I don't know if this is illegal, to make a separate post to sway people, but comments get lost in the back and forth on the Motion thread.
Recently, u/clemaneuverers made a post about kicking FE (Flat Earth) from conspiracies. As expected this went over like a ton of bricks. So let me tell you why I voted YAY:
1 Math doesn't check out. Gravity would not make sense of a flat earth. Furthermore, if one twisted the math enough to fill in the loopholes, the gaps, the, "Huh, it divides by zero," you would throw off the balance of the delicately simple equations. Physics would break down, and in the effort to prove "science," one would find themselves in the uncomfortable position of trying to bring down the basic building blocks of reality.
2 The light doesn't make sense. Sunrises in the lower hemisphere are off by up to 60 degrees in the flat earth model based on what we truly know from locals, the weather stations there, any source there for that matter.
3 The other celestial objects are spheres. (sun, moon, planets, asteroids, etc)
4 NASA is lying, but they can only contort the truth, they cannot kill it.
It's merely a theory, not a conspiracy theory. No conspiracy is ever presented, only asserted. Some questions that never get answered, except with rambling, incoherent madness:
What's the conspiracy?
Who is pushing this conspiracy?
Why?
For how long?
How did they fix all the irrefutable evidence over hundreds of years to show the earth is spheroid when it is flat?
How did they convince the Phoenicians that the earth was spheroid?
How did they convince the people who built the pyramids, whoever they were, and the people who built stone henge whoever they were, of the circular circumference of the earth? Both peoples had calculated it and encoded it in their structures. So these grand conspirators certainly had a far reach.
Why is it only liars, the delusional and the willfully ignorant that figure out this grand, millennia long conspiracy?
You defend FE. You have no standards. You are about as silly as a person can be.
You are not acting like someone who is looking for the truth. You are acting like a communist.
I thought I was a Fascist? SO I'm a Fascistic communist, lmao.
You are helping rich inbred pedos keep humanity from achieving greatness.
Lying trash.
to hide how old life is. to pretend we are billions of years old evolved beings. to pretend evolution is real, instead of divine creation. to hide the accomplishments of the white race. We did what we did in 20.000 years. Not 7 billions of years. To hide the crimes against the white race. Every time jews destroyed an advanced white civilization like atlantis or egypt.
To create useful idiots who don't use their own senses and only go on satanic pedo talking points. To have these retards waste the time of smart white people who could be helping further humanity instead. Basically, you idiots are being used to make everyone as stupid as you are. That's the whole point of this
This is exactly what I mean. How does any of that demonstrate FE? You are simply saying FE is the big con behind everything. Without evidence, theory, about why and how that is, how it's done. FE people say something is true, without any explanation or attempt to support it. And then call people liars and idiots when they point that out.
You are too dumb to see the bigger picture. How are you a mod of conspiracy?
Flat Earth is too big for this forum. would you store an elephant with ants? the elephant would crush the ants!
The constant acceleration thing is a flat earth society thing, that group is a government psyop. I've never met a FEer who thinks that.
Gravity/relativity is a theory with so many holes they had to attribute 96% of it to dark matter which they can't observe or describe.
So then why does shit fall down at 9.8 m/s/s ?
Look up 'ISS pockets of gravity'. It's a bs explanation to cover up why objects fall sometimes on the ISS (the ISS is fake). My point is, even according to mainstream science gravity has significant variations even on earth's surface. 9.8m/s^2 is an average for earth's surface according to them. I don't believe gravity exists at all.
So what makes everything fall at approximately 9.8 m/s/s on or near earth?
So if I prove some other conspiracy wrong can it be banned solely based on that?
Good luck proving anything with your hair brained assumptions
Thanks! I'm changing my vote to YAY.
Like I give a flying fuck? Hahahah. Dumbass Dave.
I don't believe any flat earth trope. And given it's all bullshit any attempt you have made to prove it as such is simply more bullshit.
Vote all you want. Your input is meaningless.
I think that's how it works now.
well yes if the proof is incontrovertible
no, its just Flat Earthers paint conspiracies.win in a bad light.
You believe gravity exists and that you are spinning on a ball flying through space. You are trying to take down to people who did the research to find out the truth. You are the perfect example of a useful idiot.
You haven't been to moon to confirm its shape. We only saw it be 2d. You just proved to everyone you will chose what you want your reality to be, based on how you feel about it. Disqualifying you as a truth seeker.
a) ZERO, noun - "cipher; nothing". Where in perceivable nature can one perceive that which standing by itself expresses nothing?
b) is there a division from perceivable to the ones perceiving it? If so, what divides whole (perceivable) into partial (perceiving)?
c) SPHERE, noun [Latin sphera.] - "a solid body contained under a single surface, which in every part is equally distant from a point called its center"...why is this "point" called its center and not the viewpoint of the one looking at it?
Furthermore...what represents the center of solid?
Core
a) what represents the core of motion?
b) if matter represents core, then what represents shell?
c) what if core represents each partial seed, while shell represents the whole soil?
d) CORE, noun (Latin , the heart)...does reaction represent the heart of action?
The basic or most important part; the crucial element or essence: synonym: substance
a) why call the base (whole) a part?
b) least vs most implies a choice by a partial within a whole.
c) import (inception) and export (death) implies the partial (life) coming in and out of base.
CRUCIAL, adjective [Latin , a cross.] - "transverse; passing across; intersecting"...implies the meeting of ongoing (inception towards death) and adaptation (need/want) by temporary (life). The element implies ones MENT (mind/memory) utilized to adapt at the center of the cross.
SYNONYM (same as another) ESSENCE (Latin esse; to be) ...being implies different from one another.
SUB (below) STANCE (formed position within flow). Furthermore, BE LOW implies as partial (growth) within whole (loss) , hence with the opportunity to grow within loss.
english please, save the science talk for MIT.
a) Zero is a concept to describe a state of being of nonexistance while suggesting the possibility of future or past existance.
b) this is philosophy, not science. science is perceiving.
c) by spheres i mean spheroids. What the fk is the rest of what you are saying?
Furthermore, multiple things could be the center, either center of mass or geometric center.
a) can one exist outside of perceivable "now" and what if the center of perceivable now represents each perceiving "one"?
b) what if others suggest both past and future to lure oneself away from the center, as well as zero as the inversion of one (self) as the center?
c) notice that I asked about "perceivable" nature, while you answered with "suggesting" possibilities. Does consent to suggested (fiction) tempt one to ignore perceivable (reality)?
a) SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] + KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"...so indeed science represents communication between perceivable (whole) and perceiving (partial).
b) if one consents to suggested "scientism", hence perceivable science suggested by others, then one ignores perceivable (inspiration) for suggested (information). Guess who gains the power to define, redefine and contradict the suggested information if ones consents to the suggestion thereof?
c) PHILO (to love) SOPHY (knowledge) represents the "pursuit of knowledge". What if knowledge perceivable origin, while love/pursuit represents ones choice to "want" to love/pursue suggested over the "need" to adapt to perceivable?
d) how can anything within everything perceivable "not" represent knowledge (perceivable). How could a suggestion be shaped without utilizing the perceivable foundation to shape it within; out of and in response to?
a) SPHAIRA (surrounding) + OEIDES (form)....what if the surrounding of form (life) implies flow (inception towards death)? What if others can distract one from comprehending this by suggesting them SPHEROIDS (body resembling, but not identical with), hence a suggested substitute for the perceivable origin?
b) what if a partial (perceiving) cannot define the meaning of whole (perceivable) by making suggestions about it towards others. What if the perceivable whole represents the "pre-defined" meaning, allowing the partials perceiving it from within to "re-define" themselves?
Example: to suggest "life means..." ignores that whatever one suggests life means, will be changed by the ongoing process of dying.
a) what if one can be tempted to reason over forms suggested by others (flat vs heliocentric), while ignoring ones perspective as the perceiving one within perceivable or the one consenting to stand under (understanding) what others are suggesting?
Everything perceivable represents the surrounding for each perceiving one, and everything suggested, by others surrounding oneself, aims at ones consent from the center.
b) REST, noun [Latin resto] - "cessation of motion"...where is the cessation of motion for life, while being moved from inception towards death?
If one exists within the momentum of motion (balance), then what if each one represents the center of balance...free will of choice? Could others exploit this by tricking choice to consent to suggestions offered by the choice of others?
a) why do you attach MULTIPLY (to increase in number) when things implies each ONE (partial divided within whole)? Also; NUM'BER, noun -"the designation of a unit" + U'NIT, noun [Latin unus, unitas, unity.] - "one".
b) what if each "one" thing (living) represents the center of everything (process of dying)? What if everything doesn't represent the multiplication of each thing, but the division of oneness (whole) into each one (partial)?
What if one perceives addition (inception); subtraction (death); multiplication (intercourse for offspring) and division (being partial within whole), while others suggest MATH, noun -"a mowing; as in aftermath" to distract "one" with a center based on "zero", hence the suggested inversion of perceivable?
What if form (material) represents the center of flow (immaterial), while choice of material (reaction) represents the center of immaterial (balance aka enacting momentum)?
GEO (earth) METRIC (to measure)...who is measuring but oneself at the center, and who is suggesting one to COUNT and measure? https://pic8.co/sh/1rIGYa.jpg
Does one need to MEASURE, noun - "the whole extent or dimensions of a thing" or adapt as the partial within the whole?
a) English represents Pig-Latin, an ongoing revisionism of language to domesticate slaves by allowing their masters to communicate underneath language. Be it through numerology (gematria); phonetics (sound underneath words); rhetoric (reasoning about suggested meaning), inversion (suggested over perceivable), contradiction (talmudic reasoning to divide into conflicts of reason and conquer comprehension with understanding aka standing under suggested information) etc.
Notice that English was robbed of all natural connotations for suggested theism aka THE -ism?
b) the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) implies TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Gr. art, and word or discourse.]; hence ARTIFI'CIAL, adjective - "in opposition to natural"...in other words...suggested fiction (words) over perceivable reality (sound) established (institute) by choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law...the inversion of balance (enacting) to choice (reaction) natural law.
You can't even prove gravity exists. It's an invisible "force" that theorist came up with to explain why an apple falls from a tree.
The flat earth explanation for sunrise and sunset doesn't convince me either.
They appear to be. Yes.
Why is NASA so fake and gay though? If space science were actually true then why the need for so much fakery from National Aeronautics and Space Administration?
I too voted Yay, for these reasons and that they misuse God's word and it's a stumbling block.
bible says Earth is a non moving plane.
Perhaps we should have a discussion regarding literal or metaphorical interpretation of this idea? Found some places to start: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Earth-Being-Fixed-And-Immovable
I've brought this up with dozens of globe believing christians before. They don't care about their own holy book. They only want to keep hating the truth and pretend they are spinning on a ball flying through space.
Dude watch Rob Skiba. He goes through countless verses back to the origional Hebrew or Greek. The Bible describes a flat unmoving earth constantly, with a solid firmament 'as a molten looking glass'. It's also clearly what Hebrew cosmology describes in extra biblical text. Where the hell does the Bible describe a spinning orbiting sphere in an infinite void? Atheists have constantly used the Bibles description of the earth to discredit God's word accord to modern science religion.
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. -Job 38:14
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1285411018/3-sizes-flat-earth-clay-wax-stamp-seal?click_key=2d60455c1021b095525b8b9d27606ff29ac2fa55%3A1285411018&click_sum=878f19b8&ref=lp_rv-1
I'm just now learning hebrew and greek so I'll have to get back to you. The earth is round though.
Just edited my last comment, please see
Even if that's what the book says in its latest translation, you're ignoring the fact that the Bible was written by "people" that were 3 hairs away from being baboons.
You should check out Jon Levi if you believe that's the case. He studies the mysteries of old/ancient architecture. He's not a Christian
My best guess is our ancients had phenomenal technology but it's kind of like the difference between analog and digital, if you compare their tech to ours.
If I were wrong then the pyramids wouldn't be a mystery.
ancient aliens
Fallen Angels and nephilim. I used to think it was aliens until I realized the infinite void big bang universe was bullshit.
I think earth has had hi tech civs before. I think also that we had space explorers and that they came back like Planet of the Apes, time dilated. They then gave the fallen civs the old tech again
I am talking to people like that right now.
Gravity doesn't exist. What flat Earth model are you basing things on? most likely not the correct one. The stars could be 2d. You don't know. You can't go there to confirm.
So you are going on things you can't verify and stuff you made up. Good job. You're a globetard.
So prove to me that gravity doesn't exist. the last time my grandma fell it existed!
How did you prove gravity exists? Let's start there. What convinced you that there is a force pulling everything down. The same force that is keeping trillions of gallons of water stuck to a spinning ball, allegedly, can be broken by a butterfly flapping its wings. Is that what you believe? How does that make sense?
Same with astrology, the oldest science known to man...the movement of the planet and stars having a direct impact on one's life due to the time stamp of their birth.