The Conspiracy Theory
Comments
-
We've probably done the flat earth thing (which even Manc doesn't believe) to death, so what about some new conspiracy theories? Here's one I found recently, which ties together the real reason for the Iraq war, the Columbia shuttle disaster, and the ancient Sumerians:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopo ... 1_abstract
What archaeological discoveries was Saddam hiding? And what are ISIS really trying to dig up with their bulldozers..?
Manc, your take on this?0 -
Nah I can't look at everything.ShockedSoShocked wrote:Manc33 wrote:Chris Bass wrote:The spikes in air pressure after Krakotoa erupted in 1883 (i think) were recorded around the world about every 34 hours which is how long it would take sound to travel around the world. That is hard to explain if the earth is Flat
This is a good one but impossible to verify properly.
Why?
Because it doesn't have anything else to back it up and it can't be much use unless it has exact locations and times.
With the flat earth theory there's a good 5 or 6 points that are not debunked.0 -
They recorded all air pressure with barometers at the time, before and after, look it up.
Planes don't fly off because of gravity but you don't believe in that so that's not going to convince you.
You don't feel the speed because it's always been happening so you are used to it, you'd soon know about it if it stopped.
Planes can fly because of relative air speed and the atmosphere. Next time you are on a train jump, do you shoot to the back of the train? No. Then climb onto the roof of the train and try again, see what happens.
Light through clouds is all about reflection and refraction, easily demonstrated in experiments you could do yourself.
Anything else?
If the earth is Flat why can't you see new York from Africa?
If the earth is Flat and there is no gravity how do you explain tides?
If the moon and the sun are the same distance and appear the same size an eclipse would mean they hit each other.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
ShockedSoShocked wrote:Manc33 wrote:Chris Bass wrote:The spikes in air pressure after Krakotoa erupted in 1883 (i think) were recorded around the world about every 34 hours which is how long it would take sound to travel around the world. That is hard to explain if the earth is Flat
This is a good one but impossible to verify properly.
Why?
Because nobody has come up with a suitable conspiracy theory for it yet.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Work out your angles with the Sun only being above the cloud level and the Earth 24,000 miles long.Imposter wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.Imposter wrote:Another one for you Manc33 - if the earth is flat, how do you explain time zones, and the fact that at midday here, it is midnight somewhere else?
It's not that hard to understand. The Sun moves.
Maybe the sun does move. But on this mythical flat earth, it would all be lit or unlit simultaneously, regardless of whichever direction the sun moved.
Now put mountains and clouds in the way.
Ah, shadows...0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Planes don't fly off because of gravity but you don't believe in that so that's not going to convince you.
I pretty much agree with all the other points, but with gravity being there as a force or not doesn't matter, "maintaining altitude" means the Earth (if round) has to drop away beneath you and on a plane going 500 MPH it drops away faster and faster meaning more and more of a correction is needed the further you go. No pilot does correct it. Even assuming gravity is there.
Maybe planes do have a thing in the computer today to take that curve into account, you'd have to be some sort of aviation engineer to know that stuff. Planes before that maintaining altitude, well it would just be a human literally maintaining his altitude so yeah OK that works lol.
Its sort of whittled down to only the maintaining altitude thing. In fact the truth is planes could use the curve of the Earth to "glide" for a while if they were maintaining altitude.
We might have to crank up the hollow earth theory next then.
0 -
Is it because over the lengths of journey requiring correction, the curvature isn't sufficiently great that large corrections are required so they happen almost subconsciously (manual flight), or because altimeters are calibrated from sea level (instrument led or automated flight)? It's a real tricky one to figure out alright.0
-
This is the response from an airline pilot when asked the same question:
"This is an interesting question. A plane will fly at a constant altitude and will follow the curvature of the earth and would not gain altitude during a level flight.
For instance, if a plane is cleared to maintain 35,000 feet, by regulations, the pilot must maintain that level based on a standard barometric pressure setting (29.92 inHg or 1013 millibars) Hence it would stay at that altitude (FL350) because the pilot is either controlling the plane manually or has engaged the autopilot to achieve that.
There are two basic instruments that enable this procedure - an altimeter and a vertical speed indicator (VSI). The VSI provides short term changes in pressure and indicates whether the plane is climbing or descending. These changes will give an indication to the pilot so that he would level the plane to maintain 35,000 feet. He will adjust the controls very slightly by use of the elevator and trims. This can be performed automatically by the autopilot as well. As such, the flight controls are constantly moving very subtly to maintain the correct attitude.
You said that, if the plane was trimmed for a straight and level flight, it would ‘gain altitude’ while flying as the earth surface ‘fell away’ due to the curvature of the earth. Well, that would probably happen in a perfectly motionless atmosphere where the plane would fly dead ahead, and over time gain altitude (provided it has sufficient thrust) as the earth curves away from under the airplane.
In reality, a constant altitude must be kept using the standard pressure and that means a fixed distance to the earth center of gravity is maintained, making the path of the plane a curved one.
So, a plane is not flying a straight line - geometrically speaking!"Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0 -
Never heard of ESA or the Russian and Chinese space programmes?Manc33 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:There are more people who send stuff into space.
Not without going through NASA first.Rick Chasey wrote:
I suppose because they cooperate from time to time they must all be in on it huh?0 -
@Manc33
All of your assertions are bull.
You are completely misrepresenting/misunderstanding logic, physics and reason.
All of your claims can be torn apart quite simply and in many cases they have been. You're unwillingness or inability to realise or admit that doesn't change the fact. The reason all of them haven't been dispensed with is because of the sheer volume of drivel you've flooded the thread with. I certainly couldn't be bothered. The couple of examples I have addressed and demonstrated to be nonsense were simply ignored or rejected by you without any sound rebuttal. You have failed.
@Everyone else
I've read very little since about page 20 as this is clearly just a big waste of everyone's time.
Manc33 is no longer even attempting to support his claims with arguments that bear the slightest resemblance to reason.
Manc33 does not respond to most of the very simple challenges to his nonsense which clearly show it up. Those he has responded to have been responded to with drivel.
Manc33 is simply making up and/or distorting actual physics principles and terminology to suit himself. All of it is horrifically wrong.
Manc33 has now resorted to re-wording or simply re-inventing anything we say so that it is nonsense and then he claims that it is nonsense. Of course it is. No doubt we all agree your version is nonsense.
Manc33 cannot be reasoned with as he has completely dispensed with reason and argument.
Manc33 is no longer entertaining. Just annoying.
It seems hugely unlikely, but if Manc33 actually believes what he's saying, he has big problems and it's probably not a good idea for us to continue humouring him.
Alternatively, and more likely, he is a troll who has over-reached. Likewise it's probably best to stop humouring him.
Goodbye Manc330 -
Manc33 wrote:I pretty much agree with all the other points
I'll take that!!
I think i deserve some kind of nobel prize nomination for making you agree with any kind of science!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
I certainly got to this party late.
Manc33 doesn't believe in Gravity.
Case closed.0 -
Those who value reason should not engage in debate with those who do not. It is a waste of time.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Daz555 wrote:Those who value reason should not engage in debate with those who do not. It is a waste of time.
But this is the internet, innit?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Daz555 wrote:Those who value reason should not engage in debate with those who do not. It is a waste of time.
But this is the internet, innit?
Nah, that's just wot they want you to think :roll:my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
It's certainly pointless to argue about the Flat Earth thing, which even Manc has said he doesn't believe (he's just 'putting the case', up to and including the claim that penguins are in the Antarctic to feed the Ice Wall guards). On the other hand, claims that (e.g.) an elite Jewish conspiracy is running the world, or disinformation about AIDS or vaccinations are a lot more dangerous, and deserve to be challenged (since lots of people tend to die when they become widely believed and acted on). In this situation, what would Gillian Anderson do?Daz555 wrote:Those who value reason should not engage in debate with those who do not. It is a waste of time.
0 -
A question fro Troll33:
So there is no such thing as gravity, only density. But something of greater density will fall through a fluid of lower density. A force must be acting on the thing of greater density to start the movement. What should this force be called? Density is not a force so don't go there.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:A question fro Troll33:
So there is no such thing as gravity, only density. But something of greater density will fall through a fluid of lower density. A force must be acting on the thing of greater density to start the movement. What should this force be called? Density is not a force so don't go there.
And so the cycle begins again...
0 -
Nooooooo - just post more pics of Gillian.Veronese68 wrote:A question fro Troll33:
So there is no such thing as gravity, only density. But something of greater density will fall through a fluid of lower density. A force must be acting on the thing of greater density to start the movement. What should this force be called? Density is not a force so don't go there.
Ali 1 sums it up correctly above which is why I stopped posting on here a page or 2 back. Oh hang on..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Veronese68 wrote:A question fro Troll33:
So there is no such thing as gravity, only density. But something of greater density will fall through a fluid of lower density. A force must be acting on the thing of greater density to start the movement. What should this force be called? Density is not a force so don't go there.
I think the bigger question is if everything is just in order of density, what is at the bottom? things just get more and more dense seemingly forever but what is at the very bottom?
Manc33 has unwittingly given us the answer though, there is one thing I now know of that is the most dense thing in the known universe!
www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Could this be the real answer to the 'Clarkson deliberately got himself fired' conspiracy theory? Did baddass Gillian Anderson make him an offer he couldn't refuse?:
0 -
Ships are made of steel which is much denser than water but they still float.
A 747 flies despite weighing (MTOW) 442,253 kg because the air density at 450mph+ under the wing is greater than the air density above it. Put your arm out of the window whilst driving at 60mph. Angle a flat hand and feel the effect on your arm.
@Manc33. You can calculate at which point in speed/thrust does gravity acting at 9.82m/s on the 747 becomes neutral. Whilst calculating this, you will require some basic physics and maths. If you fail to reach a logical conclusion, it's because you have ignored the logic of the equation and fundamentally accepted values. The accepted values have been in evolution ever since man discovered mathematics.
There is nil air density on the moon and yet objects are still subjected to gravitational pull. Explain that one. Two objects of differing (practical weights) dropped hypothetically from 500m high on the moon will fall at exactly the same rate given the absence of air. That blows the density theory right out of the window.
Unless of course you are going to say that all moon landings (manned and unmanned) were a conspiracy and it never happened. Which, given the argument above, would be rather convenient for you. This convenience is in parallel to the convenience of avoiding and not acknowledging basic physics with the avoidance of basic logic when you maintain your views regarding conspiracy theories. Unless you are prepared to re-write all the rules of physics with a comprehensive and logical alternative, you maintain the common belief that you are a nutcase.
Carry on.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Alas, he has already stated the moon landings were faked, under water if i remember correctly!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
-
Manc33 wrote:1. Planes can maintain altitude without flying into space. On a round Earth, the plane would end up flying into space as the Earth drops away underneath. No one ever explains this, or can.
Going back a little here, i'm still laughing at this. If a plane maintains altitude then by definition it is staying the same distance from the ground, therefore never going into space whether the earth is flat or round...
Of course until it found the edge of earth and flew off it. 0 -
pinarello001 wrote:Unless you are prepared to re-write all the rules of physics with a comprehensive and logical alternative, you maintain the common belief that you are a nutcase.
Which is crazier - continuing to troll the forum with mad arguments for a Flat Earth, or continuing to believe that posting logical arguments here will make any difference whatsoever..?pinarello001 wrote:Carry on.
0 -
I don't answer most things because I have already explained it, like asking me again about gravity and how it "can't just be density" when it is, I have already covered that. What starts the falling? Nothing is falling! Densities are "settling down" in comparison to each other.
When I let go of a helium balloon what starts that "force" of the balloon going up? Nothing - because it is just one substance trying to find stability within another substance.
I have already been through ALL of that more than once. You just think things "sink" when its not sinking or rising, it is a settling down of substances due to their different densities.
When a helium balloon is let go of, the atmosphere is "sinking" around the balloon if you want to look at it that way, so all the air in the world is falling around the balloon, imagine how silly it is then to say "How is the air falling" lol. "How is one small balloon making all the air in the world sink down".
Now you're just saying the first answer isn't good enough, when it was. :roll:
What about Airy's Failure?
(An experiment proving stars move around the Earth and not vice versa)
They had to just try to forget this ever happened and it is never taught to students. Not surprising considering 500 years of "science" would need revising.
0
