I think there are many compelling reasons to look into flat earth.
The suggestion that earth's atmosphere is held together by gravity, while it sits next to an infinite vacuum simply defies anything we know about physics. If space is vacuum it would be impossible for our atmosphere to exists without a solid barrier ("firmament") containing it.
It is absurd to suggest that the moon orbits around the earth in a perfectly predictable manner, like it was on rails, and this is from "gravity". Meanwhile the earth orbits around a sun in the same manner, in an exact same pattern for 1000s of years. all these forces at work moving balls millions of miles without one iota of decay or change. invisible strings is a more convincing argument than "gravity". Any scientific experiment regarding centrifugal force or attempting to model these type of orbits will invariably show decay and the 2 objects eventually collide or they fly away from one another. the predictable and reliable movements of the bodies in the sky simply has not been adequately explained by modern "science"
while not a proof of flat earth, the fact is NASA has been faking their space activities for 50+ years. They fake their photos of planets and the earth. Their videos of moon landings do not hold up as believable. There are videos showing fakes missions with the space shuttles. They are caught faking stuff with green screens on the ISS to this day. If they can't show us real videos and photos of the globe and space, why not? Its a valid starting point to question what else we are lied to about.
If space is vacuum it would be impossible for our atmosphere to exists without a solid barrier ("firmament") containing it.
Gas has mass. There's no reason gravity should have no effect on it.
all these forces at work moving balls millions of miles without one iota of decay or change
Strawman. Orbits do change and decay. Why argue against something you don't understand. The actual proposed orbits are way more fucked up looking than what you saw in textbooks, all that shit is dumbed down for kids and retards.
It is an odd coincidence that the moon orbits at a rate that keeps the same side facing us at all times. Another odd coincidence is the sun being exactly far enough away from us to be the same size as the moon in the sky
NASA has been faking their space activities for 50+ years
No, there isn't. A vacuum is just nothing. It's not a force, there's no reason it would rip away the atmosphere. You people really have no grasp of physics. If you have a particle floating in a vacuum, it will move towards a source of gravity. And stay there.
Gas has mass. There's no reason gravity should have no effect on it.
So you're saying that a force of 9.8m/s², a force so weak that a bug can fly against it, is strong enough to hold off an infinite vacuum? Do I have that right?
What happens when the bug stops flying? Wonder if that happens to things that aren't a bug too. "Things go up, so gravity not real" is a pretty braindead take. This whole thing would be more interesting if flat earthers had a coherent physics model, but you never have and never will.
hold off an infinite vacuum
You don't need to "hold off" a vacuum. It's not exerting force on anything. It helps to have some understanding of what you're trying to argue against.
Do things move if no force is being exerted on them?
Nope. Shitty understanding of physics. A vacuum isn't a force, it's just empty space.
A gas particle sitting in a vacuum has no reason not to move towards a source of gravity.
Gas has mass. There's no reason gravity should have no effect on it.
There is if mass and gravitation are entirely mathematical fiction with no reality outside of equation! It is not coincidence that when combined they annihilate each other and return to the real and measured weight they began as!
Strawman
If it is a strawman, who are they falsely attributing the view to and when do they intend to burn it down for rhetorical purpose?
Another odd coincidence is the sun being exactly far enough away from us to be the same size as the moon in the sky
There are many such coincidences ;) The three body problem has no solution, nor did it ever.
I think I’ve invited you before, but all the same - please join us on the community I created to further explore, discuss, and exchange views on these topics!
There is if mass and gravitation are entirely mathematical fiction with no reality outside of equation
TIL things don't actually fall when I drop them, it's just an equation. Flat earthers are quick to dismiss something as fiction while never providing a working model of physics.
If it is a strawman
They're strawmanning the conventional model of space. You know this. You're just being obtuse. They said that it's absurd to suggest that orbits don't change, no model of space suggests that orbits don't change. It's just mind numbing ignorance of the opposite position.
TIL things don't actually fall when I drop them, it's just an equation.
Well you didn’t learn that from me!
Equations are just equations. Math is merely a descriptive symbolic language.
Phenomena, like falling for instance, are phenomena! They are real because we can observe and measure them, not because we can describe them in one language or another. Indeed we can describe many things (phenomena included) that do not exist to observe, and are not real. Gravitation and mass are two such examples. As I said, it is not coincidence that they annihilate one another and return to the real and measured weight they began as!
Flat earthers are quick to dismiss something as fiction while never providing a working model of physics.
I know that this has been your experience. In general, there are no flat earthers. You have been misinformed/misled by a psyop. I am a flat earth researcher, and I care about science deeply. There are good reasons and justifications for my statements that only require your interest and time to understand.
They're strawmanning the conventional model of space. You know this.
I think they are earnestly describing their understanding of the conventional astronomical model, and are not doing so for rhetorical purpose. A strawman is for the purpose of making your opponent in a debate look stupid by attributing false (and contrived) stupid views to them and then handily defeating (setting fire to the strawman/effigy) them to convince onlookers. I don’t think that is what they are doing here.
They said that it's absurd to suggest that orbits don't change, no model of space suggests that orbits don't change.
All the original ones do. Newtons did, for instance. That’s one of the reasons he invented our modern concept of the “vacuum of space”. He understood that if space were not entirely empty - then collision would upset and change the clockwork heavens which he knew from 1000’s of years of available astronomical recording did not take place. I am aware that modern models do suggest that orbits change over time, but there is precious little observation to actually support these assertions.
Archeoastronomy flatly refutes such assertions, as does the antikythera device and epicycles which are still used today for prediction of eclipses (and other things) in the most sophisticated models available.
It's just mind numbing ignorance of the opposite position.
That may be, but it isn’t a strawman (if the above is truly your view).
This is a common misconception, in my view. I think we likely agree on the meaning, and disagree on the verbiage.
Gravity, the scientific/natural law, has existed (been defined/known) for millennia. It is merely the phenomenon of falling. In its simplest form it is the statement “what goes up, must come down”. Natural laws in science are just phenomena; they do not speculate on cause and are merely “the what” established by measurement.
The people who say “gravity” causes things to fall, are imprecise with their words and incorrect. It is gravitation that is supposed to cause things to fall (though , relativistically speaking, not directly - gravitation is taught as a pseudoforce today)
I think we agree (and/or should) that the scientific law of gravity (aka falling) is demonstrably real, but that it is gravitation which doesn’t exist. Right?
retard.
If you can resist, it is best to avoid ad hominem. It is the last resort of the intellectually weak, and is across purposes to learning/teaching and communication of any kind.
Read up on the electric universe model. The firmament is a plasma double layer created by massive voltage difference we can measure. Orbits are caused by electric currents in the interstellar plasma (space is not a vacuum).
My point is that we can accurately predict everything that happens in the sky - it runs like a clockwork that is quite knowable. What I am questioning is what we are told of how that reliability is maintained - i.e. "gravity" holding it all together at exact lengths and exact speeds that exactly repeat themselves year after year for 1000s of years. "gravity" as we know it would not achieve that sort of reliability and exactness, and would instead lead to a full decay of the orbit over time, or objects would eventually spin away from one another.
Also I should say this is not a flat-earth proof. I am only pointing out that our current models taught are just fairy tales and built on a house of cards. We needn't pretend that we know how the sky operates.
I’ve heard this claimed many times, but no one’s ever actually linked me like a working 3d model (or video of the model rather) of the heliocentric solar system / galaxy with the planets and stars accurately spinning in the right patterns and such.
A vacuum is just a (near)-absence of anything that has mass and occupy volume...gases have mass and occupy volume, thus gravity has an effect on gases as it does on us.
A gas (high pressure) will always fill a vacuum (low pressure) until pressure equalizes. You can't have the two next to each other.
Fun fact: this is also how vacuum cleaners work. A pressure drop is created within an inner chamber that forces the air outside (higher pressure) to rush into the vacuum cleaner.
I believe that we and this earth are created. That must just be how it was created.
If we're flat, then that means everything is flat, and facing us. Like saturn and the moon. Why us? Shouldnt some things be at an angle?
Well just because the surface of the earth is flat doesn't mean that the sun and stars are flat as well. We can't tell what they exactly are. If you zoom in on stars they're not even sphereical.
Why doesn't satalite photos of earth show all the contenints at once? I know yall think those are fake. But if they are, then how do satalites work? How would I be using my starlink wifi right now? Or how does your GPS work?
Balloons. They touch on this in the Level Documentary. I watched an in depth one on it once but I cant seem to find it anymore :(
Why wouldnt I fall off the edge. Cant people just fly around the world? That would be a simple way to prove it. People have hobbie planes.
We're not sure whats past the ice wall. Anyone claiming they do doesn't know what they're talking about. We're not sure if its an infinite plane or of it stops somewhere after the ice wall. Normal people aren't allowed to go past, which is why no one has done it in a hobby plane or successfully sailed there.
I haven't watched the video yet (will do), but I recognize that guy's voice. I've seen a video of him where he phones NASA and asks about the SOFIA aircraft/Hubble telescope. He makes a very convincing argument that Hubble may have never existed and that the images we've seen may have come from SOFIA.
I suppose those are reasonable questions given what you've been taught "flat earth" to be. However, "flat earth" doesn't just stop at the surface of the Earth, but puts under question the entire construct (which, I assume, you believe to be an ever-expanding universe with objects floating about).
I suggest you watch How Everything Works on Flat Earth or Level, which is more of a movie-style presentation. You'll find answers to your questions there, and more.
Why would you take the word of this idiot says as 'fact' vs. someone who has taken live video cameras into space from liftoff to space showing a nice, clear image of our ball earth? The amount of stupid in this video is amazing how anyone could be so ignorant of reality.
Why does the flat earth community cling to the earth-curvature formula of:
8" per mile squared
This quadradic is NOT how the earth curvature is measured. If for example, you traveled the circumference of the earth, the real curvature formula would yield 0, because you end up right where you started. Yet the flat earth narrative claims 8" per mile squared would yield not zero but a VERY BIG NUMBER.
That's just an approximation that is practical only for short distances (say, up to 1000 miles). None of the curvature calculators use it, AFAIK. Here's a list of some of them:
Yeah. The shear amount of interest and engagement is shocking. I am definitely a skeptic of the shape....and maps. But neither has won me over completely.
I have read enough of the shoulders of giants to get a good idea of the globe model.
I’m interested in what you might be referring to with the flat earth math
Not because I’m trying to be argumentative but because I’m genuinely curious
I’m just following the evidence wherever it takes me and it’s been looking planar to me for a couple of years now but if there’s contradicting evidence to the planar surface then I’d like to investigate!
They frequently reference perspective and density and deny gravity.
These are all mathematical concepts when it comes to modelling. Perspective they are good at describing.
Yet they don't apply the same review of density. They should be able to describe the Motions of objects in various mediums without depending on any gravity.....
That means ... How do you measure mass....write the equations that describe motion through fluids without account for gravity...etc.
These equations must exist....if they are supposed to represent the concepts accurately....
Same with curvature and the idea of relative perspective drops. If it is perspective then that would account for perceived heights....not absolute, however, if Gravity exists......then space time curves.....so light follows the curve....but is straight....so that idea also....not great....needs more math...
I suggest volume ... We should be able to devise a volumetric test which will be able to be used to discern a curve over large distances but this would require enormous expense.
The study of aeronautics accomplishes this. It's a mix of fluid mechanics and dynamics.
There's engineers who will never come out as FE or even question the shape. I'm a failed engineer myself, never cost anyones life though.
Buoyancy helps with movement. This is how boats float, it's how planes fly with lift.
volume = mass / density
So density = mass / volume
It's all related.
Mass is real so isn't volume.
You want an equation that suggests density over acceleration of g, equivalent to 9.8 m/s^2 or 32 ft/s^2
The problem with your question is it depends on the medium your moving through and at what angle. That's why I suggested aeronautics.
Objects tend to fall slower in water because there's more drag.
9.8 m/s^2 is basically junk physics because it just describes what can occur in a vacuum.
You did just get me thinking about why an object would fall faster in a near vacuum. If gravity is fake, it has to be because the mass is denser than that near empty space. I don't know if gravity is fake, just shooting out ideas. But given that the moon mission was likely faked, we honestly don't have a lot of other planetary bodies to run these types of experiments. on. I believe it mostly theoretical at this point.
They should be able to describe the Motions of objects in various mediums without depending on any gravity.....
The things you are talking about are trivial/easy.
How do you measure mass
You can’t measure things that don’t exist in reality. You can calculate them, however. Mass is merely the intrinsic weight of an object (weight minus the buoyant force).
These equations must exist
They do. But the existence of an equation proves nothing about reality.
if Gravity exists......then space time curves
Not according to newton, no.
so light follows the curve
There are no demonstrable examples of this in reality. Lights path can only be altered by direct interaction with matter.
needs more math
Math worship is a scourge. When discussing science, I prefer english (as did most all other scientists in the history of the discipline).
We should be able to devise a volumetric test which will be able to be used to discern a curve over large distances
This is an interesting idea. Even if just for the thought exercise, you should further flesh it out / refine it. Perhaps share it on the community I created to discuss such things?
$10,000(TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS) CASH, WILL BE awarded to ANYONE who can provide ONE piece of FACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE evidence to support two things.
A). The CURVATURE of the alleged spinning ball earth
B). The MOTION of the alleged spinning ball earth
Yeah, it's physically impossible to prove the absolute motion of earth given that THERE'S NO STATIONARY OBJECT IN SPACE WE CAN COMPARE THAT TOO.
For me, the curvature is the big issue. Clearly, we can see objects farther than just 6 miles or whatever. Things that according to the trig, should be hidden by the curvature. This is common across the world and I havent seen a reasonable explanation from globe earthers.
I am not saying the earth is flat, maybe the earth is like 1000x bigger than they say so the curvature is off.
But this is something normal people in everyday life can discuss.
I think there was a video of being able to see across one of the great lakes. That shouldn't be possible.
When you "see" objects at a distance, what you mean is that photons originating from the object reach your eyes. Atmosphere, air, is a fluid. Fluids bend light. You can see beyond the mathematically theoretical horizon because the photons reflect off of the layers of different temperature air.
Edit: here's what I'm saying. The red is the angle of the light, the triangle represents atmosphere acting as a prism. https://ibb.co/GTNjgxb
Which is it then? Glober scientists show „curvature“ like a ship disappearing beyond the „curve“ and then someone with a scope/p900 camera zoom in on it and discount the curve.
Now all light is bending around the Earth??? With no distortion? Perfect mirages all over and fairly regularly with no reversal, distortion, etc. I don‘t buy it.
The satellite imagary looks so CGI. We should have nonstop images/video of Earth from space available all the time, but nada. We should have cameras on the moon pointing at Earth. And then there are those literally hundreds of NASA green screen mistakes.
Maybe the Earth isn‘t flat, but why all the lies and mistakes? Why is Youtube and Google so into censoring search results with debunk videos? It just doesn‘t add up.
For an example from my personal experience I can see a city thats 20-30 miles away. Laying down on the beach doesn't really change how much I can see so I'm not gonna bother with the eyesight level differences that the second calculator has, I'm gonna use the first.
So if I plug a number into this calculator, it spits out the amount an object should be hidden... From the bottom up according to the ball model.
20 miles: 0.05052 miles = 266.75 feet
30 miles: 0.11367 miles = 600.19 feet
So that means I shouldn't be able to see the bottom 266 feet of whatever is 20 miles away. I'm not sure exactly where they're getting that, as I can still see all of the beach on that opposing shore. Nothing at all looks like its hidden.
My city is 500 meters above sea-level, so it shows the horizon as 50mi away.
Thats....... not how that works. If you put in 500 meters for the altitude its like saying you're standing on a 500 meter tall building, not that the balls radius is 500m larger. The horizon is 50 miles away because you're up so high in relation to the radius of the earth. If you scroll down on that page they go over exactly all of the variables of the equation.
What's your reasoning for not seeing objects much further? Why can't I see the Alps from where I am?
Humidity. Eventually theres too much water to see through to get a clear picture of anything. This video goes over this concept in a little more depth.
Well you did leave this part out of the quote where I explained why this was incorrect to do. Edit: I see you edited in a comment on it
If you put in 500 meters for the altitude its like saying you're standing on a 500 meter tall building, not that the balls radius is 500m larger. The horizon is 50 miles away because you're up so high in relation to the radius of the earth.
The Calculator would have to have even more variables, altitude above sea level of viewing position and the position of what you're viewing for it to be even more accurate. You can see how that starts to get overly complicated when you get that specific. You probably couldn't even make a calculator out of it since you're not even using a simple ball anymore. They're using 3959 (r) as a constant just to make things simpler.
are you accounting for your geographic altitude (from sea-level) when you use that calculator?
In my original example of the cities, I checked the altitudes for both the place I am and the place I was viewing and they are the same altitude above sea level. If a 3959 mile radius ball (or whatever) is now 3959.5 that isn't gonna change a whole hell of a lot in the numbers. 266 feet is a lot. According to a quick search 1 "story" of a building is 14' tall. 266/14 = 19 Wheres the 19 story building hiding?
After the link not working and control F not turning up a 'earth-curvature' link on the page, I physically scanned down until I found this near the bottom:
Has some simple experiments to do that they claim will prove the earth is a ball. Haven't tried any, but the sunset twice method sounds like it has possibilities.
The flat earth believers you so loathe are products of a psyop. They need help, not murder.
The community i created here is for flat earth researchers, and they are not at all what you think they are. Judgement without evaluation is the height of ignorance.
Why not put your prejudice aside for a second and engage in a conversation? You will quickly realize that you’ve been duped.
What have I said that would make you think (incorrectly) that I’m a fed?
I may be stupid, and I may be wrong, but what I do - I do for love, brother or sister. The feds can’t afford me; there is literally not enough money in the world.
So, just a baseless accusation then... I guess that’s why you responded with such childishness instead of providing even one example which led to your erroneous conclusion.
Here is how you can prove that the heliocentric model is false by observing the sun. The sun always moves in a clockwise direction, no matter what time of the year, no matter where on earth you are, as you see the sun move from one side of the horizon to the other, it will make a right turn, from your perspective. In the heliocentric model, when the south pole is tilting towards the sun, the sun should move in a counter clockwise direction, as it moves across the sky, from your perspective.
Same with star trails. The north star always stays stationary, all the other stars rotates around the north star. The farther south you get, the bigger of a circle the star trails will make, as they move around the point of the north star. Even when you get passed the equator, the star trails keep getting bigger and bigger, the further south you get, proving that there is no south pole. If the heliocentric model was correct, it be easy to prove that the star trails was getting smaller and smaler when viewed from say Australia, in a south ward direction, as they do in the north.
While the moon, based on every single observation I have every made, is a disc, not a ball, as I have only seen one side of the moon.
Doesn't it.bother you guys that you will NEVER get a resolution for this simple question? There is no way to PROVE it besides this YouTube video and that guys argument. Don't you think it's a little odd that this is the case? Literally EVERYONE in the know keeps their mouth shut on this one. Just seems
...unsettling somehow.
You are thinking of this in the wrong terms. There is no curvature, and that's not a debate, but an indisputable fact, regardless of what NASA or "FEers" say. You can debate about intangibles, but there being no curvature is a demonstrable fact, which anyone can verify for themselves. What more proof could anyone require (after all, the curvature is the foundation of the globe Earth)? Sure, the fact there's no curvature doesn't explain how the Sun and Moon work, etc., but that's another matter altogether, which you can look into later.
So, given there is no curvature, why assume everything else they've said is true? That's how you get images of earthy rectangles floating in space. Just what the captain ordered: nonsense!
Seriously, people have been psyopped beyond belief with this stuff. It's a weird experience, not unlike seeing vaxxies defending the vax.
I've had the same thought about the night sky circling around the north star (polaris), and I've seen plenty of time lapse videos of this. Can anyone find a time lapse video of the night sky circling around the point above our southern pole? Polaris Australis is allegedly the star closest to the point above our southern pole, as the controllers tell us. This should settle it unless the video is somehow faked.
I haven't been to the southern hemisphere for over 10 years, I wish I had investigated this for myself. If you live in Australia or NZ (further south it would be more apparent) you can just set up a camera on a clear night, point it directly south, and take a time lapse of the sky. You should see the stars circling around the point above the southern pole, if we in fact live on a globe. If we live on the FE Allas8 described, the stars should still be circling around the north pole.
Yeah, stars in the southern hemisphere do seem to revolve around Polaris Australis/Sigma Octantis. There are videos of it, but you could also use https://stellarium-web.org to view [a simulation of] the sky.
There's a video Eric Dubay made about this topic: How the Southern Stars Work on Flat Earth (odysee link). I think it's a pretty good explanation for what's occurring.
NASA's heliocentric model is clearly wrong. I enjoy the science behind Flat Earth because it creates an accurate understanding of the magnetic power behind the world. For me personally, the stars has always been the dividing line between Flat Earth and the geocentric model. This video makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
Your first paragraph makes no sense. I really don't understand what you mean. I live in a northerly country, so the sun should always rotate 'clockwise' according to the heliocentric model -- which is does.
No. Track the position of the sun every hour you see it in the sky for a day, draw a line between the positions you have marked, and you will see that it moves in a clockwise circle, always.
Don't you think it's relative though? If you're facing North, then it's moving counterclockwise, but if you're facing South, you're moving clockwise. So this argument has no validity.
I do not think it is relative, no. The sun moves in a constant clockwise direction, whether you face North or South when looking at the sun. Only difference is if you are inside our outside the the circle the sun makes across our sky.
A merry go around is flat though. Based on which way you spin, the sun will either spin in a clockwise direction, or a counter clock wise direction, no matter the position of the sun. not matter where on the Merry go around you are, perfectly demonstarting the principal I lay out.
Start spinning a ball on the other hand, and the sun will either move in a clock wise direction, or a counter clock wise direction, based on if you are on top of the ball, or under the ball.
I’ve shot a video of the lake I live nearby. According to the curvature calculation, I shouldn’t be able to see most of the village on the other side (about 20m behind curve of I remember correctly). But still I can see buildings, boats, trees, full windmills.
But when I look in the far distance, I see a windmill’s blades just slicing theough the water / horizon. As if it were built inside the lake.
Wait, are you saying that you see mostly full windmills all the way across the lake, but then you also see a certain windmill that looks like it is behind the curve mostly (just the blades coming out of the water)? Or is that one windmill further than the rest?
Mainly that's because of the things the flatters say. And they do say a lot instead of simply showing proof that the earth is flat, or at least not as round as reported.
Found the calculator for proving ball earth before finding the earth-curvature link, which oddly refuses to open. Only clicking the link on that page works, even though it's the same address.
you sure think you know a lot of about what flat earthers say and do.
Have been exchanging messages with them since Blackguard19 on voat.
The laser video is interesting, but that guy needs to go through puberty or use a voice changer. I have a bit over 20 miles of water to look across, and am going to check the visibility for myself. What do you think of the "second sunset" exercise in the other link?
There’s a great video by Eric Dubay pointing out many of the great flatlands around our world and I’m not even sure that he mentions the great abyssal plains which are vast flat ocean floor surfaces
Adding up all of these large flatlands, we don’t even need to consider other evidence against the globe as it would be impossibly curved in the other areas to make up for all of the lost curvature due to flatlands
Not at all correct. The problem with you FEs is that you can't understand how large the earth is. Your perception of what is in front of you is only 5Km in each direction. From there, the curve begins to obscure the bottom of things. Flat lands and oceans all are pulled equally in all directions toward the center of the earth's mass. Einstein predicted that time slows down the closer you get to a large mass. Using atomic clocks, scientists have proven him right. With a black hole, even light cannot escape the gravitational pull. Water is an element affected by gravity, that, being pulled from all sides equally allows it to 'stick' to the curved earth, the same way Saturn's rings orbit the planet, or ice sheets spread around planets. The observations have been theorized, and then proven by people infinitely smarter than you. Your issue is intelligence. You are dumb, they are smart. Gravity is real and powerful, your brain is simply too stoopid to comprehend these facts.
I'm agnostic on the subject, but see some good (and bad) arguments on both sides. (This is just how I view the different arguments, I could be missing something.)
Water is flat argument is flawed by droplet of water, water meniscus surface tension would hold water together in a round shape as it does in free fall state. There is video of water in fake 'space' (which is probably filmed in a free fall location showing large balls of water floating and held together. those videos don't appear to be cgi and also work with water and know it's surface tension is a strong force. - no point awarded to firmament earth.
Laser measurement of large lakes or Suez Canal showing the expected drop in height due to curvature does not exist, -point goes to firmament earth.
Eclipse w/ Sun and Moon the same size give low probability of natural occurrence of 2 objects at dramatically unequal distances being the exact same size (93 million miles and 239000 miles, sun and moon respectively). -point goes to firmament earth but a bit more circumstantial or probabilistic.
Idea that atmosphere can't exist in vacuum of space and that this disproves ball earth - atmospheric pressure drops w/ elevation which can be observed at high elevations with either pressure gauge or just breathing. for example 4000m in altitude is a loss of ~40% pressure. at some point the pressure approaches zero. -no point awarded to firmament earth.
Observation of moon showing plane of focus closer than expected for 239000 mile distance - point firmament earth.
In southern hemisphere the moon rises in the sky 'upside down' from the orientation that it is observed in the northern hemisphere (i've witnessed this in australia). this did not occur in europe, north america, asia (which i've also witnessed). i don't see how this rotation and orientation is explained on the firmament earth model.
Water is flat argument is flawed by droplet of water, water meniscus surface tension would hold water together in a round shape as it does in free fall state.
This is obvious misinterpretation of whats meant by "water is flat" man, come on.
atmospheric pressure drops w/ elevation which can be observed at high elevations with either pressure gauge or just breathing. for example 4000m in altitude is a loss of ~40% pressure. at some point the pressure approaches zero
This exactly makes sense with the flat earth model and density.
What doesnt make sense is that the atmosphere is there at all, with no barrier between it and a vacuum.
In southern hemisphere the moon rises in the sky 'upside down' from the orientation that it is observed in the northern hemisphere (i've witnessed this in australia). this did not occur in europe, north america, asia (which i've also witnessed). i don't see how this rotation and orientation is explained on the firmament earth model.
I'm not 100% sure what you're exactly talking about here, but maybe this video can explain some.
I look at photos of curved water all the time at work.
It's called a meniscus.
it can curve in a lot of different directions depending on surface tension factors.
I think there are stronger arguments for the firmament earth case.
Thanks for the atmosphere video, i'll check it out.
Atmosphere could have variable pressure w/ altitude in the firmament model, but some claim the ball mode is invalid because it is a gas without a container next to a basically infinite vacuum.
For the moon thing, have you ever looked up and saw the 'face' on the moon or 'man on the moon'? When it rises in the southern hemisphere it comes up upsidedown to how it is seen in the northern hemisphere. it's actually kinda freaky if you're not expecting it.
constellations are upsidedown too. i've seen it irl.
happened in australia but not south asia or europe or north america.
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2014/02/a-matter-of-perspective
(only sharing the link for the phenomena which can be found elsewhere not necessarily the explanation.)
and when surface tension is a negligible factor in the “flatness” of something, say, anything larger than a test tube, then it always appears flat. You wouldn’t say the surface of a swimming pool has any curve to it.
some claim the ball mode is invalid because it is a gas without a container next to a basically infinite vacuum.
That’s exactly what i’m saying. Gravity is a force so weak that bugs can go against it, but so strong it can hold air in against an infinite vacuum? Really?
And i think that last one i linked is the correct video to explain the differences in perception between the hemispheres.
If the earth is flat. That means there is a huge cover up, right?
Nope!
Humanity requires no “cover up” in order to be stupid and wrong as it historically always is!
So that means some of the flat earth arguments youve seen are strawmen.
Most of them, yes (though not technically “strawmen”, but false positions you are intended to repeat so that you may be easily discredited and drive others away from the subject) . The flat earth psyop is very real and heavily advertised (i.e. funded).
All real flat earth arguments are proofs.
Proofs don’t really exist outside of mathematics. The only “proof” (a subjective term) of the shape of any physical object (the earth included) is rigorous and repeated measurement of that object! “Flat earth arguments” can’t be proofs, for the same reason that the “globe earth arguments” can’t be. Arguments can never be proofs! Right?
proofs dont exist outside of mathematics...oh jez.
Not objectively. Proof is very personal/subjective! That’s all I meant.
proof can be defined lots of ways, but in the end, it means undeniable fact
Right, that is kind of my point. There is no such thing as an undeniable fact, or a fact that does not deserve/warrant doubt/scrutiny/skepticism. Facts are merely claims declared as true by our authorities. They are arbitrary, and generally speaking - incorrect. It is merely a question of how long we must wait until we recognize why. It’s called “the half life of facts” and is a very important concept to become familiar and comfortable with. Doubt is the mother/driver of knowledge and science.
Beyond that, people are a subjective/mythological/religious/superstitious lot. It is painfully trivial to deny any fact - true or not - at a whim. This is one of the reasons that we must be ever vigilant to identify and excise belief (aka bias) within us, including the belief that what we think we know is inerrant/infallible. We must do this to have even the slim chance of objective study of reality and to know.
because you are still thinking that globe earth could be possible, and its not as i have shown in our discussion
Not me personally, no - but many/most are! Helping them to recognize why the globe model we are taught to accept is incorrect and how we can demonstrate that is very important and involves a LOT of discussion (typically). Still, we cannot force them - they must want to learn and choose to do so for themselves. No discussion can provide proof to another (even when/just because it serves as proof for you)
You think all flat earth content is psyop because earth is not flat,
I don’t feel that way at all! What have I said that made you think that?
and that makes you blind to the real flat earth content and getting it confused with the funded flat earth psyop designed to throw people off.
There is precious little “real flat earth content” but it does exist out there - and is typically individuals conducting their own independent research (no mass exposure via youtube or otherwise) for their own knowledge/edification. The rule of thumb is - if they are popular / well known / profitable, they are agents and/or useful idiots of the psyop. The psyop doesn’t just throw people off, it drives them away from earnest research and discussion thereof as well as encourages them to swallow and repeat stupid and clearly untrue things to further discredit the valuable endeavor/subject.
because its too time consuming
It is very time consuming, but it is of benefit for them as well as us! It helps to refine our own ideas/knowledge and to make it more succinct. It is an invaluable exercise for all involved. But it does take significant time. Time well spent in my view!
Laser light spreads out like a cone. This experiment has been debunked many times. Go to 2:05 - notice the laser lights are all 'flat' at the bottom and not a perfect circle suggesting a curved surface. A more accurate experiment would be to place something on the surface that is not a light - like a gun target and see if you can see the entire thing. You won't.
Seriously? Why do you say things you know nothing about? You're just a jack-ass the type of guy who claims knowledge but you're just an uneducated tool. Support your statement with facts. For my statement see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence
experiments confirming this science, over and over.
"How can it be solved? Simple: crowdfund a prize to a race"
Why a race and not crowdfund a proper science expedition, or a hundred other ideas before trying this "sailing vs journey to the edge" business
You assume that there even is an edge to be reached, though we have no evidence to corroborate that claim
This is an absurd method if the objective is to determine the shape of the world
How about this, similar to your race idea:
Your sailors are instead pilots, and they must complete their circumnavigation not by sailing but instead by flying North to South; flying directly across the supposed Antarctic island continent and popping out the other side
Every "circumnavigation" whether via boat or plane has been East/West
This fact alone should give pause for the globe believers
You're in for a reality check, glober
I'm actually jealous of you, as you have yet to experience snapping out of the spinning globe indoctrination
I’ve always been spiritual and believed there is something more to be seen beyond the veil of what we can normally perceive with our senses, despite the globe Big Bang indoctrination, and now it only further solidifies that belief for me, if I needed more convincing in the first place
Yeah, that's one aspect of it. What I don't know is what this world actually is and how it came to be. Granted, those were still valid questions in the old model, but at least you were given enough breadcrumbs to partially satiate the curiosity, e.g., "oh, it's the Big Bang", "oh, it expands forever", "oh, we're just a planet", "oh, it's just pure chance", "oh, we're basically monkeys", etc. I don't even know what the word "world" refers to anymore. It's such a peculiar place to find oneself in.
Circle navigating our flat world is not that hard, all you have to do is follow the path of the sun, go in a constant west ward direction. For every mile moved in a constant west ward direction, you will move 8 inches toward the north (a right turn). If you move on a south ward direction, eventually you will hit the ice wall known as Antarctica. Since the Antarctic treaty was signed, private exploration of the southern most part of our world has been forbidden.
Since you make a circle. If you move west, you do not move in a straight line. Your distance to the north pole always stays the same, as long as you move in a west ward direction. Are you one meter away from the North pole, and move in a west ward direction, you would move in a 6.25 meter big circle before you got back to the point you started from.
Are you implying that's a good example for water curving?
There is no observable Sun at night. Does it stop existing?
Have you read the rest of what I've written regarding that point? Have you considered those aspects? Are you familiar with how optics/perspective works?
When you're flying inside a plane, can you feel any gradual changes in speed or direction?
Yes.
We can observe the spin itself. Why do we have day/night cycles?
Sure, those can both be explained by a globe Earth, but they can also be explained by the standard FE model, which covers both day/night cycles and seasons in a much more straightforward manner. To put things into perspective: globe Earth is merely "flat earth" reverse-engineered into something to, well, fit a globe hurtling through space.
It's not spinning fast enough for its size to do that. Take that wet tennis ball and rotate it at 1 rotation/min. Does water get "flung off of it"?
My point wasn't that it's flung off (I've even said so), but that if its rotation speed is so insignificant in relation to its size, such that there's no observable effect on our bodies or anything around us, why would there be a bulge at the equator? Have you read the rest of that paragraph (I've edited it slightly)?
Until i see a video of the ball Earth spinning from one of the hundreds of satellites we put in space, I’ll believe my eyes and instincts that we live on a flat, stationary plane.
I would love to be proven wrong because space and the planet pictures from NASA are cool as fuck
But the ISS is located within part of the Earth’s atmosphere according to the experts. Therefore would be theoretically too close to capture the rotation.
With that said, this livestream is switching angles. Hard to discern if its legitimate and not some sort of CGI trickery
No amount of evidence will satisfy you because you're a simpleton. You've watched morons on Youtube use conjecture and hypotheticals based on zero evidence to portray a narrative that no one with a practical understanding of physics will support. So, you think there is some grand conspiracy that is keeping all of us from the truth, just to satisfy your own delusions about what 'really is going on. The simple fact that you can use a telescope to see multiple moons and planets revolve around each other, and 'spin around' with your own eyes, yet fail to acknowledge that our planet must do the same is you being an obtuse 1/2 wit.
Flat earth is a psyOP designed to distance normies from conspiracies and alternate narratives that have merit
This is largely true, but kind of a “fringe benefit” of the psyop.
The flat earth psyop is really heavily advertised (i.e. funded) to prevent serious discussion or evaluation of this important and rewarding subject. That’s why it’s so overtly stupid (the advertised psyop)!
If you would like to learn about what flat earth research really is, why it is so important/rewarding, and why a psyop exists to advertise how stupid it is - please join us on the community I created to discuss, explore, and exchange views on such things!
Have you noticed that anytime anyone brings up any conspiracy related topic now no matter how realistic or obvious it’s followed up with “oh you must be a flat earther”
That's got nothing to do with the surface of the Earth per se, but all to do with the success of the psyop that's been going on for years now. Those unfamiliar with the "flat earth psyop" will label you as a "conspiracy theorist" instead, which is just as bad (and was also orchestrated by TPTB after the JFK assassination to discredit those that dared propose an alternative to the official narrative). As an exercise, just think of "conspiracy theorist" and "flat earther" as two imaginary entities. If you're anything like me, you'll perceive no difference between the two, both being just as disgraceful/demeaning/unappealing; just this alone should be a sign that something is amiss.
The "flat earth psyop" is meant to stop people from pursuing the subject and to encourage those that have been psyopped to ridicule those that dare pursue it (kinda like what you're doing here). Ridicule is their weapon of choice, and it works great.
What do I mean by the "flat earth psyop"? Well, just search YT for "flat earth" and see for yourself. Everything you encounter is a lie, and if it isn't, they'll make damn sure to mock it so that you know to stay away from it. They'll teach you how to ridicule people, regardless of what those people say; they'll teach you to believe that you have science on your side; they'll teach you to rest assured that everything's been covered for you, that they're doing great things so that you don't have to, that they have your best interest at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth, though, because what you really have on your side is a bunch of lying science priests that have used this method to inculcate the entire world from birth [and most, to grave] with an incredible lie.
None of us adhere to any of that "flat earth" crap they present you with, and we wouldn't be so insistent if we didn't know what we're talking about; why would we endure so much shit? On the other hand, you think you know how the Earth is a globe, just like all of us did, but in reality, you've never experienced anything that would indicate that. All of it rests on an intangible globe image, intangible math applied to an intangible universe, the fear of being ridiculed and your personal incredulity ("they couldn't have possibly lied to the entire world for decades/centuries!").
How would this impact your life if it were proven one way or another? The short answer is zero. This is all meant to make us all look crazy and to have all of our ideas and other conversations discounted and written off.
How could it not matter? It is the foundation of our world. It is the most important thing in our experience; everything rests on it (including our very existence). What if this insane world they've conjured for us, and which they own, was conjured exactly because it matters? How could it matter more "what others think of us" than what the world actually is? Please, think again.
No one knows its shape. When I say "it's level/flat", I refer to its surface; I can't make any assertions about its actual shape other than "it can be anything that allows for a level surface".
Similarly, in regards to its thickness, no one (AFAIK) has ever dug a hole deeper than the Kola Superdeep, which reaches a depth of 7.61 miles (12.2 km). Wikipedia says they couldn't dig deeper...
Because of higher-than-expected temperatures at this depth and location, 180 °C (356 °F) instead of the expected 100 °C (212 °F), drilling deeper was deemed unfeasible. The unexpected decrease in density, the greater porosity, and the unexpectedly high temperatures caused the rock to behave somewhat like a plastic, making drilling nearly impossible.
Regarding the outer perimeter, it is postulated that what we call Earth is contained within a crater-like hole, which would explain how water could accumulate to form oceans. On the classic FE model, the outer rim is the "ice wall", which is actually Antarctica. Could very well be, given the restrictions surrounding free exploration of Antarctica. None of us know what lies deep beyond the rim.
I suggest you disregard any claims about its "shape" (remember shape vs. surface), because that's impossible to establish with the information we have. Moreover, it is one of the main talking points of the all-too-famous "flat earth" psyop.
yeah, it's fucking stupid, just like you. In a flat model, you would constantly have to be turning to get anywhere so flying from South America to Australia, for example, would take way more hours than it really does. The whole idea is retarded and not supported by anyone with any formal education. Your team is comprised of morons and idiots and no one smart. Your side can't explain anything properly without claiming 'illuminate' this or 'we're in a projection' or some other simpleton statement. Seriously, if you actually studied instead of watching YouTube for your facts, you might get it.
Both satellites and planes orbit our ball because gravity makes them constantly fall the to centre. FE map would require them both to constantly be turning. A satellite's path would be a big circular arc requiring energy (course correction) and not a straight path which you can see them doing with your own eyes at night.
A friend of mine in the navy circumnavigated the south pole clockwise, the coastline ahead was always turning to their right as they made course correction to the right, your map would require them to always be turning left. I can send photos.
Face it, you FE's are fucking stupid, make no sense and have no common sense. You just fabricate shit up to make you look 'edgy' but really, it's all just a bunch of low-IQ garbage. I'm done with you. Good luck, and please don't have children.
I think the confusion arises because the Earth is bigger than they say it is. Because they refuse to acknowledge the expanding nature of the planet. My two cents; the planet, it's obviously somewhat spherical, but it's the mass/volume that is at issue. The accepted model has the earth as a fixed mass throughout it's life time. This is going to fuck up all measurements and "ancestral" observations because the planet gradually expanded in size. It was 50% smaller at it's earliest. If you ignore that, then a greater expanse of land would visually appear to be flat where you would expect to notice a curve, and contrary to whatever internet calculators people are using.
The 50% number is based on careful examination of rock age on the sea beds, which are all far younger than the rock above sea level on the islands and continents. The rock on the sea bed ages progressively in bands, with the older bands being near the continental coastlines, and the youngest near the center of the oceans. It's deduced that the planet was first composed only of the continents, which all fit together like a puzzle, but only on a sphere that is 50% smaller than the current earth. The extra surface area on the modern earth is all the ocean beds. In the past this has been incorrectly interpreted as "continental drift" - but they are not drifting, the surface area of the planet became greater, the origin points of new mass being the center of our current oceans, and moved them apart and away from each other. Here's good video summing up some of this, and there is also an excellent book:
There is evidence the planet expanded in the past. It has been a topic of research for some geologists for over 100 years. You know absolutely nothing about it. Just the usual bullshit from you.
It has been a topic of research for some geologists for over 100 years.
An outright lie
You know absolutely nothing about it.
More than you, liar.
Just the usual bullshit
Pedophiles do disregard evidence and just virtue signal as usual. Look at Ezra Miller. He can't argue against evidence he can only claim the truth is "hateful". So what's the difference between you and Ezra Miller?
Links to FEd pedophile bullshit? No thanks, Ezra Miller. You don't want to talk, you just want to push your pedophile propaganda and you KNOW it's indefensible.
You're incapable of defending your position, Ezra Miller. Keep virtue signalling and calling everyone "haters".
Sleight of hand from the parasitic few: "Sweet Dreams are made of these; who am I to disagree?"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg (also watch at 1:47 with them lying on the flat plane while letting the goyim run in circles around them).
Yeah, Del's really good at it, though I'm not too sure if approaching people on the street is the best way to go about it. I recommend you watch some of his recorded streams; he's got a sharp mind and cuts through the bullshit like no other. I think I've watched everything he's put out. 😄
The 'wobble' takes millennium to move. Our north star is different position than our ancestors. Please do me a favour. Try to get some really good weed , smoke some, then watch this:
My own observations: With a mid level telescope. I can clearly see a spherical moon, a spherical Jupiter, a spherical Saturn. While not science, I would at least hypothesize our planet would follow the clear pattern of celestial bodies I can clearly observe.
Flat earth is the original hypothesis of the earth until it was discovered to be spherical. Only after much push back from the church and “science” community. Was it accepted to be spherical.
Lastly, “flat” is a rather vague observation. It appears the word is used to mean “Not Spherical”. Flat is not a shape. Flat is also relative. If not a sphere what shape is it?
Lastly, “flat” is a rather vague observation. It appears the word is used to mean “Not Spherical”. Flat is not a shape. Flat is also relative. If not a sphere what shape is it?
We don't know what shape it is, it's just the surface that we can talk about, which many of us know to be level (there are mountains, hills, valleys, lakes, etc.). We don't know how far it extends, either.
Circular is not the same as spherical. The objects you are observing could be concave as well...
This is untrue, but popularly taught. It seems that the author of the legend of sleepy hollow is (at least partially) responsible for this myth. Virtually all educated people from, at least, ancient greece were taught the world was spherical from childhood - just like us today!
True. Some speculate disc, some concave (we live on the inside surface) - speculations abound!
If you have an interest in the subject (which it seems you do), please join us on the community i created to explore and discuss it further! Click my username and find the link, or let me know and i’ll pm it to you.
Virtually all educated people from, at least, ancient greece where taught the world was spherical from childhood - just like us today!
They may have been "taught" that, but they were wrong. The most common evidence I've seen for that claim is Erathosenes's experiment, but that works both on a flat surface and a spherical surface, so it proves nothing.
They may have been "taught" that, but they were wrong.
I largely agree. But the history available largely demonstrates that this was the case. The myth that previous cultures thought the world was flat and were “proved wrong” by people like columbus was made up in the 19th century by the author of sleepy hollow. It is a uniquely american myth that many students today are also “taught”.
so it proves nothing.
The kicker is, it was never intended to!
People like eratosthenes and columbus had been taught from childhood that the world was spherical. They never once doubted it, and never sought to prove it right or wrong. Eratosthenes apocryphal procedure absolutely depends on the world being spherical (and many other unvalidated - and some plainly incorrect - assumptions to boot, like that all sunlight “rays” are parallel). His calculation is meaningless and nonsensical unless many unvalidated assumptions (taught to him from childhood as facts) are correct - including the one the calculation is erroneously purported to prove (that the world is spherical)! He never set out to prove anything, merely to estimate the circumference of the world by calculation already assuming it was (and dependent on it being) spherical.
My thing is, I've never seen any super high IQ people (who are also based and know many conspiracy theories are true) be flat earth.
You won't hear someone like Chris Langan believing that for example. He would suggest it's a very complex psyop to make our side look stupid.
I'm open to whatever, but I have way too many people much smarter than me who understand many conspiracies but say the Earth is round.
Either way, it would be nice if people on both sides didn't attack one another because some of us genuinely want to know the truth.
And at the end of the day, this topic ends up being one not worth spending much time on for me, as one would need to be a physicist to even begin to understand half the arguments on either side.
So for me, I'm round Earth, but anti-Copernican as that's the primary issue I think, making us feel as though we weren't the center of God's creation any longer made with purpose. For this topic, see Jonathan Pageau from the Symbolic World, he lines up where I am on all of it. - A Full Frontal Attack on The Copernican Revolution If all is relative, then the Earth most certainly could be considered the center of all Creation rather than the Sun. That to me, is the most important point, rather than the general shape.
Unless Chris Langan has specifically called FE a psyop, or you are Chris Langan yourself, then your claim that he would suggest FE is a psyop is simply your feelings in the absence of evidence to corroborate the feelings
Making claims based on zero evidence is what we're trying to avoid
Ask those much smarter persons that you "have" who say the Earth is round for their evidence of the round Earth
You'll find the attacks are almost unanimously one-sided when it comes to the FE debate
The simpleton discredits things that they are too dumb to understand. I've never seen an atom but can understand the principles behind it and how they form elements. You've never seen the curve because our earth is fucking huge and you are an ant. The failure for you to comprehend this and think everything is fake is just you being dumb.
So if the moon is a flat circle how thick is it? Explain how gravity would act upon such a shape. Explain how such a shape was formed using the laws of gravity, mass and atomic physics. Actually, don't bother, it's a rhetorical question. You chumps will just say some illuminate has created holograms or some other bull shit conspiracy theory to keep us ignorant. For what purpose, none of you can explain.
Why would I have to convince you. Flat earth is an observation, no one claims to have a complete model if you can’t see that then theirs no helping you. Globe earth needs the explanations
Example: why don’t I feel the earth spinning?
Example: why don’t I see any curvature?
Example: how does the moon glow brighter than any rock we have on earth?
Example: why does the moon travel the same path as the sun
Example: why is the sun and moon the same size
Example: why do we have the same constellation for thousands of years
Example: how do you achieve gas pressure next to a vacuum
Example: how do lasers travel hundreds of miles over earth curvature
Example: why don’t planes account for earth curve or spin
Example: why do countless emergency landing not make sense on a globe and line up with the flat earth
Example: what is gravity
No one can see a flat earth - no photos, no high altitude balloons, zero observations. The 'flat' horizon you see is the edge of the curve on a HUGE ball.
no one claims to have a complete model
Yes, we do. See Magellan's ship's logs where he sailed West and came back from the East.
if you can’t see that then theirs no helping you.
See what? Lack of evidence from your side?
Globe earth needs the explanations Example: why don’t I feel the earth spinning?
Motion is felt by G-force - Do you feel like you're moving 500 miles per hour in a jet once you get to a 35K cruise? Once you are 'at speed' you no longer feel any G's
Example: why don’t I see any curvature?
Because you are an ant on a huge ball. Take a macro lens and put it on a basketball it looks flat. https://imgur.com/gallery/nSGtPtz
Example: how does the moon glow brighter than any rock we have on earth?
There is no atmosphere on the moon. Light has no hindrances or needs to go through anything. Here, we have air to affect light, oxygen to change colours of minerals through oxidization so on and so forth.
Example: why does the moon travel the same path as the sun
Because Earth is a huge MASS that attacks other things with MASS - which is why meteors crash into the earth. The earth 'sucks' things towards it FROM ALL SIDES - which is why water stays curved all around us, water is 'pulled' from all sides. The Moon is actually drifting away from Earth (can't recall the distance per year) but it is not 'forever' in our orbit.
Example: why is the sun and moon the same size
They are not. We see it the same size during a lunar eclipse but that is like holding a basketball at arm's length converging up the sun. Try it.
Example: why do we have the same constellation for thousands of years
We don't - the earth wobbles so in ancient times, they had slightly different angles to the constellations.
Example: how do you achieve gas pressure next to a vacuum
Gas/Air has mass just like water, it is pulled towards the center of our big beautiful ball. If the earth was flat, it would defy all physics and not explain why we have an atmosphere.
Example: how do lasers travel hundreds of miles over earth curvature
Lasers are no different than other light sources, they spread out like a cone. If you are very high up, say like a very tall mast/antenna, you can receive the light, however, given enough distance, there is a limit.
Example: why don’t planes account for earth curve or spin
Planes, like water, and air are constantly being pulled towards the center. When we fly, we fly around the ball since we never overcome the constant pull of gravity. We don't fly straight off in a line because gravity would be impossible to overcome unless we had rockets strapped to the wings.
Example: why do countless emergency landing not make sense on a globe and line up with the flat earth
What? Don't understand this one.
Example: what is gravity
Lol, even the smartest people in the world don't know everything about gravity. Gravity is something that continues to be studied since all science is based on theories. The more PLAUSIBLE a theory, the more PROBABLE. Flat earth has never been theorized by anyone in academia so it is IMPLAUSIBLE. Einstein wrote a paper "The Theory of Relativity" which was originally scoffed at by some.
If you really think the earth is flat, write a paper on it and submit it to academic publications like all the other scientists do.
I would, sure. Never really done a live discussion on it before thought so I probably wont be quite as.... eloquent. But I'd need it to be at a scheduled time or something. I'm busy most of the night tonight, and this weekend in fact. Other than that no idea I'd have to get back to you.
you want to schedule a live chat with us, so we can refer to all of the evidence that we've already provided you, and you also want to avoid linking to the same evidence?
what is this weird scenario you think is necessary to have a debate on this?
there's already thousands of hours of others doing the same live chats as you want us to do, and those chats are with the same people we are drawing our sources from
what is to be gained from this scheduled chat that hasn't already been accomplished
watch the videos if you're interested in the subject
If a flat-Earther was sane, they wouldn't be a flat-Earther. The only decent option when dealing with people like that is to ignore them.
Well, at least you admit how closed minded you are and useless to discuss with ;P
Seriously, people with zealous certainty looking for argument/debate should be ignored. However, curious and earnest students interested in discussing alternative views and having their perspectives rationally criticized/challenged should not be ignored (even, and perhaps especially, when their views appear crazy!).
Sitting around always agreeing with one another is as anti-intellectual and boring as refusing to consider you could possibly be wrong!
If you agree with any of the above, please join us on the community I created to explore, discuss, and exchange views on this subject!
Of course they can eavesdrop on you… but chances are you aren’t saying anything when you’re typing.
It’s not about getting the voice of the phone user because there’s still plausible deniability in terms of matching it to the actual person posting. Maybe someone hacked their phone and is using it to post here.
They want to be able to have a solid voice recording that they can directly associate with the posting account and specific things they are saying.
I just think the flat-earthers should come with an alternative shape besides just saying it's flat. I guarantee you the mathematicians can prove that the Earth is round, but the flat-earthers would never be able to understand their language.
How about those surveying engineers? I bet they can prove the Earth is round!
I just think the flat-earthers should come with an alternative shape besides just saying it's flat
Sure, that's courtesy of the globe model, where everything's supposedly accounted for. We are reluctant to let go of that structure, especially when no clear alternative is available. However, and as I've said elsewhere, there's no way to determine Earth's shape without exploring more of it, which is forbidden. Nor can you know what lies beneath (or if it ever ends) if you can only drill up to a few miles. It's like living in a room your entire life and claiming to know what's outside.
I guarantee you the mathematicians can prove that the Earth is round
You can use math to fabricate/describe/make sense of any concept, but that doesn't make the concept real, and that's exactly what they did with the globe. Just think of physics engines (they're digital, intangible, but everything "makes sense", i.e., the math works out).
How about those surveying engineers?
Good question. I'd assume they know a thing or two. I don't know much about civil engineering, but I know it employs Euclidean geometry, as opposed to non-Euclidean (spheres, balls).
Either way, the more pressing question should be: why is there no curvature? Here's just one of the many videos that shows that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lLmW5Y8BFw
The needle-shaped 828-metre skyscraper Burj Khalifa is a brilliant work of art and a cutting-edge piece of engineering that any other building can ever beat. Besides being the tallest building, it has another mind-blowing feature. The Burj Khalifa has two observation desks where you can view sunset twice in the same evening. What? Is that true? Yes.
During the evening if you are watching the sunset from the base layer of the skyscraper and when the sun completely disappears, run towards the elevator and press the 124th floor to see the another magic. As the visitor moves upwards, the sun reappears and set again. What is the science behind this?
I had to actually see if people somewhere had ever said anything like that online.
Thought-terminating cliché
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9
A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance. Its function is to stop an argument from proceeding further, ending the debate with a cliché rather than a point.
It's not as simple as "resolve it once and for all" because regardless of which side you believe... it's still a matter of having to take someone's word for it.
I think there are many compelling reasons to look into flat earth.
The suggestion that earth's atmosphere is held together by gravity, while it sits next to an infinite vacuum simply defies anything we know about physics. If space is vacuum it would be impossible for our atmosphere to exists without a solid barrier ("firmament") containing it.
It is absurd to suggest that the moon orbits around the earth in a perfectly predictable manner, like it was on rails, and this is from "gravity". Meanwhile the earth orbits around a sun in the same manner, in an exact same pattern for 1000s of years. all these forces at work moving balls millions of miles without one iota of decay or change. invisible strings is a more convincing argument than "gravity". Any scientific experiment regarding centrifugal force or attempting to model these type of orbits will invariably show decay and the 2 objects eventually collide or they fly away from one another. the predictable and reliable movements of the bodies in the sky simply has not been adequately explained by modern "science"
while not a proof of flat earth, the fact is NASA has been faking their space activities for 50+ years. They fake their photos of planets and the earth. Their videos of moon landings do not hold up as believable. There are videos showing fakes missions with the space shuttles. They are caught faking stuff with green screens on the ISS to this day. If they can't show us real videos and photos of the globe and space, why not? Its a valid starting point to question what else we are lied to about.
Gas has mass. There's no reason gravity should have no effect on it.
Strawman. Orbits do change and decay. Why argue against something you don't understand. The actual proposed orbits are way more fucked up looking than what you saw in textbooks, all that shit is dumbed down for kids and retards.
It is an odd coincidence that the moon orbits at a rate that keeps the same side facing us at all times. Another odd coincidence is the sun being exactly far enough away from us to be the same size as the moon in the sky
Yep, seems that way.
im offended at your use of "retard."
i identify as retard.
the updoots are sending me mixed messages.
Don't worry, only true intellectuals can give themselves shit and call themselves retarded.
youre a GOD-DAMN FED, too.
like fcukn god-damn roaches.
MODS... if this TURD of a FCUK refuses to jack off into a coffin.... y'all need to do cleanup action on his FAKE and GAY ass.
excuse me sir, prepare your anus for the following argument of the century:
no u
U W0t?
“Stop noticing things”
No, there isn't. A vacuum is just nothing. It's not a force, there's no reason it would rip away the atmosphere. You people really have no grasp of physics. If you have a particle floating in a vacuum, it will move towards a source of gravity. And stay there.
Gravity doesn't exist.
What do you call it when you let go of something and it falls to the ground?
I stopped lifting something that's heavier than the air and can't glide on it, so it falls. I call it what it is. Falling.
Cool story, why does it fall?
So you're saying that a force of 9.8m/s², a force so weak that a bug can fly against it, is strong enough to hold off an infinite vacuum? Do I have that right?
You have no grasp of physics at all.
That's not a measurement of force. Try again
What happens when the bug stops flying? Wonder if that happens to things that aren't a bug too. "Things go up, so gravity not real" is a pretty braindead take. This whole thing would be more interesting if flat earthers had a coherent physics model, but you never have and never will.
You don't need to "hold off" a vacuum. It's not exerting force on anything. It helps to have some understanding of what you're trying to argue against.
Do things move if no force is being exerted on them?
Ah so I guess you’re just gonna ignore the point. Alright.
I addressed everything you said. Tell me what I ignored.
The point is it makes absolutely no sense for an infinite vacuum to not suck all of the air off of earth.
Nope. Shitty understanding of physics. A vacuum isn't a force, it's just empty space. A gas particle sitting in a vacuum has no reason not to move towards a source of gravity.
There is if mass and gravitation are entirely mathematical fiction with no reality outside of equation! It is not coincidence that when combined they annihilate each other and return to the real and measured weight they began as!
If it is a strawman, who are they falsely attributing the view to and when do they intend to burn it down for rhetorical purpose?
There are many such coincidences ;) The three body problem has no solution, nor did it ever.
I think I’ve invited you before, but all the same - please join us on the community I created to further explore, discuss, and exchange views on these topics!
TIL things don't actually fall when I drop them, it's just an equation. Flat earthers are quick to dismiss something as fiction while never providing a working model of physics.
They're strawmanning the conventional model of space. You know this. You're just being obtuse. They said that it's absurd to suggest that orbits don't change, no model of space suggests that orbits don't change. It's just mind numbing ignorance of the opposite position.
Well you didn’t learn that from me!
Equations are just equations. Math is merely a descriptive symbolic language.
Phenomena, like falling for instance, are phenomena! They are real because we can observe and measure them, not because we can describe them in one language or another. Indeed we can describe many things (phenomena included) that do not exist to observe, and are not real. Gravitation and mass are two such examples. As I said, it is not coincidence that they annihilate one another and return to the real and measured weight they began as!
I know that this has been your experience. In general, there are no flat earthers. You have been misinformed/misled by a psyop. I am a flat earth researcher, and I care about science deeply. There are good reasons and justifications for my statements that only require your interest and time to understand.
I think they are earnestly describing their understanding of the conventional astronomical model, and are not doing so for rhetorical purpose. A strawman is for the purpose of making your opponent in a debate look stupid by attributing false (and contrived) stupid views to them and then handily defeating (setting fire to the strawman/effigy) them to convince onlookers. I don’t think that is what they are doing here.
All the original ones do. Newtons did, for instance. That’s one of the reasons he invented our modern concept of the “vacuum of space”. He understood that if space were not entirely empty - then collision would upset and change the clockwork heavens which he knew from 1000’s of years of available astronomical recording did not take place. I am aware that modern models do suggest that orbits change over time, but there is precious little observation to actually support these assertions.
Archeoastronomy flatly refutes such assertions, as does the antikythera device and epicycles which are still used today for prediction of eclipses (and other things) in the most sophisticated models available.
That may be, but it isn’t a strawman (if the above is truly your view).
Gravity doesn't exist, retard.
This is a common misconception, in my view. I think we likely agree on the meaning, and disagree on the verbiage.
Gravity, the scientific/natural law, has existed (been defined/known) for millennia. It is merely the phenomenon of falling. In its simplest form it is the statement “what goes up, must come down”. Natural laws in science are just phenomena; they do not speculate on cause and are merely “the what” established by measurement.
The people who say “gravity” causes things to fall, are imprecise with their words and incorrect. It is gravitation that is supposed to cause things to fall (though , relativistically speaking, not directly - gravitation is taught as a pseudoforce today)
I think we agree (and/or should) that the scientific law of gravity (aka falling) is demonstrably real, but that it is gravitation which doesn’t exist. Right?
If you can resist, it is best to avoid ad hominem. It is the last resort of the intellectually weak, and is across purposes to learning/teaching and communication of any kind.
Shut up, retard.
Video on nasa fakery : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmj_SdBURX0&t
Read up on the electric universe model. The firmament is a plasma double layer created by massive voltage difference we can measure. Orbits are caused by electric currents in the interstellar plasma (space is not a vacuum).
I've heard of the electric universe theory before but I haven't done a deep dive on it, can you recommend a documentary on it?
The Top 10 Reasons Why the Universe is Electric video series (Thunderbolts Project) on youtube or thunderbolts.info is a good place to start.
Thanks, will look into it. Here's the link for anyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZnfNuXiExQ
My point is that we can accurately predict everything that happens in the sky - it runs like a clockwork that is quite knowable. What I am questioning is what we are told of how that reliability is maintained - i.e. "gravity" holding it all together at exact lengths and exact speeds that exactly repeat themselves year after year for 1000s of years. "gravity" as we know it would not achieve that sort of reliability and exactness, and would instead lead to a full decay of the orbit over time, or objects would eventually spin away from one another.
Also I should say this is not a flat-earth proof. I am only pointing out that our current models taught are just fairy tales and built on a house of cards. We needn't pretend that we know how the sky operates.
I’ve heard this claimed many times, but no one’s ever actually linked me like a working 3d model (or video of the model rather) of the heliocentric solar system / galaxy with the planets and stars accurately spinning in the right patterns and such.
Yes, too many variables, too perfect of an experience (physically, at least).
Here's one.
Pseudo-Scientific Moon Mathe-Magic [3mins 20 Seconds]- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcsazyX1fwg
Here's another
Daylight Debunks the Globe [5mins 29 Seconds] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlNhPXCH5cA
I'm not going to summarize a 3 and a 5 min video dude. People are going to either choose to watch them or not.
A vacuum is just a (near)-absence of anything that has mass and occupy volume...gases have mass and occupy volume, thus gravity has an effect on gases as it does on us.
A gas (high pressure) will always fill a vacuum (low pressure) until pressure equalizes. You can't have the two next to each other.
Fun fact: this is also how vacuum cleaners work. A pressure drop is created within an inner chamber that forces the air outside (higher pressure) to rush into the vacuum cleaner.
Gravitational attraction between the gases in our atmosphere and the Earth prevents this from occurring.
You know how farts smell less as you move away? That's how the atmosphere works
You move away?
Here's a mega list of videos on Flat Earth I made.
https://communities.win/c/FlatEarth/p/141roCfDT4/resources/c
Anyone that feels like asking questions about the "flat earth model" feel free to shoot them at me and I'll answer as best I can.
Late but here are some question.
Why would everything be pointing at us?
If we're flat, then that means everything is flat, and facing us. Like saturn and the moon. Why us? Shouldnt some things be at an angle?
Why doesn't satalite photos of earth show all the contenints at once? I know yall think those are fake.
But if they are, then how do satalites work? How would I be using my starlink wifi right now? Or how does your GPS work?
Lastly. Why wouldnt I fall off the edge. Cant people just fly around the world? That would be a simple way to prove it. People have hobbie planes.
I believe that we and this earth are created. That must just be how it was created.
Well just because the surface of the earth is flat doesn't mean that the sun and stars are flat as well. We can't tell what they exactly are. If you zoom in on stars they're not even sphereical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr5UjBGO4BA
Balloons. They touch on this in the Level Documentary. I watched an in depth one on it once but I cant seem to find it anymore :(
Edit: I think its this https://www.bitchute.com/video/zwbXBctYHDTg/
We're not sure whats past the ice wall. Anyone claiming they do doesn't know what they're talking about. We're not sure if its an infinite plane or of it stops somewhere after the ice wall. Normal people aren't allowed to go past, which is why no one has done it in a hobby plane or successfully sailed there.
I haven't watched the video yet (will do), but I recognize that guy's voice. I've seen a video of him where he phones NASA and asks about the SOFIA aircraft/Hubble telescope. He makes a very convincing argument that Hubble may have never existed and that the images we've seen may have come from SOFIA.
I suppose those are reasonable questions given what you've been taught "flat earth" to be. However, "flat earth" doesn't just stop at the surface of the Earth, but puts under question the entire construct (which, I assume, you believe to be an ever-expanding universe with objects floating about).
I suggest you watch How Everything Works on Flat Earth or Level, which is more of a movie-style presentation. You'll find answers to your questions there, and more.
Why would you take the word of this idiot says as 'fact' vs. someone who has taken live video cameras into space from liftoff to space showing a nice, clear image of our ball earth? The amount of stupid in this video is amazing how anyone could be so ignorant of reality.
Why does the flat earth community cling to the earth-curvature formula of:
8" per mile squared
This quadradic is NOT how the earth curvature is measured. If for example, you traveled the circumference of the earth, the real curvature formula would yield 0, because you end up right where you started. Yet the flat earth narrative claims 8" per mile squared would yield not zero but a VERY BIG NUMBER.
Isn't this a problem for the FE community?
That's just an approximation that is practical only for short distances (say, up to 1000 miles). None of the curvature calculators use it, AFAIK. Here's a list of some of them:
And here's a graphic that shows how the curvature is calculated.
Ah, thanks for answering for me. I couldn't tell what he was exactly getting at.
The 8" per mile squared is the mainstream FE argument endlessly recycled on the YouTube videos.
Flat earth is the meat shield ideology to NASA's moon hoax.
"Welcome, kids, to mental gymnastics 101!"
You’re not making much sense here, please make a sensible question I can answer.
The question was in the very first sentence.
It is amazing how you people throw these things around with so much ease.
What's a "flat earther" anyway?
146 comments and only +10 votes
FE posts are always suppressed
Edit: 166 comments and now only +7
Last edit: After 6 days, 410 comments and +20
My man!
Figured that out a while ago
I’m on less and less lately
Consume Product is still fun tho...just don't try and refute christianity, they gatekeep that shit like crazy.
Yeah. The shear amount of interest and engagement is shocking. I am definitely a skeptic of the shape....and maps. But neither has won me over completely.
I have read enough of the shoulders of giants to get a good idea of the globe model.
But the flat earth needs its math a bit better.
I’m interested in what you might be referring to with the flat earth math
Not because I’m trying to be argumentative but because I’m genuinely curious
I’m just following the evidence wherever it takes me and it’s been looking planar to me for a couple of years now but if there’s contradicting evidence to the planar surface then I’d like to investigate!
The math of FE has a lot to be desired.
They frequently reference perspective and density and deny gravity.
These are all mathematical concepts when it comes to modelling. Perspective they are good at describing.
Yet they don't apply the same review of density. They should be able to describe the Motions of objects in various mediums without depending on any gravity.....
That means ... How do you measure mass....write the equations that describe motion through fluids without account for gravity...etc.
These equations must exist....if they are supposed to represent the concepts accurately....
Same with curvature and the idea of relative perspective drops. If it is perspective then that would account for perceived heights....not absolute, however, if Gravity exists......then space time curves.....so light follows the curve....but is straight....so that idea also....not great....needs more math...
I suggest volume ... We should be able to devise a volumetric test which will be able to be used to discern a curve over large distances but this would require enormous expense.
The study of aeronautics accomplishes this. It's a mix of fluid mechanics and dynamics.
There's engineers who will never come out as FE or even question the shape. I'm a failed engineer myself, never cost anyones life though.
Buoyancy helps with movement. This is how boats float, it's how planes fly with lift.
volume = mass / density
So density = mass / volume
It's all related.
Mass is real so isn't volume.
You want an equation that suggests density over acceleration of g, equivalent to 9.8 m/s^2 or 32 ft/s^2
The problem with your question is it depends on the medium your moving through and at what angle. That's why I suggested aeronautics.
Objects tend to fall slower in water because there's more drag.
9.8 m/s^2 is basically junk physics because it just describes what can occur in a vacuum.
You did just get me thinking about why an object would fall faster in a near vacuum. If gravity is fake, it has to be because the mass is denser than that near empty space. I don't know if gravity is fake, just shooting out ideas. But given that the moon mission was likely faked, we honestly don't have a lot of other planetary bodies to run these types of experiments. on. I believe it mostly theoretical at this point.
Why do you say you are a failed engineer? Did you just give up on the career path and move on?
I say it because that's what I am. I like telling people the truth about reality.
The things you are talking about are trivial/easy.
You can’t measure things that don’t exist in reality. You can calculate them, however. Mass is merely the intrinsic weight of an object (weight minus the buoyant force).
They do. But the existence of an equation proves nothing about reality.
Not according to newton, no.
There are no demonstrable examples of this in reality. Lights path can only be altered by direct interaction with matter.
Math worship is a scourge. When discussing science, I prefer english (as did most all other scientists in the history of the discipline).
This is an interesting idea. Even if just for the thought exercise, you should further flesh it out / refine it. Perhaps share it on the community I created to discuss such things?
This is your guy?
$10,000(TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS) CASH, WILL BE awarded to ANYONE who can provide ONE piece of FACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE evidence to support two things. A). The CURVATURE of the alleged spinning ball earth B). The MOTION of the alleged spinning ball earth
Yeah, it's physically impossible to prove the absolute motion of earth given that THERE'S NO STATIONARY OBJECT IN SPACE WE CAN COMPARE THAT TOO.
No one is EVER getting that money.
For me, the curvature is the big issue. Clearly, we can see objects farther than just 6 miles or whatever. Things that according to the trig, should be hidden by the curvature. This is common across the world and I havent seen a reasonable explanation from globe earthers.
I am not saying the earth is flat, maybe the earth is like 1000x bigger than they say so the curvature is off.
But this is something normal people in everyday life can discuss.
I think there was a video of being able to see across one of the great lakes. That shouldn't be possible.
When you "see" objects at a distance, what you mean is that photons originating from the object reach your eyes. Atmosphere, air, is a fluid. Fluids bend light. You can see beyond the mathematically theoretical horizon because the photons reflect off of the layers of different temperature air.
Edit: here's what I'm saying. The red is the angle of the light, the triangle represents atmosphere acting as a prism. https://ibb.co/GTNjgxb
Which is it then? Glober scientists show „curvature“ like a ship disappearing beyond the „curve“ and then someone with a scope/p900 camera zoom in on it and discount the curve.
Now all light is bending around the Earth??? With no distortion? Perfect mirages all over and fairly regularly with no reversal, distortion, etc. I don‘t buy it.
The satellite imagary looks so CGI. We should have nonstop images/video of Earth from space available all the time, but nada. We should have cameras on the moon pointing at Earth. And then there are those literally hundreds of NASA green screen mistakes.
Maybe the Earth isn‘t flat, but why all the lies and mistakes? Why is Youtube and Google so into censoring search results with debunk videos? It just doesn‘t add up.
somebody call the clintons on this TURD.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
https://earthcurvature.com/
The second one doesn't allow for altitude so I use the first one
I encourage you to go try this for yourself!
Me explaining to you my figures and where I went or showing you a hundred videos of others doing the same won't ever convince you
Do you have a large body of water nearby you can test for yourself?
I live near the Great Lakes so this was easy for me to go test for myself
Not OP but I can reply about earth curvature calculations.
You can do a search and find earth curvature calculators such as these.
https://earthcurvature.com/
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
For an example from my personal experience I can see a city thats 20-30 miles away. Laying down on the beach doesn't really change how much I can see so I'm not gonna bother with the eyesight level differences that the second calculator has, I'm gonna use the first.
So if I plug a number into this calculator, it spits out the amount an object should be hidden... From the bottom up according to the ball model.
20 miles: 0.05052 miles = 266.75 feet
30 miles: 0.11367 miles = 600.19 feet
So that means I shouldn't be able to see the bottom 266 feet of whatever is 20 miles away. I'm not sure exactly where they're getting that, as I can still see all of the beach on that opposing shore. Nothing at all looks like its hidden.
Thats....... not how that works. If you put in 500 meters for the altitude its like saying you're standing on a 500 meter tall building, not that the balls radius is 500m larger. The horizon is 50 miles away because you're up so high in relation to the radius of the earth. If you scroll down on that page they go over exactly all of the variables of the equation.
Humidity. Eventually theres too much water to see through to get a clear picture of anything. This video goes over this concept in a little more depth.
Why Can't Everyone See Mount Everest on a Flat Earth? [3mins 5 seconds] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqvH0Y1L41s
Well you did leave this part out of the quote where I explained why this was incorrect to do. Edit: I see you edited in a comment on it
The Calculator would have to have even more variables, altitude above sea level of viewing position and the position of what you're viewing for it to be even more accurate. You can see how that starts to get overly complicated when you get that specific. You probably couldn't even make a calculator out of it since you're not even using a simple ball anymore. They're using 3959 (r) as a constant just to make things simpler.
In my original example of the cities, I checked the altitudes for both the place I am and the place I was viewing and they are the same altitude above sea level. If a 3959 mile radius ball (or whatever) is now 3959.5 that isn't gonna change a whole hell of a lot in the numbers. 266 feet is a lot. According to a quick search 1 "story" of a building is 14' tall. 266/14 = 19 Wheres the 19 story building hiding?
Fake and gay shills talking to eachother.
Fake conversations.
Fake discussion.
Fake debate.
Fake issue.
This is not found, and the link including it fails. The site itself is up, but that specific element has been removed or broken.
Works for me. Just google “earth curvature calculator” there’s more of them
After the link not working and control F not turning up a 'earth-curvature' link on the page, I physically scanned down until I found this near the bottom:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/flat-vs-round-earth
Has some simple experiments to do that they claim will prove the earth is a ball. Haven't tried any, but the sunset twice method sounds like it has possibilities.
Here you go
Why Can't Everyone See Mount Everest on a Flat Earth? [3mins 5 seconds] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqvH0Y1L41s
Because there is too much stuff (largely air) in the way that diverts and/or attenuates the light!
We can’t see forever, largely because light can’t travel forever!
Join us on the community I created to further explore questions like these!
Your hatred is irrational and misplaced.
The flat earth believers you so loathe are products of a psyop. They need help, not murder.
The community i created here is for flat earth researchers, and they are not at all what you think they are. Judgement without evaluation is the height of ignorance.
Why not put your prejudice aside for a second and engage in a conversation? You will quickly realize that you’ve been duped.
Hey, if you look hard enough, you might even be able see your own ass around the curvature.
doin the good fight.
You seem to have an interest in the subject!
Please join us to further explore it and exchange our views on the community I created for that!
Click my username and find the link, or let me know and i’ll pm it to you.
GTFO FED
What have I said that would make you think (incorrectly) that I’m a fed?
I may be stupid, and I may be wrong, but what I do - I do for love, brother or sister. The feds can’t afford me; there is literally not enough money in the world.
LOOK AT YOU.
everything about you stinks. youre POOPY FED.
So, just a baseless accusation then... I guess that’s why you responded with such childishness instead of providing even one example which led to your erroneous conclusion.
Take care kid.
brah, you literally and figuratively stink.
do not kill the messenger.
I wouldn’t dream of it.
But the messenger should try harder, if they can.
Here is how you can prove that the heliocentric model is false by observing the sun. The sun always moves in a clockwise direction, no matter what time of the year, no matter where on earth you are, as you see the sun move from one side of the horizon to the other, it will make a right turn, from your perspective. In the heliocentric model, when the south pole is tilting towards the sun, the sun should move in a counter clockwise direction, as it moves across the sky, from your perspective.
Same with star trails. The north star always stays stationary, all the other stars rotates around the north star. The farther south you get, the bigger of a circle the star trails will make, as they move around the point of the north star. Even when you get passed the equator, the star trails keep getting bigger and bigger, the further south you get, proving that there is no south pole. If the heliocentric model was correct, it be easy to prove that the star trails was getting smaller and smaler when viewed from say Australia, in a south ward direction, as they do in the north.
While the moon, based on every single observation I have every made, is a disc, not a ball, as I have only seen one side of the moon.
One of the few sources of pride in life is knowing that you broke free from the matrix mental prison they've crafted for you.
Doesn't it.bother you guys that you will NEVER get a resolution for this simple question? There is no way to PROVE it besides this YouTube video and that guys argument. Don't you think it's a little odd that this is the case? Literally EVERYONE in the know keeps their mouth shut on this one. Just seems ...unsettling somehow.
What do you mean "there is no way to prove it"?
Pretty cut and dry statement..Nobody trusts NADA (typo but I like it) and nobody trusts FEers. That means we are back at square one...right?
You are thinking of this in the wrong terms. There is no curvature, and that's not a debate, but an indisputable fact, regardless of what NASA or "FEers" say. You can debate about intangibles, but there being no curvature is a demonstrable fact, which anyone can verify for themselves. What more proof could anyone require (after all, the curvature is the foundation of the globe Earth)? Sure, the fact there's no curvature doesn't explain how the Sun and Moon work, etc., but that's another matter altogether, which you can look into later.
So, given there is no curvature, why assume everything else they've said is true? That's how you get images of earthy rectangles floating in space. Just what the captain ordered: nonsense!
Seriously, people have been psyopped beyond belief with this stuff. It's a weird experience, not unlike seeing vaxxies defending the vax.
I've had the same thought about the night sky circling around the north star (polaris), and I've seen plenty of time lapse videos of this. Can anyone find a time lapse video of the night sky circling around the point above our southern pole? Polaris Australis is allegedly the star closest to the point above our southern pole, as the controllers tell us. This should settle it unless the video is somehow faked.
I haven't been to the southern hemisphere for over 10 years, I wish I had investigated this for myself. If you live in Australia or NZ (further south it would be more apparent) you can just set up a camera on a clear night, point it directly south, and take a time lapse of the sky. You should see the stars circling around the point above the southern pole, if we in fact live on a globe. If we live on the FE Allas8 described, the stars should still be circling around the north pole.
Yeah, stars in the southern hemisphere do seem to revolve around Polaris Australis/Sigma Octantis. There are videos of it, but you could also use https://stellarium-web.org to view [a simulation of] the sky.
There's a video Eric Dubay made about this topic: How the Southern Stars Work on Flat Earth (odysee link). I think it's a pretty good explanation for what's occurring.
NASA's heliocentric model is clearly wrong. I enjoy the science behind Flat Earth because it creates an accurate understanding of the magnetic power behind the world. For me personally, the stars has always been the dividing line between Flat Earth and the geocentric model. This video makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
Your first paragraph makes no sense. I really don't understand what you mean. I live in a northerly country, so the sun should always rotate 'clockwise' according to the heliocentric model -- which is does.
But if the sun rises in the east and sets in the west (which it does), doesn't it mean it moves counterclockwise?
No. Track the position of the sun every hour you see it in the sky for a day, draw a line between the positions you have marked, and you will see that it moves in a clockwise circle, always.
Don't you think it's relative though? If you're facing North, then it's moving counterclockwise, but if you're facing South, you're moving clockwise. So this argument has no validity.
I do not think it is relative, no. The sun moves in a constant clockwise direction, whether you face North or South when looking at the sun. Only difference is if you are inside our outside the the circle the sun makes across our sky.
A merry go around is flat though. Based on which way you spin, the sun will either spin in a clockwise direction, or a counter clock wise direction, no matter the position of the sun. not matter where on the Merry go around you are, perfectly demonstarting the principal I lay out.
Start spinning a ball on the other hand, and the sun will either move in a clock wise direction, or a counter clock wise direction, based on if you are on top of the ball, or under the ball.
Real life observations dont match the official curve formula.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/
Have you seen city or landscapes tilting back as they recede?
Feel the earth move? except for earthquake and xxx.
I’ve shot a video of the lake I live nearby. According to the curvature calculation, I shouldn’t be able to see most of the village on the other side (about 20m behind curve of I remember correctly). But still I can see buildings, boats, trees, full windmills.
But when I look in the far distance, I see a windmill’s blades just slicing theough the water / horizon. As if it were built inside the lake.
Yep. Account for the curve of your own eyes on motionless ground.
Wait, are you saying that you see mostly full windmills all the way across the lake, but then you also see a certain windmill that looks like it is behind the curve mostly (just the blades coming out of the water)? Or is that one windmill further than the rest?
More shills talking to themselves and their alt accounts to create the impression of a serious discussion.
Fake astroturfed bs.
Mainly that's because of the things the flatters say. And they do say a lot instead of simply showing proof that the earth is flat, or at least not as round as reported.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/flat-vs-round-earth
Found the calculator for proving ball earth before finding the earth-curvature link, which oddly refuses to open. Only clicking the link on that page works, even though it's the same address.
Have been exchanging messages with them since Blackguard19 on voat.
The laser video is interesting, but that guy needs to go through puberty or use a voice changer. I have a bit over 20 miles of water to look across, and am going to check the visibility for myself. What do you think of the "second sunset" exercise in the other link?
Parts of the earth are flat.
Parts of the earth are flat, indeed!
There’s a great video by Eric Dubay pointing out many of the great flatlands around our world and I’m not even sure that he mentions the great abyssal plains which are vast flat ocean floor surfaces
Adding up all of these large flatlands, we don’t even need to consider other evidence against the globe as it would be impossibly curved in the other areas to make up for all of the lost curvature due to flatlands
Not at all correct. The problem with you FEs is that you can't understand how large the earth is. Your perception of what is in front of you is only 5Km in each direction. From there, the curve begins to obscure the bottom of things. Flat lands and oceans all are pulled equally in all directions toward the center of the earth's mass. Einstein predicted that time slows down the closer you get to a large mass. Using atomic clocks, scientists have proven him right. With a black hole, even light cannot escape the gravitational pull. Water is an element affected by gravity, that, being pulled from all sides equally allows it to 'stick' to the curved earth, the same way Saturn's rings orbit the planet, or ice sheets spread around planets. The observations have been theorized, and then proven by people infinitely smarter than you. Your issue is intelligence. You are dumb, they are smart. Gravity is real and powerful, your brain is simply too stoopid to comprehend these facts.
Flat Earth is an iq test. If you believe you are spinning upside down, you lost.
OK. let's take an IQ test written by a moron. Lol.
You already are a moron. Nothing would change for you.
I'm agnostic on the subject, but see some good (and bad) arguments on both sides. (This is just how I view the different arguments, I could be missing something.)
Water is flat argument is flawed by droplet of water, water meniscus surface tension would hold water together in a round shape as it does in free fall state. There is video of water in fake 'space' (which is probably filmed in a free fall location showing large balls of water floating and held together. those videos don't appear to be cgi and also work with water and know it's surface tension is a strong force. - no point awarded to firmament earth.
Laser measurement of large lakes or Suez Canal showing the expected drop in height due to curvature does not exist, -point goes to firmament earth.
Eclipse w/ Sun and Moon the same size give low probability of natural occurrence of 2 objects at dramatically unequal distances being the exact same size (93 million miles and 239000 miles, sun and moon respectively). -point goes to firmament earth but a bit more circumstantial or probabilistic.
Idea that atmosphere can't exist in vacuum of space and that this disproves ball earth - atmospheric pressure drops w/ elevation which can be observed at high elevations with either pressure gauge or just breathing. for example 4000m in altitude is a loss of ~40% pressure. at some point the pressure approaches zero. -no point awarded to firmament earth.
Observation of moon showing plane of focus closer than expected for 239000 mile distance - point firmament earth.
In southern hemisphere the moon rises in the sky 'upside down' from the orientation that it is observed in the northern hemisphere (i've witnessed this in australia). this did not occur in europe, north america, asia (which i've also witnessed). i don't see how this rotation and orientation is explained on the firmament earth model.
This is obvious misinterpretation of whats meant by "water is flat" man, come on.
This exactly makes sense with the flat earth model and density.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbCGrG0c2gI
What doesnt make sense is that the atmosphere is there at all, with no barrier between it and a vacuum.
I'm not 100% sure what you're exactly talking about here, but maybe this video can explain some.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-w8acuxF6w
I look at photos of curved water all the time at work. It's called a meniscus. it can curve in a lot of different directions depending on surface tension factors. I think there are stronger arguments for the firmament earth case.
Thanks for the atmosphere video, i'll check it out. Atmosphere could have variable pressure w/ altitude in the firmament model, but some claim the ball mode is invalid because it is a gas without a container next to a basically infinite vacuum.
For the moon thing, have you ever looked up and saw the 'face' on the moon or 'man on the moon'? When it rises in the southern hemisphere it comes up upsidedown to how it is seen in the northern hemisphere. it's actually kinda freaky if you're not expecting it. constellations are upsidedown too. i've seen it irl. happened in australia but not south asia or europe or north america. https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2014/02/a-matter-of-perspective (only sharing the link for the phenomena which can be found elsewhere not necessarily the explanation.)
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
and when surface tension is a negligible factor in the “flatness” of something, say, anything larger than a test tube, then it always appears flat. You wouldn’t say the surface of a swimming pool has any curve to it.
That’s exactly what i’m saying. Gravity is a force so weak that bugs can go against it, but so strong it can hold air in against an infinite vacuum? Really?
And i think that last one i linked is the correct video to explain the differences in perception between the hemispheres.
What holds a bug to flat earth?
Its need for food.
Please share the math on the attractiveness of bugs to food source.
if bug fly too high for too long then bug no find food and die
Sit on one side of your room and look up at the light in the ceiling
Then move to the opposite side of the room and look up at the same ceiling light
It’s upside down, same as the moon when comparing n and s hemispheres
Nope!
Humanity requires no “cover up” in order to be stupid and wrong as it historically always is!
Most of them, yes (though not technically “strawmen”, but false positions you are intended to repeat so that you may be easily discredited and drive others away from the subject) . The flat earth psyop is very real and heavily advertised (i.e. funded).
Proofs don’t really exist outside of mathematics. The only “proof” (a subjective term) of the shape of any physical object (the earth included) is rigorous and repeated measurement of that object! “Flat earth arguments” can’t be proofs, for the same reason that the “globe earth arguments” can’t be. Arguments can never be proofs! Right?
Not objectively. Proof is very personal/subjective! That’s all I meant.
Right, that is kind of my point. There is no such thing as an undeniable fact, or a fact that does not deserve/warrant doubt/scrutiny/skepticism. Facts are merely claims declared as true by our authorities. They are arbitrary, and generally speaking - incorrect. It is merely a question of how long we must wait until we recognize why. It’s called “the half life of facts” and is a very important concept to become familiar and comfortable with. Doubt is the mother/driver of knowledge and science.
Beyond that, people are a subjective/mythological/religious/superstitious lot. It is painfully trivial to deny any fact - true or not - at a whim. This is one of the reasons that we must be ever vigilant to identify and excise belief (aka bias) within us, including the belief that what we think we know is inerrant/infallible. We must do this to have even the slim chance of objective study of reality and to know.
Not me personally, no - but many/most are! Helping them to recognize why the globe model we are taught to accept is incorrect and how we can demonstrate that is very important and involves a LOT of discussion (typically). Still, we cannot force them - they must want to learn and choose to do so for themselves. No discussion can provide proof to another (even when/just because it serves as proof for you)
I don’t feel that way at all! What have I said that made you think that?
There is precious little “real flat earth content” but it does exist out there - and is typically individuals conducting their own independent research (no mass exposure via youtube or otherwise) for their own knowledge/edification. The rule of thumb is - if they are popular / well known / profitable, they are agents and/or useful idiots of the psyop. The psyop doesn’t just throw people off, it drives them away from earnest research and discussion thereof as well as encourages them to swallow and repeat stupid and clearly untrue things to further discredit the valuable endeavor/subject.
It is very time consuming, but it is of benefit for them as well as us! It helps to refine our own ideas/knowledge and to make it more succinct. It is an invaluable exercise for all involved. But it does take significant time. Time well spent in my view!
Interesting, I've never heard this plane of focus of the moon argument - do you have a link that explains that in more detail?
Please join us on the community I created to further evaluate and discuss your answers if you are interested!
Lasers Prove the Earth is Flat
Laser light spreads out like a cone. This experiment has been debunked many times. Go to 2:05 - notice the laser lights are all 'flat' at the bottom and not a perfect circle suggesting a curved surface. A more accurate experiment would be to place something on the surface that is not a light - like a gun target and see if you can see the entire thing. You won't.
Oh, shit, alright!
Not how this works.
Seriously? Why do you say things you know nothing about? You're just a jack-ass the type of guy who claims knowledge but you're just an uneducated tool. Support your statement with facts. For my statement see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence
No, there isn't.
Show me.
"How can it be solved? Simple: crowdfund a prize to a race"
Why a race and not crowdfund a proper science expedition, or a hundred other ideas before trying this "sailing vs journey to the edge" business
You assume that there even is an edge to be reached, though we have no evidence to corroborate that claim
This is an absurd method if the objective is to determine the shape of the world
How about this, similar to your race idea:
Your sailors are instead pilots, and they must complete their circumnavigation not by sailing but instead by flying North to South; flying directly across the supposed Antarctic island continent and popping out the other side
Every "circumnavigation" whether via boat or plane has been East/West
This fact alone should give pause for the globe believers
You're in for a reality check, glober
I'm actually jealous of you, as you have yet to experience snapping out of the spinning globe indoctrination
See you on the other side, fren
It’s cause for celebration!
I’ve always been spiritual and believed there is something more to be seen beyond the veil of what we can normally perceive with our senses, despite the globe Big Bang indoctrination, and now it only further solidifies that belief for me, if I needed more convincing in the first place
Indeederoo. (Not claiming I know what it fully entails.)
It means that very, very evil people have ruled us for at least like 600 years.
Yeah, that's one aspect of it. What I don't know is what this world actually is and how it came to be. Granted, those were still valid questions in the old model, but at least you were given enough breadcrumbs to partially satiate the curiosity, e.g., "oh, it's the Big Bang", "oh, it expands forever", "oh, we're just a planet", "oh, it's just pure chance", "oh, we're basically monkeys", etc. I don't even know what the word "world" refers to anymore. It's such a peculiar place to find oneself in.
Circle navigating our flat world is not that hard, all you have to do is follow the path of the sun, go in a constant west ward direction. For every mile moved in a constant west ward direction, you will move 8 inches toward the north (a right turn). If you move on a south ward direction, eventually you will hit the ice wall known as Antarctica. Since the Antarctic treaty was signed, private exploration of the southern most part of our world has been forbidden.
Why would my position move North if my heading is exactly West?
If I go South, I expect to hit Antarctica, I agree with you there
But I don't get why if I'm flying exactly West that for every mile travelled I'm actually 8 inches closer to the North pole?
You can't stay within a circle by moving in a straight line.
Since you make a circle. If you move west, you do not move in a straight line. Your distance to the north pole always stays the same, as long as you move in a west ward direction. Are you one meter away from the North pole, and move in a west ward direction, you would move in a 6.25 meter big circle before you got back to the point you started from.
That's the model, yes
Antarctica's shoreline acts as a container for our worlds oceans
Our entire "Earth" as we know it is essentially the Antarctic basin
The law is no one South of 60 degrees South
Antarctica is the end of the known world. Where the edge is, is speculation.
I have heard that you will be stopped if you try to go there. There are patrols.
WHO DON GONE TO SPACE?
WHO?!?!?
elon, if u on here, DM me, bro.
https://www.theflatearthpodcast.com/must-see-videos/
courtesy of u/mrsray
AWESOME actually courtesy of Flat Earth Dave :) David Weiss is the co-host of The Flat Earth Podcast and the creator of the DITRH Youtube channel
but let me add https://odysee.com/$/search?q=proves%20flat%20earth
https://imgur.com/a/T2kzW4m
Imgur is lame, but it's unfortunately what I used to put these appx 50 images together
There are links to relevant videos under some of the images; the bitchute links are flagged with Imgur so you'll have to copy and paste those links
https://www.theflatearthpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/HOAX-Book.pdf
^ This isn't a collection I put together but is also excellent and very few if any repeats with the above collection I put together
Credit to Eric Dubay, OddTV, and David Weiss; I think most of the images I used are Eric and OddTV
Single sentence? Throw away account? Megathread? Resolved forever?
Sure, that may as well, all have happened.
S/he doesn't post in ancaps, it seems. I suppose you meant https://conspiracies.win/u/Questionable/?type=post?
Oh, I see now. I misread, sorry.
Hmm, didn't consider that. S/he may even scrap the thread entirely.
FE is the mac daddy conspiracy.
It seems like the least relevant conspiracy theory to me. It has no effect on anything in my life, anyway.
A short video of why it matters.
Calling things “conspiracy theories” is merely a tactic to discredit them and prevent research and discussion of them... right?
When the puritans discovered there was a “new world” to travel to - did that have no effect on their lives?
Please join us on the community I created to discuss, explore, and exchange views on this subject if you are interested!
Many feel this way, but in my view the shape of the earth has little to nothing to do with any conspiracy.
Humanity requires no assistance (conspiracy or otherwise) to be stupid and wrong as it historically always is.
Please join us on the community I created to further discuss, explore, and exchange views on this subject if you are interested!
Are you implying that's a good example for water curving?
Have you read the rest of what I've written regarding that point? Have you considered those aspects? Are you familiar with how optics/perspective works?
Yes.
Sure, those can both be explained by a globe Earth, but they can also be explained by the standard FE model, which covers both day/night cycles and seasons in a much more straightforward manner. To put things into perspective: globe Earth is merely "flat earth" reverse-engineered into something to, well, fit a globe hurtling through space.
My point wasn't that it's flung off (I've even said so), but that if its rotation speed is so insignificant in relation to its size, such that there's no observable effect on our bodies or anything around us, why would there be a bulge at the equator? Have you read the rest of that paragraph (I've edited it slightly)?
"we can observe the spin itself because day/night cycles"
all of this stuff is 101 FE shit
watch some of the videos and then continue the discussion
https://communities.win/c/FlatEarth/p/141roCfDT4/resources/c
u/vicariousjambi has linked a series of short videos explaining most of the FAQ
It's fake and gay. Done.
You're not wrong.
takes one to know one.
welcome to the club, bro.
question authority. watch the x-files.
youre welcome.
Until i see a video of the ball Earth spinning from one of the hundreds of satellites we put in space, I’ll believe my eyes and instincts that we live on a flat, stationary plane.
I would love to be proven wrong because space and the planet pictures from NASA are cool as fuck
But the ISS is located within part of the Earth’s atmosphere according to the experts. Therefore would be theoretically too close to capture the rotation.
With that said, this livestream is switching angles. Hard to discern if its legitimate and not some sort of CGI trickery
No amount of evidence will satisfy you because you're a simpleton. You've watched morons on Youtube use conjecture and hypotheticals based on zero evidence to portray a narrative that no one with a practical understanding of physics will support. So, you think there is some grand conspiracy that is keeping all of us from the truth, just to satisfy your own delusions about what 'really is going on. The simple fact that you can use a telescope to see multiple moons and planets revolve around each other, and 'spin around' with your own eyes, yet fail to acknowledge that our planet must do the same is you being an obtuse 1/2 wit.
Yes earth is flat
Flat earth is a psyOP designed to distance normies from conspiracies and alternate narratives that have merit. Check ‘em.
Take a peek at some of the linked material within this thread and see if you still feel the same way
This is largely true, but kind of a “fringe benefit” of the psyop.
The flat earth psyop is really heavily advertised (i.e. funded) to prevent serious discussion or evaluation of this important and rewarding subject. That’s why it’s so overtly stupid (the advertised psyop)!
If you would like to learn about what flat earth research really is, why it is so important/rewarding, and why a psyop exists to advertise how stupid it is - please join us on the community I created to discuss, explore, and exchange views on such things!
You chuds are chasing your tails. None of this matters.
Have you noticed that anytime anyone brings up any conspiracy related topic now no matter how realistic or obvious it’s followed up with “oh you must be a flat earther”
That's got nothing to do with the surface of the Earth per se, but all to do with the success of the psyop that's been going on for years now. Those unfamiliar with the "flat earth psyop" will label you as a "conspiracy theorist" instead, which is just as bad (and was also orchestrated by TPTB after the JFK assassination to discredit those that dared propose an alternative to the official narrative). As an exercise, just think of "conspiracy theorist" and "flat earther" as two imaginary entities. If you're anything like me, you'll perceive no difference between the two, both being just as disgraceful/demeaning/unappealing; just this alone should be a sign that something is amiss.
The "flat earth psyop" is meant to stop people from pursuing the subject and to encourage those that have been psyopped to ridicule those that dare pursue it (kinda like what you're doing here). Ridicule is their weapon of choice, and it works great.
What do I mean by the "flat earth psyop"? Well, just search YT for "flat earth" and see for yourself. Everything you encounter is a lie, and if it isn't, they'll make damn sure to mock it so that you know to stay away from it. They'll teach you how to ridicule people, regardless of what those people say; they'll teach you to believe that you have science on your side; they'll teach you to rest assured that everything's been covered for you, that they're doing great things so that you don't have to, that they have your best interest at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth, though, because what you really have on your side is a bunch of lying science priests that have used this method to inculcate the entire world from birth [and most, to grave] with an incredible lie.
None of us adhere to any of that "flat earth" crap they present you with, and we wouldn't be so insistent if we didn't know what we're talking about; why would we endure so much shit? On the other hand, you think you know how the Earth is a globe, just like all of us did, but in reality, you've never experienced anything that would indicate that. All of it rests on an intangible globe image, intangible math applied to an intangible universe, the fear of being ridiculed and your personal incredulity ("they couldn't have possibly lied to the entire world for decades/centuries!").
Do as you see fit, but I suggest you reconsider.
How would this impact your life if it were proven one way or another? The short answer is zero. This is all meant to make us all look crazy and to have all of our ideas and other conversations discounted and written off.
How could it not matter? It is the foundation of our world. It is the most important thing in our experience; everything rests on it (including our very existence). What if this insane world they've conjured for us, and which they own, was conjured exactly because it matters? How could it matter more "what others think of us" than what the world actually is? Please, think again.
If the Earth is flat, how thick is it supposed to be? And is it a perfect rectangle?
No one knows its shape. When I say "it's level/flat", I refer to its surface; I can't make any assertions about its actual shape other than "it can be anything that allows for a level surface".
Similarly, in regards to its thickness, no one (AFAIK) has ever dug a hole deeper than the Kola Superdeep, which reaches a depth of 7.61 miles (12.2 km). Wikipedia says they couldn't dig deeper...
Regarding the outer perimeter, it is postulated that what we call Earth is contained within a crater-like hole, which would explain how water could accumulate to form oceans. On the classic FE model, the outer rim is the "ice wall", which is actually Antarctica. Could very well be, given the restrictions surrounding free exploration of Antarctica. None of us know what lies deep beyond the rim.
I suggest you disregard any claims about its "shape" (remember shape vs. surface), because that's impossible to establish with the information we have. Moreover, it is one of the main talking points of the all-too-famous "flat earth" psyop.
Oh right. Magellan and every ship and plane that has since circumnavigated the globe is all part of a grand psyop. Got it.
Sure, throw a red herring in there for good measure.
No, the globe has never been circumnavigated N/S, only E/W. Same thing applies to the classic FE model. Have you even looked at a map of it?
yeah, it's fucking stupid, just like you. In a flat model, you would constantly have to be turning to get anywhere so flying from South America to Australia, for example, would take way more hours than it really does. The whole idea is retarded and not supported by anyone with any formal education. Your team is comprised of morons and idiots and no one smart. Your side can't explain anything properly without claiming 'illuminate' this or 'we're in a projection' or some other simpleton statement. Seriously, if you actually studied instead of watching YouTube for your facts, you might get it.
Both satellites and planes orbit our ball because gravity makes them constantly fall the to centre. FE map would require them both to constantly be turning. A satellite's path would be a big circular arc requiring energy (course correction) and not a straight path which you can see them doing with your own eyes at night.
A friend of mine in the navy circumnavigated the south pole clockwise, the coastline ahead was always turning to their right as they made course correction to the right, your map would require them to always be turning left. I can send photos.
Face it, you FE's are fucking stupid, make no sense and have no common sense. You just fabricate shit up to make you look 'edgy' but really, it's all just a bunch of low-IQ garbage. I'm done with you. Good luck, and please don't have children.
Go outside. Look for a rock ~8 inches in diameter. Pick it up. Now, as hard as you can, hit your head with it. See? You're a moron. Done.
I think the confusion arises because the Earth is bigger than they say it is. Because they refuse to acknowledge the expanding nature of the planet. My two cents; the planet, it's obviously somewhat spherical, but it's the mass/volume that is at issue. The accepted model has the earth as a fixed mass throughout it's life time. This is going to fuck up all measurements and "ancestral" observations because the planet gradually expanded in size. It was 50% smaller at it's earliest. If you ignore that, then a greater expanse of land would visually appear to be flat where you would expect to notice a curve, and contrary to whatever internet calculators people are using.
I'm open to it being thousands of times larger, but that would bring its own set of problems.
I gotta ask, though:
Why would it expand? Due to the supposed expansion of the universe?
Could it observably expand over a few millennia?
What is this based on?
The 50% number is based on careful examination of rock age on the sea beds, which are all far younger than the rock above sea level on the islands and continents. The rock on the sea bed ages progressively in bands, with the older bands being near the continental coastlines, and the youngest near the center of the oceans. It's deduced that the planet was first composed only of the continents, which all fit together like a puzzle, but only on a sphere that is 50% smaller than the current earth. The extra surface area on the modern earth is all the ocean beds. In the past this has been incorrectly interpreted as "continental drift" - but they are not drifting, the surface area of the planet became greater, the origin points of new mass being the center of our current oceans, and moved them apart and away from each other. Here's good video summing up some of this, and there is also an excellent book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Othb0xsvZb4
https://www.expansiontectonics.com/wpPDF/ExpansionTectonicsHandout0915.pdf
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the planet is expanding. You're wrong, you know you're wrong. You are a bad faith actor
There is evidence the planet expanded in the past. It has been a topic of research for some geologists for over 100 years. You know absolutely nothing about it. Just the usual bullshit from you.
Prove it.
An outright lie
More than you, liar.
Pedophiles do disregard evidence and just virtue signal as usual. Look at Ezra Miller. He can't argue against evidence he can only claim the truth is "hateful". So what's the difference between you and Ezra Miller?
Check my links dumb-ass
Check my links dumb-ass
Not until you check my links dumb-ass
Dumb-ass.
Links to FEd pedophile bullshit? No thanks, Ezra Miller. You don't want to talk, you just want to push your pedophile propaganda and you KNOW it's indefensible.
You're incapable of defending your position, Ezra Miller. Keep virtue signalling and calling everyone "haters".
I really can't take you seriously, lol.
You don't take anything seriously besides subversion. Subverting children like Ezra Miller you virtue signalling, communist, fake victim ass liar.
You have no evidence.
You're a retarded fed fag limited hangout shill.
Forgive me if i’ve already invited you, but please join us on the community I created to discuss and exchange such views!
Click my username to find the link, or let me know and I’ll pm it to you!
Sleight of hand from the parasitic few: "Sweet Dreams are made of these; who am I to disagree?"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg (also watch at 1:47 with them lying on the flat plane while letting the goyim run in circles around them).
There's nothing to resolve, the earth is not flat and the people who think it is cannot be reasoned with. Ignore them and they will go away.
Yeah, Del's really good at it, though I'm not too sure if approaching people on the street is the best way to go about it. I recommend you watch some of his recorded streams; he's got a sharp mind and cuts through the bullshit like no other. I think I've watched everything he's put out. 😄
That's because you're a fucking idiot pushing an equally idiotic theory.
Name one. I'll debunk it again.
The 'wobble' takes millennium to move. Our north star is different position than our ancestors. Please do me a favour. Try to get some really good weed , smoke some, then watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI
You can do these same observations from your home,
Gee, funny how all the high-altitude balloon videos show a curved horizon. FAIL.
We don't know what shape it is, it's just the surface that we can talk about, which many of us know to be level (there are mountains, hills, valleys, lakes, etc.). We don't know how far it extends, either.
Sound argument…
What?
Circular is not the same as spherical. The objects you are observing could be concave as well...
This is untrue, but popularly taught. It seems that the author of the legend of sleepy hollow is (at least partially) responsible for this myth. Virtually all educated people from, at least, ancient greece were taught the world was spherical from childhood - just like us today!
True. Some speculate disc, some concave (we live on the inside surface) - speculations abound!
If you have an interest in the subject (which it seems you do), please join us on the community i created to explore and discuss it further! Click my username and find the link, or let me know and i’ll pm it to you.
They may have been "taught" that, but they were wrong. The most common evidence I've seen for that claim is Erathosenes's experiment, but that works both on a flat surface and a spherical surface, so it proves nothing.
I largely agree. But the history available largely demonstrates that this was the case. The myth that previous cultures thought the world was flat and were “proved wrong” by people like columbus was made up in the 19th century by the author of sleepy hollow. It is a uniquely american myth that many students today are also “taught”.
The kicker is, it was never intended to!
People like eratosthenes and columbus had been taught from childhood that the world was spherical. They never once doubted it, and never sought to prove it right or wrong. Eratosthenes apocryphal procedure absolutely depends on the world being spherical (and many other unvalidated - and some plainly incorrect - assumptions to boot, like that all sunlight “rays” are parallel). His calculation is meaningless and nonsensical unless many unvalidated assumptions (taught to him from childhood as facts) are correct - including the one the calculation is erroneously purported to prove (that the world is spherical)! He never set out to prove anything, merely to estimate the circumference of the world by calculation already assuming it was (and dependent on it being) spherical.
My thing is, I've never seen any super high IQ people (who are also based and know many conspiracy theories are true) be flat earth.
You won't hear someone like Chris Langan believing that for example. He would suggest it's a very complex psyop to make our side look stupid.
I'm open to whatever, but I have way too many people much smarter than me who understand many conspiracies but say the Earth is round.
Either way, it would be nice if people on both sides didn't attack one another because some of us genuinely want to know the truth.
And at the end of the day, this topic ends up being one not worth spending much time on for me, as one would need to be a physicist to even begin to understand half the arguments on either side.
So for me, I'm round Earth, but anti-Copernican as that's the primary issue I think, making us feel as though we weren't the center of God's creation any longer made with purpose. For this topic, see Jonathan Pageau from the Symbolic World, he lines up where I am on all of it. - A Full Frontal Attack on The Copernican Revolution If all is relative, then the Earth most certainly could be considered the center of all Creation rather than the Sun. That to me, is the most important point, rather than the general shape.
Unless Chris Langan has specifically called FE a psyop, or you are Chris Langan yourself, then your claim that he would suggest FE is a psyop is simply your feelings in the absence of evidence to corroborate the feelings
Making claims based on zero evidence is what we're trying to avoid
Ask those much smarter persons that you "have" who say the Earth is round for their evidence of the round Earth
You'll find the attacks are almost unanimously one-sided when it comes to the FE debate
https://communities.win/c/FlatEarth/p/141roCfDT4/resources/c
https://www.theflatearthpodcast.com/must-see-videos/
The simpleton discredits things that they are too dumb to understand. I've never seen an atom but can understand the principles behind it and how they form elements. You've never seen the curve because our earth is fucking huge and you are an ant. The failure for you to comprehend this and think everything is fake is just you being dumb.
If the Earth is flat, then why is the moon a sphere?
A circle is not a sphere and the lights in the sky have nothing to do with the shape of the floor
So if the moon is a flat circle how thick is it? Explain how gravity would act upon such a shape. Explain how such a shape was formed using the laws of gravity, mass and atomic physics. Actually, don't bother, it's a rhetorical question. You chumps will just say some illuminate has created holograms or some other bull shit conspiracy theory to keep us ignorant. For what purpose, none of you can explain.
We don’t have to explain any of that. Flat earth is an observation it’s easy. Your model is the ones that requires such stupid explanations lmao
Oh, gee, strong case you make. Well, I'm convinced.
Why would I have to convince you. Flat earth is an observation, no one claims to have a complete model if you can’t see that then theirs no helping you. Globe earth needs the explanations Example: why don’t I feel the earth spinning? Example: why don’t I see any curvature? Example: how does the moon glow brighter than any rock we have on earth? Example: why does the moon travel the same path as the sun Example: why is the sun and moon the same size Example: why do we have the same constellation for thousands of years Example: how do you achieve gas pressure next to a vacuum Example: how do lasers travel hundreds of miles over earth curvature Example: why don’t planes account for earth curve or spin Example: why do countless emergency landing not make sense on a globe and line up with the flat earth Example: what is gravity
No one can see a flat earth - no photos, no high altitude balloons, zero observations. The 'flat' horizon you see is the edge of the curve on a HUGE ball.
Yes, we do. See Magellan's ship's logs where he sailed West and came back from the East.
See what? Lack of evidence from your side?
Motion is felt by G-force - Do you feel like you're moving 500 miles per hour in a jet once you get to a 35K cruise? Once you are 'at speed' you no longer feel any G's
Because you are an ant on a huge ball. Take a macro lens and put it on a basketball it looks flat. https://imgur.com/gallery/nSGtPtz
There is no atmosphere on the moon. Light has no hindrances or needs to go through anything. Here, we have air to affect light, oxygen to change colours of minerals through oxidization so on and so forth.
Because Earth is a huge MASS that attacks other things with MASS - which is why meteors crash into the earth. The earth 'sucks' things towards it FROM ALL SIDES - which is why water stays curved all around us, water is 'pulled' from all sides. The Moon is actually drifting away from Earth (can't recall the distance per year) but it is not 'forever' in our orbit.
They are not. We see it the same size during a lunar eclipse but that is like holding a basketball at arm's length converging up the sun. Try it.
We don't - the earth wobbles so in ancient times, they had slightly different angles to the constellations.
Gas/Air has mass just like water, it is pulled towards the center of our big beautiful ball. If the earth was flat, it would defy all physics and not explain why we have an atmosphere.
Lasers are no different than other light sources, they spread out like a cone. If you are very high up, say like a very tall mast/antenna, you can receive the light, however, given enough distance, there is a limit.
Planes, like water, and air are constantly being pulled towards the center. When we fly, we fly around the ball since we never overcome the constant pull of gravity. We don't fly straight off in a line because gravity would be impossible to overcome unless we had rockets strapped to the wings.
What? Don't understand this one.
Lol, even the smartest people in the world don't know everything about gravity. Gravity is something that continues to be studied since all science is based on theories. The more PLAUSIBLE a theory, the more PROBABLE. Flat earth has never been theorized by anyone in academia so it is IMPLAUSIBLE. Einstein wrote a paper "The Theory of Relativity" which was originally scoffed at by some.
If you really think the earth is flat, write a paper on it and submit it to academic publications like all the other scientists do.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/gravitational-waves/en/
I noticed you never bothered to answer the 'what purpose' part of my post, you're so dumb.
Yes, actually I can: https://theconversation.com/how-the-moon-formed-new-research-133204
No idiot, it does.
By no one with any credentials or academic credibility.
I would, sure. Never really done a live discussion on it before thought so I probably wont be quite as.... eloquent. But I'd need it to be at a scheduled time or something. I'm busy most of the night tonight, and this weekend in fact. Other than that no idea I'd have to get back to you.
you want to schedule a live chat with us, so we can refer to all of the evidence that we've already provided you, and you also want to avoid linking to the same evidence?
what is this weird scenario you think is necessary to have a debate on this?
there's already thousands of hours of others doing the same live chats as you want us to do, and those chats are with the same people we are drawing our sources from
what is to be gained from this scheduled chat that hasn't already been accomplished
watch the videos if you're interested in the subject
Anyone that actually gives enough of a shit to learn about what we’re talking about has all of the available information we’re already linking.
You don’t need to trust me at all. As a matter of fact, don’t trust me at all.
Look at the sources i’m linking and make up your own mind about it.
It’s a broad concept that sometimes can only really be explained well in videos.
interesting how
Well, at least you admit how closed minded you are and useless to discuss with ;P
Seriously, people with zealous certainty looking for argument/debate should be ignored. However, curious and earnest students interested in discussing alternative views and having their perspectives rationally criticized/challenged should not be ignored (even, and perhaps especially, when their views appear crazy!).
Sitting around always agreeing with one another is as anti-intellectual and boring as refusing to consider you could possibly be wrong!
If you agree with any of the above, please join us on the community I created to explore, discuss, and exchange views on this subject!
Holy fuck look at this sketchy fuck trying to get your voice recorded.
What a slimy and stupid cunt.
They come here pushing flat earth shit on multiple alts, thinking that people will take the bait and engage…
And they can rile you up enough that you go in a voice call and run your mouth.
Probably wasting taxpayer money on this larping bullshit too.
So fucking pathetic and amateur.
Think about it like an intelligence product.
Of course they can eavesdrop on you… but chances are you aren’t saying anything when you’re typing.
It’s not about getting the voice of the phone user because there’s still plausible deniability in terms of matching it to the actual person posting. Maybe someone hacked their phone and is using it to post here.
They want to be able to have a solid voice recording that they can directly associate with the posting account and specific things they are saying.
Its sketchy as fuck.
You’re such an amateur you literally have me laughing my ass off right now.
The harder you try the more you come off as a dipshit larping low IQ fedboi.
Do yourself a favor and switch over to auto reply bot mode, loser.
Shill says what?
A flat Earth makes absolutely no sense to me.
If the Earth is flat, who's living on the vertical edge? That would depend on how thick the Earth is, correct?
Question is, do you even care?
I just think the flat-earthers should come with an alternative shape besides just saying it's flat. I guarantee you the mathematicians can prove that the Earth is round, but the flat-earthers would never be able to understand their language.
How about those surveying engineers? I bet they can prove the Earth is round!
Sure, that's courtesy of the globe model, where everything's supposedly accounted for. We are reluctant to let go of that structure, especially when no clear alternative is available. However, and as I've said elsewhere, there's no way to determine Earth's shape without exploring more of it, which is forbidden. Nor can you know what lies beneath (or if it ever ends) if you can only drill up to a few miles. It's like living in a room your entire life and claiming to know what's outside.
You can use math to fabricate/describe/make sense of any concept, but that doesn't make the concept real, and that's exactly what they did with the globe. Just think of physics engines (they're digital, intangible, but everything "makes sense", i.e., the math works out).
Good question. I'd assume they know a thing or two. I don't know much about civil engineering, but I know it employs Euclidean geometry, as opposed to non-Euclidean (spheres, balls).
Either way, the more pressing question should be: why is there no curvature? Here's just one of the many videos that shows that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lLmW5Y8BFw
You can do the following yourself:
Alchemy Of Height: The Sun Sets Twice From Burj Khalifa In Dubai https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/want-to-see-two-sunsets-in-the-same-evening-burj-khalifa-is-the-place-to-be-4132970.html
I believe that the real number of people who actually believe that the Earth is flat is vanishingly small.
Unlikely. As the saying goes: "once you go flat, you never go back", kinda like Santa.
I had to actually see if people somewhere had ever said anything like that online.
Thought-terminating cliché https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance. Its function is to stop an argument from proceeding further, ending the debate with a cliché rather than a point.
None of those reasons: I think the flat earth content one sees is largely manufactured and not genuine.
It's not as simple as "resolve it once and for all" because regardless of which side you believe... it's still a matter of having to take someone's word for it.
You don’t have to take anyones word for it, you can go outside yourself and see that it’s not a ball of the diameter they tell us.
I didn't even say which side I agree with.
You can believe what you want but my original comment says all I really have to say.
Ok.