Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Discuss conspiracies, mysteries and paranormal phenomena.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6305
Joined: August 17th, 2012, 5:22 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Cornfed » July 12th, 2018, 5:33 am

Aron wrote:
July 12th, 2018, 5:24 am
It's more like the universe is just infinite making the idea of an outside not apply.
So in that case you radically disagree with mainstream cosmology.

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 44
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Aron » July 12th, 2018, 5:53 am

@Cornfed
Does it even matter? Some scientists say spacetime may be a closed loop others say the 'size of the universe' could be explained by M-Theory. It doesn't really change anything important about gravity's consistency in explaining what we see and the validity of a spheroid earth. And i'm not going to bother trying to research all the intricacies of physics. Even back in ancient Greece scientists could figure out the earth was spherical and the data has just gotten far more vast since then due to newton. And now you avoided saying the important thing 2 times in a row, are you a flat earther or not?

User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6305
Joined: August 17th, 2012, 5:22 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Cornfed » July 12th, 2018, 6:29 am

The point is that you have no solution that is more satisfactory than flat earth theory. I've no idea what the truth of the matter is.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26646
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Winston » July 12th, 2018, 1:05 pm

@Aron
I know flat earth sounds ludicrous, but a true skeptic has to be skeptical of his own beliefs too, not just of beliefs he doesn't agree with. Otherwise the word skeptic has no meaning since everyone is skeptical of what they don't believe. I can't dismiss flat earth just because it's abnormal. That's called the cult of normalcy. I gotta look at the evidence too and see if it holds water.

Flat Earth is not an excuse for Christianity, although some flat earthers are Christian. The idea is for people who badly want to unplug from the matrix, so they turn to a radical paradigm like this, because they want to escape the matrix and be different. So it's psychological in that sense.

I agree the evidence does not support flat earth. However, that doesn't mean the Earth must be a globe or sphere either. We simply don't know because there is so much hoax and trickery from NASA. Not only does NASA lie and fake things, but they killed many people too. NASA means serpent in ancient language. It even has a serpent tongue on its logo. So NASA is a deceiver, hidden in plain sight.

There are also anomalies about outer space that make no sense. Some examples:

1. There are only 2 genuine photos of the whole earth from space, taken in 1969 and 1972. If astronauts or probes could go all the way out into space to see the whole earth, there should be many thousands of real images from earth, not just 2. And even those 2 photos are suspicious and look fake. Furthermore, the photos show a perfect sphere, not a pear shape oblate shape like NASA claims the earth is now. The Apollo 8 astronauts said the earth was just a big blog from space and could not even take a decent photo or video of it.

2. If space is a complete vacuum, how can it be adjacent to air atmosphere of earth without a seal or barrier to keep the air in? Anyone knows that a vacuum will suck air out into space. No one can explain this. This suggests a dome or barrier or force field of some kind around the earth.

3. If there is no up or down in space, then how come all the images of earth from outer space show the earth right side up all the time? Why don't they show the earth upside down, with the south pole on top? Or sideways with the poles on the sides?

4. Why do no commercial aircraft ever fly across the North or South Pole or over Antarctica? Why are you not allowed to go to the North Pole, even on land by foot or by boat, even if you are willing to do so at your own risk? What is there that they don't want you to see? What are they hiding?

5. If earth is moving in orbit at 67,000 mph, which is faster than a speeding bullet, why then when astronauts are in outer space or are flying to the moon, doesn't the earth whoosh away from them like a speeding bullet, leaving them to die in space and float forever with no hope of ever catching up with the earth?

6. If Venus and Mercury and between Earth and the Sun, and the Earth at nighttime is faced AWAY from the Sun in the opposite direction, how the hell can you see Venus and Mercury at night? It should be impossible.

7. Why do they keep changing their mind about how far away the Sun is? How do they know it's 93 million miles away? It certainly doesn't look 93 million miles away when you look at it. Go look and see. The Sun rays come down at angles, like street lights do. That suggests that it's nearby, not that far away. If it was 93 million miles away, all the Sun rays would be parallel at a straight line. Also, at 93 million miles away, the tilt of the Earth should not make any big differences in temperature during the different seasons. And the Moon certainly doesn't look 237,000 miles away. If it was, you would not be able to see so much detail on it. Beyond 30 miles, detail starts to blur and fade. You shouldn't be able to see detail that far away. Furthermore, if Moon light is a reflection of Sunlight, then why is Moon light cold and white, not warm and yellow?

So you see, there are a lot of things that don't add up about space and astronomy. A lot of unanswered questions and things that doesn't make sense. This means something about our reality may be hidden from us, even if the Earth isn't flat.

@Ghost and @droid any answers to the above? lol
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 44
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Aron » July 12th, 2018, 10:56 pm

@Cornfed
So unless I have a perfect explanation of the entirety of spacetime and its mechanics then flat earth is equally valid as an explanation....You have to realize that's a strawman and that you're avoiding so many points i made in my earlier post about flat earth not logically computing.

@Winston
The first flat earthers made it up to excuse Christianity and non christian flat earthers often just use the same model they did or something 90% the same. So i don't see how what i said is that wrong. It doesn't have to be all flat earthers being Christian for Christianity to be how Flat Earth became an idea.

"I agree the evidence does not support flat earth. However, that doesn't mean the Earth must be a globe or sphere either. We simply don't know because there is so much hoax and trickery from NASA. Not only does NASA lie and fake things, but they killed many people too. NASA means serpent in ancient language. It even has a serpent tongue on its logo. So NASA is a deceiver, hidden in plain sight."

Well the globe being a spheroid kind of makes sense with gravity, as the mass pulls on other mass it is compressed more and more severely so when a whole lot of mass is together it's being compressed very uniformly from all directions making it a spheroid, unlike those asteroids which are too small mass to become spheres. People have circumnavigated the earth which is consistent with it being a sphere. Aristotle calculated the size of the earth a long time ago.

Are you sure that's a serpent tongue? I get it that you could interpret it into being a serpent tongue. But the official explanation of it doesn't seem that weird tbh.

"There are only 2 genuine photos of the whole earth from space, taken in 1969 and 1972. If astronauts or probes could go all the way out into space to see the whole earth, there should be many thousands of real images from earth, not just 2. And even those 2 photos are suspicious and look fake. Furthermore, the photos show a perfect sphere, not a pear shape oblate shape like NASA claims the earth is now. The Apollo 8 astronauts said the earth was just a big blog from space and could not even take a decent photo or video of it."

Well there is also the live stream from the ISS which is showing continuous video and you can look at hours of footage. That's about as good as it gets. That Oblate Spheroid claim comes from this big misinterpretation. Neil deGrasse Tyson's 'pear shaped' claim wasn't saying it looks like a literal pear. And the original source of that claim shows the context where he says it's very slightly oblate as a spheroid. In other words it's not perfectly uniform. But it's not to the degree where you can actually see the amount of difference from space with your eyes as if the earth looked 'fat' around the center. He said a mountain slightly below the equator is 1 and a third miles farther away from the earth than mount everest. But compared to the earth that's tiny, he makes an analogy about how you wouldn't even feel the mountains if you had hands the size of the earth and rubbed your fingers over mt everest. "Cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere"-From the same video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE

"2. If space is a complete vacuum, how can it be adjacent to air atmosphere of earth without a seal or barrier to keep the air in? Anyone knows that a vacuum will suck air out into space. No one can explain this. This suggests a dome or barrier or force field of some kind around the earth."

There's not a barrier but people have a common misconception that there's a ton of air at one point then 5 feet later just void. It doesn't work that way. The atmosphere gradually thins out as you go farther away from the earth and the farther you go the more it looks like there is no air at all. Eventually there is a point that the international community decided to define as 'space' where the atmosphere has gotten so ridiculously thin that there is basically zero air there, but the key point here is there is no sudden jump from massive amounts of air to tiny. The air doesn't get sucked off into space because gravity exists.

3." If there is no up or down in space, then how come all the images of earth from outer space show the earth right side up all the time? Why don't they show the earth upside down, with the south pole on top? Or sideways with the poles on the sides?"
Are you sure there are none? How do you know that? And are you talking about images of the full earth or just any images of earth?

4. "Why do no commercial aircraft ever fly across the North or South Pole or over Antarctica? Why are you not allowed to go to the North Pole, even on land by foot or by boat, even if you are willing to do so at your own risk? What is there that they don't want you to see? What are they hiding?" There are aircraft that fly over Antartica for sightseeing tours.
http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

5. "If earth is moving in orbit at 67,000 mph, which is faster than a speeding bullet, why then when astronauts are in outer space or are flying to the moon, doesn't the earth whoosh away from them like a speeding bullet, leaving them to die in space and float forever with no hope of ever catching up with the earth?"
They're still affected by gravity from the earth just like the Moon is. Just because they're no longer trapped in the earth's atmosphere doesn't mean the earth's gravity has no effect. The earth's gravity even affects all the other planets in the solar system although not as much as Jupiter or especially the Sun for obvious reasons. So it won't just woosh past them and neither will the moon.

6. " If Venus and Mercury and between Earth and the Sun, and the Earth at nighttime is faced AWAY from the Sun in the opposite direction, how the hell can you see Venus and Mercury at night? It should be impossible."
The earth and venus don't orbit in perfect synch. But there are times when at night you wouldn't be able to see venus. Night time does not mean you are at the exact opposite side of the earth from where the sun is all the time. When that happens at around midnight then yes you would have no way to see venus. But at earlier and later times in night you could because the planet isn't totally turned away from the sun. Right after sunset, you will have a chance of seeing venus at an angle and for some time afterward depending on where venus is in its orbit. Just because you can't see the sun's light any more doesn't mean that you can't see light reflected off of venus because the point on the planet you are on hasn't rotated to where it is facing exactly opposite from the sun.

"7. Why do they keep changing their mind about how far away the Sun is? How do they know it's 93 million miles away? It certainly doesn't look 93 million miles away when you look at it. Go look and see. The Sun rays come down at angles, like street lights do. That suggests that it's nearby, not that far away. If it was 93 million miles away, all the Sun rays would be parallel at a straight line. Also, at 93 million miles away, the tilt of the Earth should not make any big differences in temperature during the different seasons. And the Moon certainly doesn't look 237,000 miles away. If it was, you would not be able to see so much detail on it. Beyond 30 miles, detail starts to blur and fade. You shouldn't be able to see detail that far away. Furthermore, if Moon light is a reflection of Sunlight, then why is Moon light cold and white, not warm and yellow? "

So what if it doesn't look 93 million miles away...Nobody's eyes are as good as telescopes.

To the intuition it seems like those kinds of rays would be coming down at an angle. But it's the same as railroad tracks converging in the distance to the eye. That might not convince you but a better proof is this picture of that effect you described coming from below the horizon:
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/anti1.htm
Now if the sun was really close to the earth this would not fit with a flat earth since it would mean the sun is somehow below the horizon for it to produce light in that way.

Do i have to know everything about how reflected light works? It reflected off an object so maybe hitting the moon's surface changed it. Either way a globe earth makes a lot more sense than a flat earth and is more consistent with the evidence and how it would be a globe earth in the first place.

User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6305
Joined: August 17th, 2012, 5:22 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Cornfed » July 12th, 2018, 11:24 pm

Aron wrote:
July 12th, 2018, 10:56 pm
So unless I have a perfect explanation of the entirety of spacetime and its mechanics then flat earth is equally valid as an explanation....You have to realize that's a strawman and that you're avoiding so many points i made in my earlier post about flat earth not logically computing.
The point is that the particular objection you raised about the earth needing to rest on something in flat earth theory is an equally valid objection to the universe needing to rest on something in mainstream theory, so there is no reason to pick between one or the other on those grounds.

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 44
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Aron » July 12th, 2018, 11:28 pm

Cornfed wrote:
July 12th, 2018, 11:24 pm
Aron wrote:
July 12th, 2018, 10:56 pm
So unless I have a perfect explanation of the entirety of spacetime and its mechanics then flat earth is equally valid as an explanation....You have to realize that's a strawman and that you're avoiding so many points i made in my earlier post about flat earth not logically computing.
The point is that the particular objection you raised about the earth needing to rest on something in flat earth theory is an equally valid objection to the universe needing to rest on something in mainstream theory, so there is no reason to pick between one or the other on those grounds.
It's not equal. Gravity explains why matter in the universe doesn't need to 'rest on' anything. It doesn't explain the entirety of the space time continuum's mechanics but it doesn't need to.

You're just dodging points.You refuse to talk about anything but one tiny thing you nit pick that is unimportant to the conclusion that flat earth is bullshit that is proven 1000x over by every other point i made. You could've in the middle of that post also said you agree flat earth is bullshit now as i just proved but you didn't do that. Or tried to somehow defend flat earth on the other relevant points i made that nobody was able to disprove so far.Which you also didn't do.

User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6305
Joined: August 17th, 2012, 5:22 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Cornfed » July 13th, 2018, 12:03 am

Aron wrote:
July 12th, 2018, 11:28 pm
It's not equal. Gravity explains why matter in the universe doesn't need to 'rest on' anything.
If the universe doesn’t need to rest on anything then neither does the flat earth. However, using a some hypothetical such as gravity isn’t a satisfactory explanation. It would be like saying that some god with magical powers makes things happen. Sure that explains things, but you could dream up lots of fantastical explanations. What are you proposing as a mechanism for gravity? How are things supposed to be pulled towards each other?

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 44
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Aron » July 13th, 2018, 12:19 am

@Cornfed
The universe 'resting' on something is not the same as with the flat earth. Gravity would explain why matter moves the way it does, it doesn't explain how the fabric of space works but neither does flat earth. Matter in the universe doesn't rest on anything it just is attracted to other matter.

You're moving the goal posts. For you to believe in gravity, mass attracting other mass, apparently i have to explain every detail of how it works now. You don't have to know every detail of how something works to see that it does work. The important point is that gravity is a consistent explanation of what we see with the universe including why things fall, why the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun, why the asteroid belt exists, why satellites orbit the earth, the mechanics of the solar system and the galaxy, etc. Flat Earth requires many of these things to be one giant hoax. If i used just any random fantastical explanation of what's happening in the universe, it usually wouldn't be consistent in explaining everything that we see.

To make this easier how about you define one or two specific points about the flat earth you think are true so that if i prove they're not you will then actually say that some of the arguments for flat earth are wrong. If you want you could just use some of Winston's points that i disproved earlier.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26646
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Winston » July 14th, 2018, 3:21 pm

@Aron,
First of all, the theory of gravity does not disprove flat earth. Flat earth is probably wrong for other reasons, but not because it's not compatible with the theory of gravity. You gotta understand that we only have a formula for gravity. But formulas are not proof of anything. No one can capture a graviton or prove its existence. You can't prove in a lab that a massive object, like a big rock, automatically creates a tractor beam like force that attracts smaller objects to stick onto it. That cannot be proven in a lab. It's theory. Tesla and the electric universe theory says that gravity works more like electricity than as a mysterious force of its own.

If the Earth is spinning then why doesn't centrifugal force throw everything outward, like a spinning wheel would propel those on it outward, not inward?

Did you know that Einstein admitted that there's no way to prove the Earth is moving at all? It's pure theory and philosophy, based on Galileo's theory that smaller objects revolve around larger ones. See the new film The Principle about this.

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=28772

Dude, one symbol does not have one meaning. You are thinking too superficially and literally. Symbols have multiple meanings. There are meanings for the outer masses and for the inner initiated. Freemasonry is like that too. The G in Freemasonry means different things depending on who you are and what level you are in the fraternity. Religions also have an exoteric form and an esoteric version. The exoteric form is for the masses, but the esoteric version is for the inner circle of initiates. Reality is multi-dimensional, not simple as you think.

The serpent tongue on the NASA logo could mean whatever they tell you, or it could be a serpent tongue too, it can mean both. The Shell logo for Shell gas station also looks like a shell. But if you are a sun worshipper, you know that it also stands for the rising sun on the horizon. Just like the Japanese flag. Many corporate logos show a rising sun. And church symbols show it too. Because the elite are Masonic sun worshippers. So the sun symbol is everywhere.

So gravity is what keeps the air in Earth's atmosphere and prevents it floating off into space? lol.

The ISS live stream only shows that Earth has a curvature. It doesn't show the whole Earth. Don't you find it odd that the Apollo missions, of which there are six, only took ONE photo of the Earth? They should have taken thousands.

Yeah there are none. Can you find an image of Earth upside down or sideways by NASA? lol

The Antarctic flights do not fly all the way across Antarctica. They do not specify what part of Antarctica they fly over. It could just be a tiny portion of it. It's not clear from their website. Why don't you email them and ask?

So gravity keeps the astronauts in space moving at 67,000 mph along with the Earth? lol

Do you know what an ad hoc explanation is? It's something you make up to explain something you can't explain, such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, multiple universe theory, etc. Why does science believe in all that but claims that God cannot be responsible for anything? lol

How do telescopes prove that the sun is 93 million miles away? This is a new theory. Astronomers keep changing their mind about that.

Couldn't the sun be small and close to the earth, but the earth is still a globe? These things are not mutually exclusive.

About the crepuscular sun rays, these videos explain why the sun rays are not comparable with perspective on railroad tracks, thus the angles are real and thus the sun is a lot closer than you think. What do you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ppPXChyTo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-ugvHlUSpM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rkDaM3m7jo

They explain why these two images below are not the same or due to perspective.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/ray1.htm
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 44
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Aron » July 15th, 2018, 3:16 am

@Winston
Winston wrote:
July 14th, 2018, 3:21 pm
First of all, the theory of gravity does not disprove flat earth. Flat earth is probably wrong for other reasons, but not because it's not compatible with the theory of gravity. You gotta understand that we only have a formula for gravity. But formulas are not proof of anything. No one can capture a graviton or prove its existence. You can't prove in a lab that a massive object, like a big rock, automatically creates a tractor beam like force that attracts smaller objects to stick onto it. That cannot be proven in a lab. It's theory. Tesla and the electric universe theory says that gravity works more like electricity than as a mysterious force of its own.
Well most flat earthers say gravity doesn't exist. And gravity in general contradicts flat earth, if it existed, all mass of the flat earth would pull on the other mass of the flat earth, and probably reshape it into a spheroid. The Dome would also just collapse instantly since engineering something that big with no structural supports doesn't really work, but that's a different topic.

I'm not a scientist so it's not like I've personally performed an experiment that can directly show you a graviton although there are a lot of experiments historically to prove gravity. But mentioning the electric universe theory doesn't really prove anything about flat earth. The exact theoretical physics of gravity isn't really important, even if it were connected in a mysterious way to electromagnetism, since what gets observed still shows gravity to exist. Tesla would definitely agree with gravity existing he would just call it something else.
If the Earth is spinning then why doesn't centrifugal force throw everything outward, like a spinning wheel would propel those on it outward, not inward?

Did you know that Einstein admitted that there's no way to prove the Earth is moving at all? It's pure theory and philosophy, based on Galileo's theory that smaller objects revolve around larger ones. See the new film The Principle about this.
Well the thing about the earth spinning is that this includes everything on the earth, even the atmosphere as well as all the other matter. It's all moving at the same relative speed. If the physical earth suddenly sped up 100x then an extinction level event would happen like you just imagined, but that's not going to happen. Never heard of that quote from einstein so i don't know what your source is. I guess I'll watch that documentary if i have enough time.
Dude, one symbol does not have one meaning. You are thinking too superficially and literally. Symbols have multiple meanings. There are meanings for the outer masses and for the inner initiated. Freemasonry is like that too. The G in Freemasonry means different things depending on who you are and what level you are in the fraternity. Religions also have an exoteric form and an esoteric version. The exoteric form is for the masses, but the esoteric version is for the inner circle of initiates. Reality is multi-dimensional, not simple as you think.

The serpent tongue on the NASA logo could mean whatever they tell you, or it could be a serpent tongue too, it can mean both. The Shell logo for Shell gas station also looks like a shell. But if you are a sun worshipper, you know that it also stands for the rising sun on the horizon. Just like the Japanese flag. Many corporate logos show a rising sun. And church symbols show it too. Because the elite are Masonic sun worshippers. So the sun symbol is everywhere.
Well i get that you believe it's supposed to have a second meaning of a serpent tongue. But the point is that it can be viably explained as not a conspiracy here. And even if for some reason it was a serpent tongue that wouldn't prove the earth to be flat.

So gravity is what keeps the air in Earth's atmosphere and prevents it floating off into space? lol.

The ISS live stream only shows that Earth has a curvature. It doesn't show the whole Earth. Don't you find it odd that the Apollo missions, of which there are six, only took ONE photo of the Earth? They should have taken thousands.

Yeah there are none. Can you find an image of Earth upside down or sideways by NASA? lol

The Antarctic flights do not fly all the way across Antarctica. They do not specify what part of Antarctica they fly over. It could just be a tiny portion of it. It's not clear from their website. Why don't you email them and ask?
It makes sense that gravity would keep the atmosphere around earth just as much as it would hold people on the ground. Just because air is light weight doesn't mean it's not affected by gravity.

It doesn't need to show the whole earth to be showing earth from space.

I'm pretty sure they also took the photo "Earthrise" not just the famous Blue Marble photo.

The ISS doesn't get a view of the whole earth at once but if it did I guess it would be 'sideways' seeing as how it's orbiting the earth.

I found some more pictures of Earth from space than just the blue marble one. Although i guess you would disapprove of there not being an upside down one there is one there that is not a composite of satellite images which i am sure flat earthers do not believe in. The one from the gallileo proves that there is more than just one full picture of earth from space.

https://www.universetoday.com/41702/pic ... rom-space/

Even if that antarctic flight only went over a little bit of Antarctica it would still show the Ice Wall to not exist, there is no big wall of ice along the antarctic coast. Idk if the flight goes across the full continent of Antarctica. But the point is that there are flights that let you see Antarctica and many flat earthers claim that the government wouldn't let anyone near it. I'll see if i can find another source on trans-antarctic flights that you will believe in later. But this one shows that at the least people are allowed to see antartica. Also you can do an easy test with this. The antartic will experience 24 hour sunlight half the year and flat earthers do not and cannot believe this because it'd destroy their model. So just take a flight to the antartic during a time when your flat earth model says the Sun is floating on the other side of the flat earth at the time when you arrive to antartica. If you arrive there and see sunlight when it's supposed to be night time according to the flat earth model, well that proves the model to be wrong. Any of the big flat earthers could do this but do they do it and livestream it? Obviously not it would disprove the flat earth model for them personally.

So gravity keeps the astronauts in space moving at 67,000 mph along with the Earth? lol

Do you know what an ad hoc explanation is? It's something you make up to explain something you can't explain, such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, multiple universe theory, etc. Why does science believe in all that but claims that God cannot be responsible for anything? lol

I already thought gravity affected the whole atmosphere at once along with astronauts in space before you asked about it. And i don't get how it couldn't affect them. If it didn't affect the astronauts then it wouldn't be affecting the satellites either. And gravity affects the moon which is much farther away than any satellite so it makes sense that it affects astronauts too.

What does religion have to do with this...If you really want to know the answer it's because God doesn't seem like a reasonable solution to scientific questions.

How do telescopes prove that the sun is 93 million miles away? This is a new theory. Astronomers keep changing their mind about that.
Who knows? It's not like i've researched the science in detail and become an astronomer or astrophysicist. But whether it's exactly 93 million miles away or not, it still seems to make sense that it is very very far away, with how sunrise and sunset work, and how we're not able to see the sun at nighttime.

Couldn't the sun be small and close to the earth, but the earth is still a globe? These things are not mutually exclusive.
Well do you have an idea how that'd work and explain what goes on? I'm pretty sure most flat earthers do not believe in that and neither do the geocentrists. If the sun were tiny and orbited the earth then we should see the earth getting in between the sun and the moon all the time not rarely. And really a lot of other things would be different, the sun has to be farther away than the moon is since otherwise there couldn't be times when the moon is blocking sunlight, creating an eclipse.

About the crepuscular sun rays, these videos explain why the sun rays are not comparable with perspective on railroad tracks, thus the angles are real and thus the sun is a lot closer than you think. What do you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ppPXChyTo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-ugvHlUSpM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rkDaM3m7jo

They explain why these two images below are not the same or due to perspective.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/ray1.htm
In video 1:
He is doing this at a close distance. The example of railroad tracks is a long distance away converging towards the horizon but he's doing this example with cardboard with maybe 10 feet distance from where he's looking. Not a great comparison to clouds from long distance. You don't see railroad tracks converging 10 ft in front of you only towards the horizon. Also he didn't have a camera looking at that cardboard from below. If he really wanted to prove for sure there is no 'railroad effect' here he should have a small camera below the cardboard looking up as if it were a cloud, then measure closely to see if there's any convergence.

The anti-crepuscular sun rays picture i showed prove that it couldn't be a close sun, so i don't get why you mention these without talking about that pic.

Also for the crepuscular ray examples these flat earth people use. For let's say a picture like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Sound.jpg
The sun would be extremely close. Like just above the clouds where the rays seem to diverge. If the rays really were spherically radiating sunlight, then for it to be going diagonally down from basically just above the clouds the sun would be right there maybe 10 miles up at most if you trace the angles of those crepuscular rays up to their supposed nearby light source. But the Flat Earth model says the sun is thousands of miles up so Flat Earth debunks itself here.

The third video you posted does the same thing basically assuming the sun is very close which is not part of the main flat earth model where it's 3000 miles up. Also according to the flat earth model the sun floats along a specific circuit. So we should only be seeing crepuscular rays converging to the few points where the sun could possibly be floating. But over 90% of the earth will have the sun not be able to be directly overhead in the flat earth model, because it only floats along that specific circuit. Yet we see the crepuscular ray phenomenon all over the place which debunks the flat earth model.

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 44
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Aron » July 19th, 2018, 5:07 am

@Winston

Just bumping the thread in case you forgot about responding after posting in other threads or something.

aspiabc
Freshman Poster
Posts: 9
Joined: July 19th, 2018, 6:37 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by aspiabc » July 19th, 2018, 9:33 am

Aron wrote:
July 12th, 2018, 10:56 pm
"2. If space is a complete vacuum, how can it be adjacent to air atmosphere of earth without a seal or barrier to keep the air in? Anyone knows that a vacuum will suck air out into space. No one can explain this. This suggests a dome or barrier or force field of some kind around the earth."

There's not a barrier but people have a common misconception that there's a ton of air at one point then 5 feet later just void. It doesn't work that way. The atmosphere gradually thins out as you go farther away from the earth and the farther you go the more it looks like there is no air at all. Eventually there is a point that the international community decided to define as 'space' where the atmosphere has gotten so ridiculously thin that there is basically zero air there, but the key point here is there is no sudden jump from massive amounts of air to tiny. The air doesn't get sucked off into space because gravity exists.
This is true (according to science) , there's a point where air molecules can't escape earth's gravity depending on their location above the surface. At a further distance away from the earth, the force of gravity weakens until objects can effectively escape. It is possible air molecules can churn around and one could make it to the top and get accelerated enough to escape but enough stay at the surface and condense together to give us standard air pressure. Think of the air like a liquid where the top molecules are at the surface. Airplanes basically "swim" through the air. And that's why you need oxygen masks in airplanes at higher elevation if the windows blow out, because there is less air density i.e. less air molecules to go around to give enough oxygen to breathe at a healthy rate. (and you weigh half of a percent less at that altitude)

5. "If earth is moving in orbit at 67,000 mph, which is faster than a speeding bullet, why then when astronauts are in outer space or are flying to the moon, doesn't the earth whoosh away from them like a speeding bullet, leaving them to die in space and float forever with no hope of ever catching up with the earth?"
They're still affected by gravity from the earth just like the Moon is. Just because they're no longer trapped in the earth's atmosphere doesn't mean the earth's gravity has no effect. The earth's gravity even affects all the other planets in the solar system although not as much as Jupiter or especially the Sun for obvious reasons. So it won't just woosh past them and neither will the moon.
Astronauts in Earth orbit don't fly off left behind by the earth because they and the spaceship are already moving close to Earth's orbital speed. It's like a freeway where cars moving close to the same speed as each other look still or move slow compared to each other. We're all moving at 67k mph around the sun which takes one year to do a lap. To truly get to zero speed compared to the Earth, the spaceship needs to accelerate to 67kmph path opposite of the Earth's orbit, then the ship and the astronauts would be whisked away.

All that said, I am still open to the idea of a flat earth. There are a bunch of mysteries as you've pointed all pointed out above. Like why is Antarctica closed off by the United Nations. Why does the United Nations symbol look like the ancient flat earth maps. Scientists can't really say much about what gravity is where only its effects are precisely described. I'm no scientist just a past student that had to take intro physics courses for my major so what I described above are just rote ideas drilled at school and in other books. I agree it's weird how the sun could possibly look closer and hard to tell about the rays due to perspective and limited human vision, or 93 million miles away. And NASA seems to hide a lot. Blurry Earth pictures from the moon, inconsistencies etc.

Moretorque
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4562
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 3:00 pm
Location: USA,FL

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Moretorque » July 20th, 2018, 1:12 am

This is stupid, radar proves the earth has curvature and they would not build missile systems such as TOMOHAWK cruise if earth was flat.

Science is becoming really dumbed up now and on purpose. I truly believe they want to see what they can get away with for their up and coming break away civilization. They probably feel if they can knock the IQ low enough world wide and get rid of the thinkers overall except for their own people they can pull a Star Trek like scenario on the dumb herd and manage them forever like cattle.
Time to Hide!

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 44
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: Could the Earth be FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe?

Post by Aron » July 20th, 2018, 8:43 am

@aspiabc
aspiabc wrote:
July 19th, 2018, 9:33 am
-Some reasonable stuff mentioning how flat earth is debunked-
OK I agree-
aspiabc wrote:
July 19th, 2018, 9:33 am
All that said, I am still open to the idea of a flat earth.

What. This is a dumb idea. Please don't believe it.
aspiabc wrote:
July 19th, 2018, 9:33 am
There are a bunch of mysteries as you've pointed all pointed out above. Like why is Antarctica closed off by the United Nations.
Who knows. You're allowed to take a flight over antartica anyways. That doesn't prove the entirety of cosmology, geology, rocket science, 100s of hours of ISS footage, etc, all suddenly a hoax that would be absolutely impossible.
aspiabc wrote:
July 19th, 2018, 9:33 am
Why does the United Nations symbol look like the ancient flat earth maps.
It's called turning a 3d globe into a map that can fit on paper.
aspiabc wrote:
July 19th, 2018, 9:33 am
Scientists can't really say much about what gravity is where only its effects are precisely described. I'm no scientist just a past student that had to take intro physics courses for my major so what I described above are just rote ideas drilled at school and in other books. I agree it's weird how the sun could possibly look closer and hard to tell about the rays due to perspective and limited human vision, or 93 million miles away. And NASA seems to hide a lot. Blurry Earth pictures from the moon, inconsistencies etc.
It's not a close sun. Look up eclipses they require the sun being farther away than the moon which is very distant. Btw this doesn't work on the flat earth. Neither does gravity which exists as proven by all satellites and asteroids and many other things. Why is it that no celestial body over a certain size looks super irregular like asteroids do? Because gravity smooths them all out. That's why they're all spheroids. If the sun was close by we could reach it with planes or rockets. Someone would have landed on the sun already,we would have drones following it. People would be able to see different sides of the moon from different continents. Also this illusion of the sun being close is debunked, on flat earth the sun only magically floats around this specific circular path so if the sun seems directly overhead from that illusion, 95% of the time that debunks flat earth as the flat earth model says the sun cannot be in that spot.

Just because you believe some conspiracy theories doesn't mean you should believe something obviously not true like flat earth ok. Everyone knows flat earth is a hoax that was just made by Christians a long time ago to justify christianity, it's not based on any science.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Conspiracies, Mysteries, Paranormal”