Because the adjustment isn’t up and down it’s left right.. just because they say it’s to adjust for the spin doesn’t make it so... it could be adjusting to keep a true westerly or easterly direction and to keep magnetic north.

Answer my question now... why don’t pilots dip the nose of the plane to account for flying level on a spinning ball?

Also ask him if the horizon rises to his eye level and if it appears flat?

It's interesting that you mention brainwashing and indoctrination, when Flat Earther's make almost identical claims using almost identical language, even using almost identical phrases.

e.g. How many of the following have you ever said:

..."8 inches per mile squared"?

..."the horizon always rises to eye level"?

..."there is no measurable curvature"?

..."bendy water"?

..."five scientific experiments prove a stationary Earth"?

..."the Cavendish experiment has never been repeated"?

..."it's just perspective"?

..."zooming in brings ships over the horizon completely back into view"?

..."there's no magical force called gravity, there's just density and buoyancy"?

..."how can gravity keep the vast oceans stuck to the globe but a butterfly can fly away?"?

..."there's no real footage of satellites in space"?

..."satellites would melt in the Thermosphere"?

..."rockets can't work in a vacuum"?

..."how can a pressurised atmosphere exist next to a vacuum?"?

..."there are no real photographs of the Earth from space"?

..."Robert Simmon/NASA's Blue Marble 2.0 is photoshopped BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE"?

..."where are the upside down planes/ buildings in Australia?"?

..."why are there no stars visible from the ISS/the Moon?"?

..."the ACTORnaughts on the ISS use wires/ harnesses/green screen/virtual reality"?

..."why no 360 degree shots on the Moon/ the ISS?"?

..."our senses tell us we live on a flat, stationary plain"?

..."science should be testable, demonstrable, and repeatable"?

..."you can't prove that... / there's no proof that..."? such as "there's no proof we live on a magic spinning ball"?


etc.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

This doesn't make sense. Up/down, left/right are relative terms not applicable to this conversation. I'm still not sure what pilots are adjusting for according to you. Why would they need to adjust to keep a true west/east direction or to keep magnetic north if the earth is fixed? What, according to you, has changed such that they need to recalculate?

Let's resolve the first question first.

Let’s keep this simple..

Why can’t we feel any movement

Why does water always seek its level

Why is the horizon flat and why does it rise to eye level ?

You are right there are a lot of the same proofs

But that doesn’t mean it’s not flat

Why do you keep trying to change the subject? If the earth is flat and fixed, why do pilots need to adjust for the rotation of the earth when navigating?

I answered..
I don’t doubt they adjust

I’m just questioning what they’re adjusting

They don’t dip the nose of the plane you have no answer to how a plane could fly around the curved ball earth without having to dip its nose.

You see if you’re flying level and the horizon stays level you would need to dip the nose to avoid flying out into “space”’

Answer my question ask your brother if he dips the nose of the plane and why not?

Also explain how if they are “adjusting for the spin” and the earth approximately spins 1000mph and commercial jetliners average about 500-600mph if they are adjusting for the spin like you say then how the f do they ever get to a destination east of the spin speed is greater than the airplane speed??

Also please show me actual picture from space of something to adhering to the underside of a ball via magical force of gravity please

I’ll give you $1000 if you can show me a picture from space of gravity holding a boat or car upside down to the underside of a “globe”.

Same could be said for

“Bc gravity”
“Atmosphere”
“Why would they lie?”
“What does it matter anyway?”
“You would fall off the edge”
“Where’s the edge?”
“The other planets are circles”
“How do you circumnavigate?”
“Explain time zones”

All brainwashed conditioned answers

No orginsl thought..

Both sides of the argument are stale I can agree with you on that much.

But the logical conclusion when they fake moon landings fake 9/11 , gulf of Tonkin, so on and so on one can only conclude that we have been lied to and agendas are being pushed.

Keep the people confused and divided way easier to control a populace that way.

We already agreed that pilots have to adjust for the rotation of the earth when navigating. I asked you why they need to do this. I have an explanation for why they have to do this: the earth is rotating. You deny this thesis, so I want to know your alternative explanation for why airplane pilots have to adjust for the rotation of the earth in order to correctly navigate to their destination, even though the earth is in fact flat and fixed.

I agreed that they make adjustments but we agree to disagree as to why they are making adjustments.. you won’t even touch my dipping nose comment.

I don’t think you will seriously entertain any thought of a flat and motionless earth. So we are done. I tried to wake you up but obviously you have all the answers.

“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance”

No, this isn't what's happened at all. You have no explanation consistent with your claim about the earth being flat for why pilots who adjust for the earth's rotation are still able to navigate accurately. It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore such strong evidence against the flat earth claim. If you want to acknowledge that you have no explanation for this fact, and so it provides evidence against the flat earth hypothesis and for the standard view, then I'd be happy to move on.

Point being, when 'they' do it it's brainwashing, but not you - you're immune.

Where'd you get the idea we should feel the kind of movement you're asking about?

If you've done the research you say, you'd know why water finds level. Also, level is not the same as flat.

What would you expect the almost-flat disc (about 6 miles across) that makes up our visible world, to look like from its surface?

And again, where'd you get the idea the horizon rises to eye level? You can test this yourself. It doesn't. Are you willing to test it out?



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You were making some sense but then you said the horizon doesn’t rise to eye level and lost all credibility..

I’m open to debate and discussion

You’re the one being closed off

I guess that makes me brainwashed to openly want to kick around ideas

If someone could ever give any shred of actual proof of a spinning ball holding things with the magical force of gravity that would be great.

How does gravity know to use its pull to keep earth in orbit around sun but the magically allows moon to orbit earth. Oh and the sun and moon just appear to be the same size. Just a coincidence. Don’t think critically people just listen to what you’ve been told and accept it and defend it and get mad if people question.

Until you can provide any evidence the onus of proof is on the fact it feels flat and motionless so you have to prove your spinning ball.

You didn't respond to anything. Even my asking whether you'd be prepared to test your claims.

Here:




eta: ignore the "Flat Earth Debunked" part of the video title. I'm just looking at your specific claim that "the horizon always rises to eye level".


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Science does not prove.
Science explains. Science predicts.

We're not off to the best of starts.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The fact there are so many “debunking flat earth videos” should raise your eye brow of suspicion

Go find a high point and tell me honestly if you can look 360 degrees around you if the horizon doesn’t seem to be at the same level in 360 degrees.

If we lived on a ball the horizon should actually dip away from the viewers perspective at all points. But the opposite is observable so we are left with a wtf moment.

That video is laughable; helps my horizon rising to eye level argument

I like how you say ignore flat earth debunked as if you know how credulous your position really is

Great. So answer my question about why pilots have to adjust for the rotation of the earth when navigating. I get that you disagree with my explanation, but you've never provided an alternative explanation. So how do you explain this?

Also, I asked my brother about pointing the nose of the plane down and he said that you are underestimating the size of the earth. At normal speeds this dip would be imperceptible to human perception as it is too small a change, akin to trying to watch the hour hand move on an analog clock moving at quarter speed. Here is a video explaining this.

He also send me this video of someone using a drone to demonstrate the differing horizon level of different altitudes consistent with a round earth. He sends up a drone with a video camera up a 1000 feet at the beach and has another camera on the beach. The sun sets 2 minutes earlier for the beach camera, as predicted by the spherical earth theory. Your explanation?

That's not an argument, something you've been called out on repeatedly in this thread.

Which observations from the video made you laugh and how did they help your argument?


I'm not particularly interested in debating "the shape of the Earth", but I do like to know why someone holds individual beliefs. I presented this video as a repeatable experiment to show the horizon drops slightly (imperceptibly, probably, without any reference).

If someone thinks they have a reason to support Flat Earth and it is shown to be wrong, the intellectually honest person will drop it from their set of reasons. I happen to think this can be done over and over, until the FE'er has no more reasons. At that point we find out whether they are a Flat Earther because of those reasons or whether it is based on dogma. But each point needs to be addressed once by one. That's why I said to ignore the title.

I'm convinced most are not actually Flat Earther's at all, but some are. Few give a honest discussion, but it does happen...occasionally. But, RGT is possibly not the right place to have it anyway. Perhaps we'll get some leeway, but you need to start answering questions before throwing out more.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Wolfie's channel is really interesting, a pilot who is interested enough to address Flat Earth claims e.g. whether the horizon changes according to altitude (it does), how gyroscopes are used in the artificial horizon and how they are designed to self-correct.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I don’t think ‘dogma’ is the right way to look at it. I’d say it’s more due to extreme skepticism and mistrust of authority, an openness to unpopular or fringe ideas, and a failure to prioritize ‘truth’. The first two factors are not an issue, but the third is a problem.

Yes, dogma is prob the wrong word, although there are definitely some authority figureheads in the movement (who are often making money from the movement). What I really meant was that many reasons given for holding the position are discovered after the position is already in place, a lot like certain apologist arguments. In which case, eliminating these reasons won't change someone from holding the position.


Extreme skepticism definitely (might we say global skepticism?! lol) but highly selective, with an equally selective lack of skepticism / confirmation bias, as necessary.

e.g.
A 19th Century experiment demonstrating the universal gravitational constant?
= can't be trusted, has never been repeated (it has) etc.

A 19th Century experiment that fails to find the aether (thought at the time to beer the media for light waves)?
= sufficient to 'prove' a stationary Earth (despite the authors themselves not concluding anything of the sort).

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Hmmm...maybe this is why Trump won. Too much aether got the media drunk.