersect where our person with an eye height of 6 feet is standing. The opposite point of that circle will be 18 miles from where our person is standing. That means anything over 6 feet high would be visible at 18 miles from the original person with an eye height of 6 feet.[/math]

So either your 8 inches per mile is wrong or your app is wrong or both. But they both can't be correct. THINK about it don't just punch in numbers and vomit out what it says.

You, the pilot expert, came in and tried to sell that earth curvature is 8" per mile... CONSTANT, saying there is just 6 feet of curvature over 18 miles for someone 6 ft tall.

I mean, WTF?



And yet since then, you've repeatedly come at me, chiding, me, bombing me with questions.

Shit, dude, do your own research.
It's very evident that you need to.

If you're buzzin' airplanes all over the place and have thought the earth is curving at that rate, I mean... wow.
And after embarrassing yourself that way, you're going to chide the instructor in the interview?
Whatever.

Beyond that, if that was what you assumed earth curvature to be, it tells me that you never really thought about it.
You've never needed to.

Because it's NOT IN EXISTENCE, imo.


I've already said a dozen time now, and a few times to YOU specifically, I don't KNOW all the answers.
There are many things I am exploring and many more that I am sure I will explore.

I have no model I claim is THE model.

The ball earth is on trial.

Why are you still struggling with basic arithmetic/geometry?

The curve is 8" per mile. 9 miles will have about 72 inches of curve. You keep trying to plug in some kind of formula that squares things rather than adds them. The vertical lines 1 mile or 9 miles or even 200 miles away from one another are less than a few degrees apart. Eventually when you get thousands of miles away, the math does change. But for the topic at hand, viewing objects close enough to see, good old addition works.

[Left Seater]

Southern Hemisphere flights are waiting for your answer. You claim to have one but don't want to share it.

We are ready to laugh.

[Mikey]

You can take Scriptures at literal value, but you won't find a consensus of Bible scholars that will agree with you.

It doesn't matter to me if "a consensus of "Bible scholars" agree with me or not.

Luther was not exactly welcomed, as you may know.

So now you're equating yourself with Luther?

So what will your followers be called? Popovers? Tartians? Flatliners? How about Lunatics.

Luther?

I'm pretty sure poptart runnd him.

[smackaholic]

Why do you lie?

Where is the Rogers Center in Wire Boy's picture, Poppy?

And weren't you the one who claimed that if the Earth was a sphere, you shouldn't be able to see any buildings in Toronto?

Of course you wouldn't, because 8 inches x 31 miles = 12,000 ft according to pop bible math.

[Jay in Phoenix]

1. Most of these questions have already been discussed.
Honestly, a few of them are SO incredibly stupid that I feel embarrassed for reading them again.

No, most if not ALL of them are so incredibly on point that you are too gutless to answer them. Still waiting on the time zone, shifting constellations, etc. for one.

2. I have more questions than answers, and have said so REPEATEDLY in this thread.

A rare honest response. How noble. No, you're actually bullshitting again. You've made up your mind since your first post, yet as you've been repeatedly backed into a corner, you shift gears and go with the pathetic, "I'm still researching, still seeking answers." garbage. the answers are all right there in front of you, you simply choose to ignore them.

3. Look 'em up if you want. It's not very hard to get opinions on these things.

No it isn't. See above response. Simply because you and Midget Sale choose to ignore science and logic doesn't mean the science, math, aeronautics, physics and logic are wrong. You and tiny twat are.

4. You will fight any answer that conflicts with your beloved model. It matters not what is posted by me.

So now you're going IKYABWAI. Classic denial and defensive posturing from someone who has been embarrassed beyond all reason. Time to hang it up tart.

5. I've not posted any model which I claim is THE EARTH.

Except all of the flat Earth ones? Another lie to compound your multiple layers of duplicity. Ridiculous.

6. You're a lost cause, imo.

Not nearly as much as your own fraudtart. From a pure observational standpoint, the intellectual grave you have dug for yourself has caved in and buried you in abject stupidity. The name calling and insults you accuse everyone else of has been doubled by you and has made for a bitchy little defense of conspiracy, fallacy and myth.

While you've raised a couple of mathematical queries that are interesting, you've manipulated them to divert from the fact you cannot support your flat Earth crapology. Flush yourself tart, time to spin into oblivion.

DEEPLY entrenched in your brainwashing.
Swimming in it.

Says the indoctrinated cult victim. Jim Jones is calling and has a cup of Kool-Aid with your name on it.

Enjoy the globe up your ass.

The exclamation point on your logic. Good show.

[Atomic Punk]

^^^ Why do the leaves on the trees turn colors the same time every year? Why does it get cold and why does it get hot when the rotating Earth and Moon are consistently opposite of each other covering the same path in his flat model? Hmmm.

[poptart]

Why are you still struggling with basic arithmetic/geometry?

The curve is 8" per mile. 9 miles will have about 72 inches of curve. You keep trying to plug in some kind of formula that squares things rather than adds them. The vertical lines 1 mile or 9 miles or even 200 miles away from one another are less than a few degrees apart. Eventually when you get thousands of miles away, the math does change. But for the topic at hand, viewing objects close enough to see, good old addition works.

Simply UN
FRICKIN'
BELIEVABLE!!




Your math is right?
9 miles will have 72" of curve?
bwaaaa hahahaha!!

When you get thousands of miles away, the math changes??

When does it kick in in suckaholic world?




Dude, you're dead wrong, have been dead wrong, and have been shown you are dead wrong a number of times -- and yet you continue to bang this obliterated drum.

What is honestly wrong with you?


The 8" is only for the first mile.
This isn't a point of debate.
It's called FACT.

Curvature rate is approximately 8" x the distance squared.

Slam it into your brain.

This debate was OVER on page 4, and yet many of the so-called "smart" people keep harping on it -- up until page 31.

Hilarious x pages squared!

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/





If you are viewing (O) and line (a) represents 8" (1 mile away), as soon as you take a step toward (B) and calculate what has happened to the rate, it is OBVIOUS that it has accelerated from the original 8" per mile.

This is basic common sense as well as basic math.

Look at the diagram and -----> THINK.


Lay off your keyboard until you get your dumb ass up to speed on the issue.

[poptart]

Why do you lie?

Where is the Rogers Center in Wire Boy's picture, Poppy?

And weren't you the one who claimed that if the Earth was a sphere, you shouldn't be able to see any buildings in Toronto?

I've never claimed any such thing.

I've always used the basic math and referred to known curvature rate to determine what should be seen.





Wire boy's location is south and west of the above pic.

Since RC is lower than the surrounding buildings, it is obscured by them.

You can plainly look at the pic and see that buildings are in view which are supposed to be under the horizon.

Again, it's not even close.

The alleged curvature is not there.

I could pull up a dozen such pictures from the internet without even trying.

[poptart]

Why do you lie?

Where is the Rogers Center in Wire Boy's picture, Poppy?

And weren't you the one who claimed that if the Earth was a sphere, you shouldn't be able to see any buildings in Toronto?

Of course you wouldn't, because 8 inches x 31 miles = 12,000 ft according to pop bible math.

Viewed from sea level, 31 miles has 640 ft of curvature.

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

Viewed from any level, you are a 'tard.