Nice to dream
(cdn.videy.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
We slung shot ourselves around the far side of the moon while our engines were down goy!
Boomer porn.
This is like niggers thinking wakanda is a real place
Lots of flat earthers are former submarine captains and pilots. How do signals travel 1500 miles if there is curve? Why no adjustment for curve when maintaining submarine equal distance to surface of water which curves around the planet? Why does airplane flying flat as a pancake not have to adjust for increasing altitude? Why are submarines not factoring for curvature when dealing with sonar?
> How do signals travel 1500 miles if there is curve?
Ionosphere. Well known in the ham/amateur radio community. Fun fact: when the ionosphere is particularly excited (e.g. during aurora), you can literally talk halfway around the world.
> Why no adjustment for curve when maintaining submarine equal distance to surface of water
Subs maintain altitude through buoyancy, not newton's 3rd law. The buoyancy force is always normal to gravity, and thus subs wouldn't need to compensate even if Earth were a mobius strip.
> Why does airplane flying flat as a pancake [...]
They don't.
> [...] not have to adjust for increasing altitude?
Same deal as submarines. Less lift with thinner air + direct relationship between speed and lift = maintaining speed will maintain the altitude, no compensation needed. Remember air isn't an isotropic medium, and neither is water in the sea. The density varies extremely with altitude.
> Why are submarines not factoring for curvature when dealing with sonar?
Sonar is sound; the sound pulse itself isn't tangible, real, or matter, so trying to reason about its motion with the physics of missiles won't work. Much as light, it refracts and reflects off of interfaces, each producing an echo. In short, it bounces off of both the sea floor and the surface of the sea. I can find a good explainer video for you, if you like.
This is exactly what happens, until the thinness of the air reduces your wing lift force and you reach an equilibrium.
> Commercial flights are just perfectly set [...]
There is a lot that goes into this, but commercial planes can change the efficiency of their wing in flight through so-called 'flaps' and 'slats'. These are both a requirement to land at the speed planes land at, or to go faster at lower altitude levels (hence why going faster at lower altitudes is fuel inefficient - it requires you ruining the wing's lift efficiency somewhat. These same speeds are perfectly efficient at high altitudes, because you don't have to use slats/flaps to ruin the wing's optimally efficient shape.
> So I would imagine a fighter jet going several times faster than the speed of a typical commercial flight would then have to nose down to keep from continually rising?
Not a bad thought, but this assumes all wings are equally efficient at producing lift. For an example, the 747 has a lift factor of 17, meaning the 400 ton plane can stay airborne with just 24 tons of thrust. At the far extreme, some gliders have ratios over 70. Fighter plane wings have a typical factor of 2, meaning they literally can only become airborne because of their huge engines.
The wings of fighter jets are actually designed for the speeds they travel at; they use a different shape. Fighter jet wings are typically symmetrical, an extremely inefficient shape (though this also allows them to fly upside down without any loss in lift) which makes it really hard for fighter jets to stay in the air at lower speeds (go look at videos of civilian interceptions to see this in action - the jet's nose will be pointed at the sky).
However, if the fighter jet's wings were of the same asymmetrical design of a jetliners, barring using spoilers/flaps to ruin the wing's shape, they actually would have to nose down to maintain altitude at their increased speed.
Speaking of the ocean, why is the top of a mountain or lighthouse the first thing I see if I'm far away? Rather, if the earth is flat, it should all come into focus at once. But this doesn't happen.
Why can't I see Hawaii from California? I should be able to take a telescope powerful enough, point it flat along the horizon in the direction of Hawaii, and see it from the west coast. But I can't, even though Hawaii is mountainous and far above sea level. Why not?
Further, as I approach Hawaii, when the islands are out of sight, the first thing I will see are the tops of mountains. The shoreline of Hawaii will be invisible. Why? I should be able to see them both at the same time.
Have any of your submarine captains, or anyone else, ever seen the edge of the earth? Where is it? We should have found it by now.
Here's a flat earther who designed an experiment to prove the earth is flat. He admitted that if his experiment failed, it would prove the earth is round. Watch the video. His experiment fails, to the surprise of no one who isn't an idiot.
https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/flat-earther-proves-world-round
When the sun is in the sky, why can't I see it at "night"? I can see the moon at night or in the day, where the hell is the sun at night? Why does it sink "below" a horizon? This makes no sense on a flat planet. If I can't see the sun, no one should be able to see it. Yet when it's night in America, it's day in China. Why? This makes no sense on a flat earth.
We have now gotten to the point where we can build structures that account for the curvature of the earth. The Verrazano-Narrows bridge has cables longer at the top of its pylons than those at the bottom, even though both ends feature pylons pointing straight up. This is to be expected if one lives on the surface of a ball, but makes no sense if the surfaces are flat.
https://www.mathscinotes.com/2017/01/effect-of-earths-curvature-on-suspension-bridge-dimensions/
The sun and moon questions are good and probably one of the more obvious rebuttals since the sun looks like it is rising over the horizon. Flat earthers claim the sun is moving around a round plane.
I listen to the Crrow777 podcast and I think he is a novice astronomer so I am a bit familiar with their claims. He even claims there is a second sun. The flat earthers mostly got banned off the scored forum and I don't argue their points as well as they did.
I used to listen to Art Bell and George Noory on Coast to Coast AM and entertain the idea of big foot, ghosts, crop circles, lochness monster, Roswell, alien abductions and whatever other shit crazies called in about at 3am. Unsolved mysteries was popular along with x files and other shows and then we get ancient aliens and flat earth which was popular around 2015. I think the newest fad is believing everything is just a simulation.
Moving around a round plane? WTF? Why can't I see the sun at night? It doesn't matter what "plane" the sun moves in, round, square, shaped like an octopus, I should be able to see it if we live on a flat surface. If it was night everywhere on earth at the same time, maybe this wouldn't be solid proof, but why is it day and night simultaneously on different parts of the earth if the sun is always in the sky?
There is no second sun, and such a thing wouldn't help your case. Crow777 is full of shit. Think about it. Why can't I see two suns? Wouldn't this make night more scarce on a flat surface? Because now I have twice as many lights? Who comes up with this dogshit?