• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

Nukehasslefan said:
Not at all.
You say the globe is right without knowing you're even on a globe.

Not at all.
I can check any distance if I have the means to transport and know the speed and time to the destination from departure.
A plane would offer me a more direct route to a destination where obstacles would be an issue for other transport.
A level flight would then offer me my approximate distance.

But you're still using a globe as the premise for measurement.
Click to expand...
So you cannot disprove the distance between Rio and Sydney then 👌
 

I wonder if Newcastle Fan if sat down with an astronaut would use the word liar when he was told from first-hand experience that they'd been to the ISS
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Again, your reliance is on being told it's proven, you do not actually know for sure.
Click to expand...
And yet again, you are calling me a liar while claiming not to do so in the very same post.
Nukehasslefan said:
Of course, when mass adherence to proven facts is the reality. In this case, it's mass adherence to the stories told of alleged facts.
Click to expand...
Proven facts.
Nukehasslefan said:
Not at all. You can take it as me saying you are mistaken in your belief but I won't call you a liar.
Click to expand...
Yeah you have done consistently
Nukehasslefan said:
Why should I? I respect that you believe in what you believe in, I just don't share it and my argument is not with you, it's with the storytellers but it's argued in their favour by you and others.
Click to expand...
Deluded and paranoid
Nukehasslefan said:
I am massively indoctrinated. Saturated and have been all of my life.
I do not deny any of it.
I'm now questioning some of it.
Click to expand...
You should question more. So far you have only made unsubstantiated claims and denied or refused anything offered as fact.
 
chelt_mackem said:
You didn't explain the calculation, but fair enough, if we have to travel between the 2 cities to determine the distance between them, how do we know which way to point our vehicle (let's say a plane) to travel between Rio and Sydney in the shortest possible time?
Click to expand...
Today it's via a planned route in their navigation systems. Pilots simply follow that.
They follow their map just as you would follow your map in your car or your own navigation system in your car.

If you mean let's strip to the bare bones without that then it's a reliance on landmarks and whatnot or even points of light observation.
 
legend7 said:
No I mean explain the opposite bit.
You said that like your lemon squeezer map south america and Australia were still opposite each other so both furthest away from the centre.
How can we then fly direct in 15 hours over such a vast distance and on your map if you draw a line you have to cross the central projector area so you would have to go around that too?
Click to expand...
No, you don't.
DPTT said:
So you cannot disprove the distance between Rio and Sydney then 👌
Click to expand...
Why would I need to?
payne said:
I wonder if Newcastle Fan if sat down with an astronaut would use the word liar when he was told from first-hand experience that they'd been to the ISS
Click to expand...
I'd have no qualms about calling one out.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
No, you don't.

Why would I need to?

I'd have no qualms about calling one out.
Click to expand...
The distance is about 13,500 km and takes about 16 1/2 using data presuming the earth is a globe.
Now this is accepted and can be verified by thousands of people who have done this flight, yes?
Now if you done this flight and verified it then do you accept on your world they would be the same distance apart as they are on our globe model, yes?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Today it's via a planned route in their navigation systems. Pilots simply follow that.
They follow their map just as you would follow your map in your car or your own navigation system in your car.
Click to expand...
Unusually you are absolutely correct in your assertion that pilots follow a planned route in the onboard navigation system.

What you fail to mention is that said planned routes are, without exception, calculated based upon the principle of the great circle, which of course presupposes a globe.

Source: a retired police, military and international airline pilot.
 
DPTT said:
The distance is about 13,500 km and takes about 16 1/2 using data presuming the earth is a globe.
Now this is accepted and can be verified by thousands of people who have done this flight, yes?
Click to expand...
As I've said before, the flight does not offer a global distance.
DPTT said:
Now if you done this flight and verified it then do you accept on your world they would be the same distance apart as they are on our globe model, yes?
Click to expand...
I accept distances as they are but not over any globe.
 
Pancho said:
Unusually you are absolutely correct in your assertion that pilots follow a planned route in the onboard navigation system.

What you fail to mention is that said planned routes are, without exception, calculated based upon the principle of the great circle, which of course presupposes a globe.
Click to expand...
The great circle is simply supposedly following a globe instead of a straight and level path.
It's a good story from the globalists but only that as far as I'm concerned.
It's all about what each person wants to look at.
A level flight with simple knowledge of it being that or following a curvature with no knowledge of it by sense.
Basically, we're told a plane just automatically follows a curve at a specific height for whatever reasons.
Pancho said:
Source: a retired police, military and international airline pilot.
Click to expand...
Anyone can offer a source but what can that source offer as a reason and a knowing they follow this great circle?
Pancho said:
You are demonstrably wrong.
Click to expand...
Then you keep to that. I have no issue with you claiming I'm wrong. I just disagree with you.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
The great circle is simply supposedly following a globe instead of a straight and level path.
It's a good story from the globalists but only that as far as I'm concerned.
It's all about what each person wants to look at.
A level flight with simple knowledge of it being that or following a curvature with no knowledge of it by sense.
Basically, we're told a plane just automatically follows a curve at a specific height for whatever reasons.

Anyone can offer a source but what can that source offer as a reason and a knowing they follow this great circle?

Then you keep to that. I have no issue with you claiming I'm wrong. I just disagree with you.
Click to expand...
Your first paragraph is just word salad with appalling syntax.

The source is an experienced pilot who has in the past calculated and produced his own flight plans.

The fundamental mathematical formula to those calculations is based upon the radius of the globe.

That is an unassailable fact and one that is proven literally thousands of times every day when the flight times of all international flights are entirely consistent with a core radius of 3,950 miles.

It's mathematically indisputable.
 
Pancho said:
Your first paragraph is just word salad with appalling syntax.

The source is an experienced pilot who has in the past calculated and produced his own flight plans.

The fundamental mathematical formula to those calculations is based upon the radius of the globe.

That is an unassailable fact and one that is proven literally thousands of times every day when the flight times of all international flights are entirely consistent with a core radius of 3,950 miles.

It's mathematically indisputable.
Click to expand...
Using logic and reason against a complete fantasist just doesn’t go anywhere. As I’ve said before it’s like trying to convince the bloke in the asylum he’s not Napoleon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top