Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Other Other Topics Discussion of arts & entertainment, pop culture, food & drink, health and exercise, fashion, relationships, work, and just about anything else in life except poker, sports, religion and politics.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2015, 11:49 AM   #151
RiverFenix
banned
 
RiverFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: not a serious business
Posts: 8,829
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

I think airline flight routes raise questions as to whether the earth is a globe as given by these videos.



This one shows how the maps we use seem to be unreliable.
RiverFenix is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 11:54 AM   #152
FeralCreature
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,148
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Are the airline pilots in on it too or have they been fooled as well?
FeralCreature is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:01 PM   #153
RiverFenix
banned
 
RiverFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: not a serious business
Posts: 8,829
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins View Post
What explains when you go in an airplane you can see the curvature of the earth?
I dont feel like I have seen the curvature of the earth in an airplane. It should be super pronounced even at sea level with a good view. In the air the horizon should not rise to vantage point.


This rocket goes to 121,000 feet and theres no curvature and the horizon rises.
RiverFenix is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:05 PM   #154
RiverFenix
banned
 
RiverFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: not a serious business
Posts: 8,829
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by FeralCreature View Post
Are the airline pilots in on it too or have they been fooled as well?
They are fooled as well. I'm waiting for an explanation for the point as to how when flying level at 500+ mph their isnt a need to constantly correct downwards to avoid flying "off".
RiverFenix is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:06 PM   #155
Banned4lyfe
Sup-Bah? Pop-Bah Pooh-Bear Permanently Pooh-Bah Billy Walters Jr
 
Banned4lyfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SoCal ✈
Posts: 13,828
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Banned4lyfe is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:09 PM   #156
RiverFenix
banned
 
RiverFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: not a serious business
Posts: 8,829
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by FeralCreature View Post
OP, what are your thoughts on:
- God -- exists
- Age of the earth --old
- Evolution -- it happens
- Bigfoot -- might be?
- Ancient aliens -- aliens exist
- The Bermuda triangle -- the earth has 'energetically weird spots'
RiverFenix is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:10 PM   #157
FeralCreature
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,148
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverFenix View Post
They are fooled as well. I'm waiting for an explanation for the point as to how when flying level at 500+ mph their isnt a need to constantly correct downwards to avoid flying "off".
Ever heard of this little thing called gravity?
FeralCreature is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:10 PM   #158
leo doc
Most interesting man on 2p2
 
leo doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Not deserving of an undertitle
Posts: 12,138
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverFenix View Post
They are fooled as well. I'm waiting for an explanation for the point as to how when flying level at 500+ mph their isnt a need to constantly correct downwards to avoid flying "off".
Google Newton and apple.
leo doc is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:13 PM   #159
RiverFenix
banned
 
RiverFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: not a serious business
Posts: 8,829
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Diablo View Post
RF,

What are you thoughts on the so-called:

a) space shuttle
b) international space station
a) Potential way to test whats at the ceiling. Perhaps meant to try and punch through. Apollo missions didnt make it to the moon.
b) doesnt exist. "But I saw it!" You saw something the size of a bus from 200 miles away? Wow you have impressive eyesight.
RiverFenix is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:14 PM   #160
capone0
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
capone0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Philly
Posts: 39,566
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverFenix View Post
I have to run out for a few hours and couldnt make the first post as long as I wanted but I wanted to put something out there to start the flame baiting. A couple quick things before I go.

The earth is a disc, there is no edge and this is how the sun works. It will be shown later that the sun is much closer to the earth than the laughable 93million miles.


This is how we can have circumnavigation. Note that historically no one has ever circumnavigated north to south because it is impossible.
So you are telling me no AIRPLANE or SATELITE or someone on a SPACE STATION has ever circumnavigated the world north to south. LOL.
capone0 is online now  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:17 PM   #161
rockcat
banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,018
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverFenix View Post
They are fooled as well. I'm waiting for an explanation for the point as to how when flying level at 500+ mph their isnt a need to constantly correct downwards to avoid flying "off".
i think to fly off they would need to move at a speed with a factor of escape velocity. if they were flying verticle obv they would need to achieve escape velocity, horizontal some kind of fraction of that speed. idk much about physics, but enough to know that a plane flying at normal cruise altitude and speed would need more to vector away from the planet.
rockcat is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:23 PM   #162
RiverFenix
banned
 
RiverFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: not a serious business
Posts: 8,829
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by leo doc View Post
Google Newton and apple.
“Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma”

Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both.

“Take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon. By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth. Here we may ask, why - if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation - does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth? The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent. Precisely so; but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun? What is the cause of this permanence?” -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science.
RiverFenix is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:26 PM   #163
jmakin
 
jmakin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Streaming
Posts: 27,379
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverFenix View Post
They are fooled as well. I'm waiting for an explanation for the point as to how when flying level at 500+ mph their isnt a need to constantly correct downwards to avoid flying "off".
Yes, it was explained to you earlier. The way an aircraft flies is air flowing over the wings generates lift. At high altitude, there is less air, hence less lift. It is impossible for a plane to fly off into space and no they are not constantly having to correct downward to avoid this, and it's not because the earth is flat.

These are questions that are really, really easily answered.
jmakin is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:31 PM   #164
leo doc
Most interesting man on 2p2
 
leo doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Not deserving of an undertitle
Posts: 12,138
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

I think you need to refine your Google search just a bit.
leo doc is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:32 PM   #165
FeralCreature
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,148
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Wait, if there's no gravity, why am I not floating up into space right now?
FeralCreature is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:34 PM   #166
rockcat
banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,018
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmakin View Post
Yes, it was explained to you earlier. The way an aircraft flies is air flowing over the wings generates lift. At high altitude, there is less air, hence less lift. It is impossible for a plane to fly off into space and no they are not constantly having to correct downward to avoid this, and it's not because the earth is flat.

These are questions that are really, really easily answered.
oh, this seems to make some more sense.
rockcat is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:37 PM   #167
FeralCreature
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,148
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverFenix View Post
“Take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon. By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth. Here we may ask, why - if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation - does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth? The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent. Precisely so; but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun? What is the cause of this permanence?” -N. Crossland, “New Principia”
A cannonball CAN theoretically be shot into orbit, it just needs to be blasted up with way more power. This is exactly what is done when rockets are blasted into orbit.

Quote:
Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science.
That is because the earth is right there below the tennis ball pulling whatever object towards it with way more gravitational force then the tennis ball is able to generate.
FeralCreature is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:40 PM   #168
RiverFenix
banned
 
RiverFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: not a serious business
Posts: 8,829
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyPoorLil5850s View Post
I don't see where the ^2 comes in? I was with him when he said every 8 miles viewing distance or whatever, the surface of a round earth should drop 3 ft from the horizon(the actual numbers don't really matter for my question). He then went on in the next sentence to say basically if something was 16 miles away, it should drop 3^2 ft (so 9 ft) or whatever. Why is it squared? It should just a geometric progression at that point, so something 16 miles away should be 6 ft drop, not more? That is screwing up the math for everything from that point forward, for me at least.

If you guys are having trouble understanding why I'm taking this crackpot idea even a little seriously, the old sayings always prove so true. "A picture speaks a thousand words." I wouldn't even have written this today if I hadn't looked at that picture of the Antarctica meeting, and seen plain as day what the OP is describing. Its a god damn green, tree filled "terrarium" in the middle, surrounded by white "ice walls" and then on the outside, the tall bushes "the elites". There is something very fishy going on there, its almost like they are rubbing our faces in it. That right there is what gives me that gut check, that intuition that as a poker player I trust so well, it has steered me right so many times. Something is off here with this picture.
Thought experiments are fun, people generally are too stubborn to even participate.

The reason it is squared is because the earth would be curved and not a straight line down. If it was just 8 inches a mile it would be a slope down and not a curve.

I'm glad you understand the picture. A bunch of people who control Antarctica are sitting around an arrangement that shows the FE model simplified to table set up.
RiverFenix is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:44 PM   #169
RiverFenix
banned
 
RiverFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: not a serious business
Posts: 8,829
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmakin View Post
Yes, it was explained to you earlier. The way an aircraft flies is air flowing over the wings generates lift. At high altitude, there is less air, hence less lift. It is impossible for a plane to fly off into space and no they are not constantly having to correct downward to avoid this, and it's not because the earth is flat.

These are questions that are really, really easily answered.
Your theory that there is a sweet spot in the air where the force of the plane is such that given the density of the air it constantly stays balanced and level doesnt make any sense. Planes fly level at all speeds and levels of the atmospheres, air density is not what causes this to self correct to handle the drop in curvature and stay level.
RiverFenix is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:47 PM   #170
jmakin
 
jmakin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Streaming
Posts: 27,379
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverFenix View Post
Your theory that there is a sweet spot in the air where the force of the plane is such that given the density of the air it constantly stays balanced and level doesnt make any sense. Planes fly level at all speeds and levels of the atmospheres, air density is not what causes this to self correct to handle the drop in curvature and stay level.
It's not a "theory" - and it has nothing to do with whether the plane is level or not, unless the plane noses up too much, the air is unable to flow over the wings in a way that creates lift and it will stall. If a jet loses enough speed, it will start to lose altitude.

How exactly do you think planes work?

jmakin is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:54 PM   #171
LektorAJ
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LektorAJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: none
Posts: 6,448
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverFenix View Post
Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science.
"Spinning" at a rate of 1 revolution per day presumably? Sorry too busy but I don't think things would fly off.
LektorAJ is online now  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:55 PM   #172
RiverFenix
banned
 
RiverFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: not a serious business
Posts: 8,829
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Airy's Failure demonstrates that the Earth is stationary.
RiverFenix is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 12:55 PM   #173
FeralCreature
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,148
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverFenix View Post
Your theory that there is a sweet spot in the air where the force of the plane is such that given the density of the air it constantly stays balanced and level doesnt make any sense. Planes fly level at all speeds and levels of the atmospheres, air density is not what causes this to self correct to handle the drop in curvature and stay level.
I mean, what? How do you think planes fly? Have you ever heard of stalling? If planes can fly "at all speeds" why can't a 747 take off vertically?

If planes can fly at "all levels of the atmosphere" why do planes have a performance ceiling? You think that 747 could just fly off to Mars if it wanted to?
FeralCreature is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 01:01 PM   #174
RiverFenix
banned
 
RiverFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: not a serious business
Posts: 8,829
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmakin View Post
How exactly do you think planes work?
I dont think youre visualizing what youre talking about, try sketching out your plane moving through different levels of atmospheric density while remaining level and at a constant height above the earth.
RiverFenix is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 01:03 PM   #175
leo doc
Most interesting man on 2p2
 
leo doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Not deserving of an undertitle
Posts: 12,138
Re: The biggest lie: Revisiting Heliocenticisim and a Flat Earth for the first time

Quote:
Originally Posted by FeralCreature View Post
You think that 747 could just fly off to Mars if it wanted to?
On the scale of the bizarre **** he thinks, that one's on the more reasonable side.
leo doc is offline  

Closed Thread
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online