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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
$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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Is it dumb to question and rationally criticize what you are taught, or is it dumb to blindly repeat it and flatly declare everyone of a differing perspective stupid?
People who question the true shape of the world are not dumb for doing so! You have most likely only met the members of the flat earth psyop. Flat earth researchers, on the other hand, are not dumb.
I agree wholeheartedly. Belief is the enemy of knowledge, and is across purposes to objective study of any kind (it’s known as bias).
while refusing to repeat the experiments that proved it the first time
This is a common misunderstanding. We have much to discuss if you are interested! Experiments don’t prove the shapes of physical objects. They have an entirely different purpose in science (namely testing hypotheses). The shape of something is not a hypothesis (nor can it be), and there is only one way we determine the shapes of physical objects - rigorous and repeated measurement (NOT experiment)!
ffs the verification that you are wrong is a sunday afternoon away and yet you are still this fucking stupid...
Many would say the exact same of your position, but I can assure you (after years of diligent study and scrutiny) that the subject and ostensible central question (“what is the true shape of the world, and how can we validate it with certainty as independent researchers”) are far more complicated than they appear. Many flat earth researchers begin with your perspective and set out to do that “one sunday’s worth of verification” and are still at it today. It’s not because they are stupid; it’s because they realize what is wrong with the existing/known/taught “verifications”. As I said, we have much to discuss if you are interested in learning more about what flat earth research really is, as opposed to what the offensively stupid psyop has convinced you of.
If you think 10th grade physics is reality....take an undergrad in physics....then take a master's....and then take a PhD....and then at every stage realise......nope...hahahaha
Flat earth hasn't been disproven by anyone yet in this community.....neither you nor your fellow grade 10 educated peeps.
And it certainly hasn't been proven....
Saying the entire argument rests on one bad proposition is just as bad as blindly believing something because you don't know how to perform an experiment but thinking it's true....
Rather than waterind the whole discussion by saying grade 10 teaches you stuff......you are fucking retarded for saying that btw.....why not actually have a real discussion in good faith ...
If you are unable to...why are you at the table? To be more bad faith? Like we need more of that here....c'mon be a difficult child.....
Use that education and maybe remember the electives you were forced to take....the few since you did engineering....were probably somewhat related to logic, philosophy or some such ...since my experience is that electives need to branch out from the engineering side since it is so heavy on the math and science...
I too had an undergrad in engineering with an A- avg. I cannot prove the earth is a globe.....not without a lot of money.....
Not can I prove it's flat without a lot of money....
But I can certainly have hypothetical discussions and create testable hypotheses which maybe can be refined by the community and others.....
Saying you have been taught stuff (which at the undergrad level is still mostly rote....) Then good....you can be taught.....but can you step aside and critique it with new ideas....or just regurgitated opinions you have been taught by the system of people who told these have been tested ...but didn't do the tests......and obviously all tests are filled with errors....
These are part of the classes ehh...error calculations and derive the rough error range and bars ....
So....how about the same rigour gets applied to both sides....not just 'i was trained dto think this way...so you are wrong."
I have to question you as well, since you’re the OP and posting about the same thing as these shills.
I think you’re sus too op. And if you’re not, then you’re genuinely a useful idiot for wanting people to even discuss something so incredibly idiotic and inherently intellectually discrediting.
That’s the flat earth psyop. It is designed to make sure you know how stupid it is so you will never seriously evaluate or discuss it further.
The subject/discussion is extremely valuable which is precisely why they spend so much money advertising why it’s too stupid for you to bother with :(. Methinks the woman doth protest too much...
Well not with that attitude - obviously not! You might be surprised if you stopped by the community I created for such discussion and engaged, however!
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.
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!").
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!
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.
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
hi there. first of all it's "anywhere" not "any where", and while I'll admit the basic knowledge of history among Americans could be better, regarding the flat earth model, you know how the joke goes: "it has supporters all around the globe" ;) I'm very open to it, while typing it from across the ocean
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!
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.
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).
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)?
Anytime someone with common sense comes here and argues using logic and reason you brainiacs immediately claim 'psyop' -which is really code-speak for 'I'm dumb, he's smarter
Seriously, you FE'ers love your flat, baked cookies since it goes so well with your smooth brain.
Every culture viewed the earth as flat up until only a few hundred years ago
WRONG!
FE was still being taught up to about a hundred years ago
WRONG!
Show us your proof of a globe
Show us proof you have an IQ above 30. The only people that think the earth is flat are dim-witten fucktards that think some cabal is 'keeping us from the truth'. - I say bullshit. No one of you fuck wits can explain why or who or for what purpose. Explorers have sailed west and returned from the east. Thousands of flights and ships have circumnavigated the planet. Hell, Howard Hughes did it - you think he was in on it too? The great anti-government industrialist would have gladly made headlines with such a claim. You guys are just so dumb. Gravity is real, mass affects mass, and bubbles form for a reason, get over it.
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.
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.
Flat earthers are uneducated people who are fixated on wrong evidence. There are zero sailors who are flat earthers. There are zero pilots who are flat earthers. No scientists believe in a flat earth.
I am guessing that the flat earthers trolling here do it simply to make the site look like it attracts stupid people. It's political.
[I don't give a shit about troll moron downvotes, so fire away but you're still the uneducable spawn of ghetto single mothers.]
"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
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.
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
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.
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".
The Bible mentions the "4 corners" of the Earth but in the flat earth model it is a circle and doesn't have corners. So if you want to take everything literally your model doesn't match the Bible either.
Yeah, but you can have a circle within a square, for example. The map that's commonly shown is just what people have gotten used to and what fits best with what's observed; as such, it doesn't mean it's representative of the actual world. We don't really know how/what it is.
I've never really been interested in the Bible prior to finding out about FE; it never made much sense to me, my felt sense being that God is within me/us/everything, not in a particular book/place. Once I overcame my indoctrination (it's readily available to anyone willing to look), I realized that this is indeed a creation, what else could it be? If I ever contemplated that idea with the Big Bang as the inception point, surely it would make more sense given a smaller, dedicated realm? Genesis sure looks different now.
The sun does set, but not because the curve of the earth gets in the way of it!
Please join us on the community I created to discuss such topics to learn about and explore other possibilities (than the one we are taught to dogmatically repeat from childhood)!
Oooo- I've found Photoshop level filters - what the fuck does this prove? You're a fuck wit? How anyone could use that video for evidence of anything is laughable at best. What a fuck stick you are.
I've seen all the flat earth explanations for a sun set and they bear no resemblance to physical reality.
There is no “flat earth” to receive explanations from! Most flat earth researchers are independent, and their perspectives, approaches, and conclusions vary wildly as a result! I understand that the explanations you heard were unrealistic; however, I have a realistic one for you if you are interested in hearing it!
The current model of the solar system accounts for sun sets perfectly.
But what if it was wrong despite that; wouldn’t you want to know? Models aren’t for providing explanation of phenomena... that’s what experiment is for!
The end.
I can’t and won’t force you to learn about anything, but there absolutely are other explanations that comport with reality and good reasons to suspect (and conclude) that the current model (for the solar system and many other things) is wrong!
If you are ever interested in expanding your horizons, I can assure you our conversation will be rewarding as long as you are earnest!
however, I have a realistic one for you if you are interested in hearing it!
I am not going to waste time being gaslit on this. Already looked into FE arguments in depth a while ago and I know what to expect. No open mind here buddy.
I am not going to waste time being gaslit on this.
Fair enough. I recognize that many have already been gaslit by the psyop, and don’t have the tolerance or interest to potentially be burned again. Ars longa, vita brevis. We have to choose our battles/interests carefully as a result.
However, i can assure you that i would never engage in something like that willingly. What i do, i do for love and i may well be wrong - but i am earnest. I share my perspective and findings in the hopes that they will be further refined, including refuted, not to convince/manipulate or gaslight.
Already looked into FE arguments in depth a while ago and I know what to expect.
I expect you had a run in with the psyop, and not an earnest researcher like myself. My sincere condolences. I can assure you that as long as you discuss in earnest with me, as I expect you did with the psyop at one point, it will be a rewarding experience even if neither of our positions are ultimately altered. I speak from experience.
No open mind here buddy.
I understand, however if you ever change your mind or think of a good question - I hope you reconsider. You know where to find me if that is ever the case!
If the earth were flat, you would always see it and never experience a 100% dark sky. Starlight travels billions of light-years without fading, so even if the sun was very small, you would still see it. The only thing that would create the blockage of sunlight would be a wall, which happens to be curved, like a ball.
Oh please, enough of the conspiritard bull shit. No one but you children believe this crap. I suppose the 'psyop' has been going to for hundreds of years?, right. Open your mind to the fact that you are a fucking 1/2 witted loon.
FE is the observation, scientific method and your observation is all you need.
Not how science works.
their is a 1/2 loon giving out $10k
Which he will never pay. Scroll to 3:00 - why can't we see the end of the flat disc? Thousands of man-made balloons have risen to this altitude but you never see the edge. Why? Look at why you can't see an edge .... wouldn't a roll of toilet paper make more sense than a flat disc with an end-point? Where is a photos of the end of the earth? FE is like arguing God exists. You actually can't see an edge or God, yet you believe. Weird. Whereas, we have actual photos of hundreds of satellites and orbiting live camera feeds rolling over our earth day after day. Yet you chumps think it's all CGI.
I'll give you $1,000,000 for a picture of the edge. Now, of course you'll just say; "The government does not let you near it. Yah,,. right, anyone with some money could float a balloon aloft and see the edge. This is just a joke you guys are playing.
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:
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.
“Stop noticing things”
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You are fake and gay.
my man.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Fake and gay shills talking to eachother.
Fake conversations.
Fake discussion.
Fake debate.
Fake issue.
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?
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.
Shills are currently pushing this topic on this sub.
There is no discussion to be had.
What we should be talking about is “flat brain”, since I’m supposed to believe that half this sub is suddenly literally retarded.
Yes, lots of stupidity here and dot connecting.
But this is something else. This is not natural.
This is being astroturfed HARD. This is the most fake, scripted bullshit discussion I’ve seen on this sub.
It’s not normally like this. Almost like someone flipped a switch and swarmed with shills.
90% of the people here defending flat earth are going to be shills or bots talking to eachother.
People are not this stupid and this is being pushed so they can attack the “conspiracy” community.
i am neither a bot or a shill ... what you are witnessing is LOTS of people that are no longer brainwashed about 'the spinning ball'
ok, go away then
Is it dumb to question and rationally criticize what you are taught, or is it dumb to blindly repeat it and flatly declare everyone of a differing perspective stupid?
People who question the true shape of the world are not dumb for doing so! You have most likely only met the members of the flat earth psyop. Flat earth researchers, on the other hand, are not dumb.
I agree wholeheartedly. Belief is the enemy of knowledge, and is across purposes to objective study of any kind (it’s known as bias).
This is a common misunderstanding. We have much to discuss if you are interested! Experiments don’t prove the shapes of physical objects. They have an entirely different purpose in science (namely testing hypotheses). The shape of something is not a hypothesis (nor can it be), and there is only one way we determine the shapes of physical objects - rigorous and repeated measurement (NOT experiment)!
Many would say the exact same of your position, but I can assure you (after years of diligent study and scrutiny) that the subject and ostensible central question (“what is the true shape of the world, and how can we validate it with certainty as independent researchers”) are far more complicated than they appear. Many flat earth researchers begin with your perspective and set out to do that “one sunday’s worth of verification” and are still at it today. It’s not because they are stupid; it’s because they realize what is wrong with the existing/known/taught “verifications”. As I said, we have much to discuss if you are interested in learning more about what flat earth research really is, as opposed to what the offensively stupid psyop has convinced you of.
Shut up you dumb shill.
Go fuck off back to wherever you came from.
The quality of your shilling is so fucking bad that I just have to assume they pay you minimum wage.
Pathetic loser.
such a lovely person ... your parents must be so proud
lol, grow up
Lol. Then you know nothing.....
If you think 10th grade physics is reality....take an undergrad in physics....then take a master's....and then take a PhD....and then at every stage realise......nope...hahahaha
Not really. Don't be so disingenuous.
Flat earth hasn't been disproven by anyone yet in this community.....neither you nor your fellow grade 10 educated peeps.
And it certainly hasn't been proven....
Saying the entire argument rests on one bad proposition is just as bad as blindly believing something because you don't know how to perform an experiment but thinking it's true....
Rather than waterind the whole discussion by saying grade 10 teaches you stuff......you are fucking retarded for saying that btw.....why not actually have a real discussion in good faith ...
If you are unable to...why are you at the table? To be more bad faith? Like we need more of that here....c'mon be a difficult child.....
Use that education and maybe remember the electives you were forced to take....the few since you did engineering....were probably somewhat related to logic, philosophy or some such ...since my experience is that electives need to branch out from the engineering side since it is so heavy on the math and science...
I too had an undergrad in engineering with an A- avg. I cannot prove the earth is a globe.....not without a lot of money.....
Not can I prove it's flat without a lot of money....
But I can certainly have hypothetical discussions and create testable hypotheses which maybe can be refined by the community and others.....
Saying you have been taught stuff (which at the undergrad level is still mostly rote....) Then good....you can be taught.....but can you step aside and critique it with new ideas....or just regurgitated opinions you have been taught by the system of people who told these have been tested ...but didn't do the tests......and obviously all tests are filled with errors....
These are part of the classes ehh...error calculations and derive the rough error range and bars ....
So....how about the same rigour gets applied to both sides....not just 'i was trained dto think this way...so you are wrong."
C'mon, we know it's you you're describing.
Oh look, I found one.
Typical manipulative shill response/bait.
You give yourself away with your weak logic and attempt to bait me into a nonsense argument.
You’re a fed/shill feigning stupidity. Not hard to spot.
This is what happens when you don’t pay these people enough and they get sloppy with their ops.
Or perhaps they just hire from the bottom rung… intelligence wise.
It’s a fake discussion.
The whole thing is obviously fake and gay.
People are not here suddenly vibrantly discussing flat earth in a positive sense.
That’s a complete shift in sentiment from the norm here.
Looks a lot like shill accounts pushing scripted conversation to make it appear those people are way more involved on this sub than they are.
It’s a way of discrediting a given forum, and if they’re lucky, they can scoop up some useful idiots along the way to perpetuate it further.
They targeted your post for a reason.
None of this is legitimate discussion.
I have to question you as well, since you’re the OP and posting about the same thing as these shills.
I think you’re sus too op. And if you’re not, then you’re genuinely a useful idiot for wanting people to even discuss something so incredibly idiotic and inherently intellectually discrediting.
lol ... you can still 'believe' in the ball if you want ... no need to get your panties in an uproar ... no one is FORCING you to see the truth
same for you
That’s sketchy af and exactly what a shill would want.
Audio recordings to go along with other meta data their compiling on the user base.
You are bad at your job.
That’s the flat earth psyop. It is designed to make sure you know how stupid it is so you will never seriously evaluate or discuss it further.
The subject/discussion is extremely valuable which is precisely why they spend so much money advertising why it’s too stupid for you to bother with :(. Methinks the woman doth protest too much...
Well not with that attitude - obviously not! You might be surprised if you stopped by the community I created for such discussion and engaged, however!
You’re a fed
What makes you think that?
I can assure you - the feds cannot afford my time. What I do, I do for love - brother or sister!
Besides, the psyop (regardless of agency responsible for it) wants you NOT to study and discuss flat earth research, and I want the opposite!
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
You chuds are chasing your tails. None of this matters.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
Yep. Account for the curve of your own eyes on motionless ground.
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.
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!
It's fake and gay. Done.
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/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8DbtrcxlfSbL/ FLAT EARTH PHYSICS 101 ~ SUPER-STATIONARY ~ THEMORGILE
hi there. first of all it's "anywhere" not "any where", and while I'll admit the basic knowledge of history among Americans could be better, regarding the flat earth model, you know how the joke goes: "it has supporters all around the globe" ;) I'm very open to it, while typing it from across the ocean
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.
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.)
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
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
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!
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.
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).
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.
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
“People knew the earth was spherical millennia ago”
Every culture viewed the earth as flat up until only a few hundred years ago
FE was still being taught up to about a hundred years ago
Take a look at some of the linked material within this thread
Many short clips, memes, etc so you don’t have to watch some 6 hour video
Show us your proof of a globe, then
It’s always the same responses with your type
Almost copy and pasted
“Yer dumb” “low iq” “I don’t have the time but I could so easily demolish your FE nonsense” “go take a photo of the edge, lolllll”
Sick takedown, renegaderade
Take a peek at the videos or remain ignorant
Whatever you decide, I hope you lose the toxicity
There’s plenty of linked evidence available in this thread that blows away the globe model; all you have to do is take the step to consider it
Anytime someone with common sense comes here and argues using logic and reason you brainiacs immediately claim 'psyop' -which is really code-speak for 'I'm dumb, he's smarter
Seriously, you FE'ers love your flat, baked cookies since it goes so well with your smooth brain.
That's because your all dumb, low IQ and don't have any photos of the edge.
WRONG!
WRONG!
Show us proof you have an IQ above 30. The only people that think the earth is flat are dim-witten fucktards that think some cabal is 'keeping us from the truth'. - I say bullshit. No one of you fuck wits can explain why or who or for what purpose. Explorers have sailed west and returned from the east. Thousands of flights and ships have circumnavigated the planet. Hell, Howard Hughes did it - you think he was in on it too? The great anti-government industrialist would have gladly made headlines with such a claim. You guys are just so dumb. Gravity is real, mass affects mass, and bubbles form for a reason, get over it.
The entire world's scientific community, explorers, airlines, and shipping companies = dimwits
925TheJOY living in his mom's basement = enlightened.
Video:
Guy is 14 floors up. Fucking 1/2 wit. Arguing with children is so easy. Next.
Later in the video he showed it from beach level, just so you know.
Names. Now. Back this shit up. And don't give some do your own research bullshit.
Name names.
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.
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.
Oh, shit, alright!
Are you iknowitsu's sibling?
Not everyone is a complete moron.
NoGrim, these aren’t real people having this discussion.
It’s clearly astroturfed. This is a fake conversation being pushed by someone managing multiple accounts.
Any real people involved can be thought of as useful idiots that are falling prey and perpetuating an obvious psyop.
Don’t take any of it seriously, because it’s all 100% theatre.
I know, some are more so.
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.
Flat earthers are uneducated people who are fixated on wrong evidence. There are zero sailors who are flat earthers. There are zero pilots who are flat earthers. No scientists believe in a flat earth.
I am guessing that the flat earthers trolling here do it simply to make the site look like it attracts stupid people. It's political.
[I don't give a shit about troll moron downvotes, so fire away but you're still the uneducable spawn of ghetto single mothers.]
https://youtu.be/iBAAOIgt3JE 😂😂😂😂😂😂
"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
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.
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
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.
I have heard that you will be stopped if you try to go there. There are patrols.
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.
WHO DON GONE TO SPACE?
WHO?!?!?
elon, if u on here, DM me, bro.
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.
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!
You're a retarded fed fag limited hangout shill.
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
Yes earth is flat
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
The sun sets. End of debate.
Incredible
Any other awesome statements you wish you throw down?
Take a look at some of the linked material within this thread
Plenty of short videos and memes if you don’t want to commit to an hours long video
I appreciate your patience, fren.
The irony, though, considering his name.
The Bible mentions the "4 corners" of the Earth but in the flat earth model it is a circle and doesn't have corners. So if you want to take everything literally your model doesn't match the Bible either.
Yeah, but you can have a circle within a square, for example. The map that's commonly shown is just what people have gotten used to and what fits best with what's observed; as such, it doesn't mean it's representative of the actual world. We don't really know how/what it is.
I've never really been interested in the Bible prior to finding out about FE; it never made much sense to me, my felt sense being that God is within me/us/everything, not in a particular book/place. Once I overcame my indoctrination (it's readily available to anyone willing to look), I realized that this is indeed a creation, what else could it be? If I ever contemplated that idea with the Big Bang as the inception point, surely it would make more sense given a smaller, dedicated realm? Genesis sure looks different now.
I've found this video (Revisiting the Firmament) (1h22m) to be pretty interesting.
The sun does set, but not because the curve of the earth gets in the way of it!
Please join us on the community I created to discuss such topics to learn about and explore other possibilities (than the one we are taught to dogmatically repeat from childhood)!
I've seen all the flat earth explanations for a sun set and they bear no resemblance to physical reality.
The current model of the solar system accounts for sun sets perfectly. The end.
https://petapixel.com/2015/08/18/a-time-lapse-of-24-hours-of-sunlight-in-antarctica/
Oooo- I've found Photoshop level filters - what the fuck does this prove? You're a fuck wit? How anyone could use that video for evidence of anything is laughable at best. What a fuck stick you are.
There is no “flat earth” to receive explanations from! Most flat earth researchers are independent, and their perspectives, approaches, and conclusions vary wildly as a result! I understand that the explanations you heard were unrealistic; however, I have a realistic one for you if you are interested in hearing it!
But what if it was wrong despite that; wouldn’t you want to know? Models aren’t for providing explanation of phenomena... that’s what experiment is for!
I can’t and won’t force you to learn about anything, but there absolutely are other explanations that comport with reality and good reasons to suspect (and conclude) that the current model (for the solar system and many other things) is wrong!
If you are ever interested in expanding your horizons, I can assure you our conversation will be rewarding as long as you are earnest!
I am not going to waste time being gaslit on this. Already looked into FE arguments in depth a while ago and I know what to expect. No open mind here buddy.
Fair enough. I recognize that many have already been gaslit by the psyop, and don’t have the tolerance or interest to potentially be burned again. Ars longa, vita brevis. We have to choose our battles/interests carefully as a result.
However, i can assure you that i would never engage in something like that willingly. What i do, i do for love and i may well be wrong - but i am earnest. I share my perspective and findings in the hopes that they will be further refined, including refuted, not to convince/manipulate or gaslight.
I expect you had a run in with the psyop, and not an earnest researcher like myself. My sincere condolences. I can assure you that as long as you discuss in earnest with me, as I expect you did with the psyop at one point, it will be a rewarding experience even if neither of our positions are ultimately altered. I speak from experience.
I understand, however if you ever change your mind or think of a good question - I hope you reconsider. You know where to find me if that is ever the case!
We can't even agree on the obvious (that the sun sets). There really is no point going further.
If the earth were flat, you would always see it and never experience a 100% dark sky. Starlight travels billions of light-years without fading, so even if the sun was very small, you would still see it. The only thing that would create the blockage of sunlight would be a wall, which happens to be curved, like a ball.
"part of the psyop"
Oh please, enough of the conspiritard bull shit. No one but you children believe this crap. I suppose the 'psyop' has been going to for hundreds of years?, right. Open your mind to the fact that you are a fucking 1/2 witted loon.
Straw man argument
Not how science works.
Which he will never pay. Scroll to 3:00 - why can't we see the end of the flat disc? Thousands of man-made balloons have risen to this altitude but you never see the edge. Why? Look at why you can't see an edge .... wouldn't a roll of toilet paper make more sense than a flat disc with an end-point? Where is a photos of the end of the earth? FE is like arguing God exists. You actually can't see an edge or God, yet you believe. Weird. Whereas, we have actual photos of hundreds of satellites and orbiting live camera feeds rolling over our earth day after day. Yet you chumps think it's all CGI.
I'll give you $1,000,000 for a picture of the edge. Now, of course you'll just say; "The government does not let you near it. Yah,,. right, anyone with some money could float a balloon aloft and see the edge. This is just a joke you guys are playing.
Gee, funny how all the high-altitude balloon videos show a curved horizon. FAIL.
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,
Flat earth is a great way to ID and tag retards and fed posters.
Yep!