Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[Aron]

@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.

[Winston]

@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

[Aron]

@Winston

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]

@Winston

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

[aspiabc]

"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]

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.

[Aron]

@aspiabc

-Some reasonable stuff mentioning how flat earth is debunked-

OK I agree-

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Winston]

Hey guys, check this out. Would any of you dare to wear a t-shirt like this out in public? lol. Wouldn't you be embarrassed that everyone is looking at your shirt and thinking you're a kook and crackpot, even if they do so silently in their mind? lol @gsjackson and @Adama would you wear this t-shirt out in public? lol. You can buy it at the link below if you dare. lol

http://www.flatearthdoctrine.com/shop/

[Winston]

@gsjackson you will love this one. Here is an interview with a professional airline pilot who believes in flat earth. He talks about flight paths and his experience flying around the world, and how he knows the earth cannot be a globe.

[Aron]

@Winston

So are you going to respond to the response I made to you about 6 days ago or so? Since when you don't it makes me think you just do not have any other ideas on how Flat Earth wouldn't be debunked. That first picture in the post you made just now is a good example of what i was saying earlier. Flat Earthers are basically just christians making stuff up to believe the bible which states flat earth in old testament as can be seen with the origins of the flat earth movement back with the flat earth society centuries ago. Yes I know that frauds like Eric Dubay are not Christians but it doesn't matter. Doesn't make flat earth true.

[Moretorque]

You do not ? the KING! you hail him. Don't you know anything about socialism communism ?

[Aron]

@Moretorque

Meh. I doubt Winston bans people for 'wrong' views considering everything that is posted on this site. And no i do not support the Statist type of socialism where everyone just hands over everything to the state and expects them to be fair in controlling everything.

I guess winston supports gun control but overall his views are not in a place that i would say is the mainstream socialist view like him not supporting vaccines and other things which are state imposed to destroy the population.

@Winston

Well since you didn't respond for a long time still i'm just going to assume you are not super convinced by Flat Earth to the point where you think i am still definitely 100% wrong in every way about it. But if you do actually decide that the evidence i posted for round earth seems true it would help if you did post and say something so i can know if you agree or not.

[Moretorque]

I am all for living in your local environment and that requires an honest transparent system with individual property rights, that type of socialism ? as stated socialism was created by the people who brought us WW 1 n 2 and now want 3 for the final act of social engineering.......

Don't be fooled, Mr. Wu is a commie.......

[Aron]

@Moretorque
I'm pretty sure he agrees with the anti-vaccine argument and others, so i wouldn't call him a 'commie', but for some reason he doesn't see the inconsistency between supporting freedom to choose not to get a vaccine shot and not supporting freedom to possess a gun and not have it taken from you by force.

@Winston
Well you have ignored my response to you in this thread for 2 weeks now or so without arguing any more about Flat Earth being true. So if I at some point ignore this thread, please don't just suddenly come back and argue Flat Earth is true here or somewhere else without addressing any of my points...

[Moretorque]

Winston does that , he only replies when he feels like it. Now for US peons who wander this site you better reply to Winston within 24 hours of his posts or you could be out of here. Just ask Jester.......