Jump to content

The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well I believe space exists primarily not because heliocentric model ,however that is a large part of it , but because of personnel  observation, every year we would pack up and go to siding springs observatory  in New south wales and to Illford not far away to look through telescopes up to a thirty inch mirror where we would look at Saturn ,Jupiter  mars and also deep space objects like the jewel box  etc ,these objects were not near each other ,there was definitely space between them so that's why I believe space exists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2020 at 6:52 PM, oddsnsods said:

 

Well I agree same with the atmosphere thinning to a vacuum sounds nuts to me, but im not a scientist.

I wish I had added that just for irony. 😲

 

And I look at these same things every night. I have become a huge fan of our sky.

 

 

On 9/27/2020 at 9:42 PM, peter said:

2 there is no gravity

This is another straw man fallacy. I believe that we do not need gravity to explain why things rise and fall. Relative density as a model has been discussed throughout this thread and explains all of our earthly observations. I have come to believe that it was invented for the heliocentric, space psyop to have some reason why we can be on a ball that flies through space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me gravity exists , you jump out of a plane with no chute your buggered, that's gravity

Fall off a building ,same outcome ,that's gravity

when you walk  you don't float up into the air ,that's gravity

gravity exhibits the same amount of force on every object , this can be proven if you drop a feather and a hammer in a vacuum ,they will hit the bottom of the vacuum chamber at the same time therefore it stands to reason that there is a force acting on both objects equally if it was solely down to density the hammer would hit first obversiouly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, peter said:

To me gravity exists , you jump out of a plane with no chute your buggered, that's gravity

Fall off a building ,same outcome ,that's gravity

when you walk  you don't float up into the air ,that's gravity

This part we both agree on, but you forgot to mention how air bubbles rise through water as water falls through air. Clouds float perfectly and they are full of water. Gravity can hold our whirling through space oceans, our lakes appear as a glass mirror at times, but gravity cannot remove a drop of dew from the long grass in the morning? And anvils float in mercury as well. Take a close look at the 'slinky' videos and any that focus on relative density. I don't know if this changes your mind, but it was important in my awakening.

 

14 minutes ago, peter said:

gravity exhibits the same amount of force on every object , this can be proven if you drop a feather and a hammer in a vacuum ,they will hit the bottom of the vacuum chamber at the same time therefore it stands to reason that there is a force acting on both objects equally if it was solely down to density the hammer would hit first obversiouly

There is a frame by frame video that debunks this experiment online if you are interested.

 

 

14 hours ago, peter said:

3 there is no curvature

This has simply been confirmed on video more times than I know. An assumed radius guarantees us an exact amount of  curvature that must be present, yet cannot be found. We are seeing horizons far to far and it's that simple. The refraction argument certainly plays a role with certain objects, but there can never be a physical horizon obstructing an observers view while the horizon is clearly present in the background. Every single one of these experiments  falsifies r.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, alexa said:

 Did you read the quote from Tesla ? Obviously not, you blatantly ignored it.

 

Tesla is nor the font of all knowledge. He was ahead of his time but like many early scientists was most certainly not right about many things. That quote was typical flat earth lies.

 

Tesla KNEW space existed, you blatantly ignore THAT!

 

Back to my original response, are we little magnets then?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, amy G said:

This part we both agree on, but you forgot to mention how air bubbles rise through water as water falls through air. Clouds float perfectly and they are full of water. Gravity can hold our whirling through space oceans, our lakes appear as a glass mirror at times, but gravity cannot remove a drop of dew from the long grass in the morning? And anvils float in mercury as well. Take a close look at the 'slinky' videos and any that focus on relative density. I don't know if this changes your mind, but it was important in my awakening.

 

There is a frame by frame video that debunks this experiment online if you are interested.

 

 

This has simply been confirmed on video more times than I know. An assumed radius guarantees us an exact amount of  curvature that must be present, yet cannot be found. We are seeing horizons far to far and it's that simple. The refraction argument certainly plays a role with certain objects, but there can never be a physical horizon obstructing an observers view while the horizon is clearly present in the background. Every single one of these experiments  falsifies r.

1a Air bubbles in water also  helium rising in air has also been mentioned as the reasons for both are the same I will concentrate on the bubbles in water.

The reason bubbles rise to the surface is because of pressure ,as you know you can't compress a liquid therefore the water molecules can produce more pressure  than the corresponding air molecules can  therefore the air molecules are the ones that will be displaced and it is reasonable to assume that they will only travel in one direction , and that is the direction of least resistance as the deeper into water  you go the more pressure is exerted

 

2a clouds as you know are made of very fine water droplets that form around airborne particulates there are different types of clouds I wont go into the thunder or rain clouds as you know when there is so much water the the prevailing atmospheric conditions cannot hold the weight of the water it rains I assume you agree with that so I will tackle what I think you mean as the nice fluffy white clouds floating along generally more so in the afternoon.

I agree that these clouds are filled with water droplets  however the water droplets are basically finer than a mist and held up there via the prevailing atmospheric conditions, predominantly thermals which tends to happen from 10 am in winter and as early a 7am in summer,I can tell you if you have ever flown through one of those lovely soft cotton wool clouds it is a very rocky ride indeed as the usually indicate the prevailing height of the surrounding thermals , also if you look closely at the edges of these clouds you woud see they are constantly evaporating and reforming and to do this the said water droplets have to be very fine indeed otherwise it would simply rain

 

1c you mentioned morning dew and gravity can't pull a water droplet from grass

Well as far as gravity as a force its not very strong as far as forces go  and not being able pull a water droplet of a blade of grass is rather a non statement as there a a great variables that can govern this .

Just of the top of my head

1 time of day

2 temperature

3  evaporation rate

4 the friction coefficient of the grass it's self

5 the angle of the grass blade with regards to the perpendicular

6 and of course the amount of capillary action with regards to the friction coefficient

7 the amount of foreign particulate matter in the droplet ,eg pollen's, dust etc etc

 

1d  the anvil analogy,  this is entirely governed by the ratios of the size of the anvil and the amount and surface tension and quantity of the mercury , just like aluminum will float on water given the correct conditions 

 

2 a frame by frame video debunking this, sorry but utube videos are in my opinion are made by people more interested in views and therefore money , as I said this is about you personal reasons for you beliefs not what some joker made a film about

 

 3The reason I believe in curvature is simple the ship disappearing over the horizon ,people say it is an optical ilusion ,however I couldn't count the amount of times I've seen this ,the people with the alternative view give all sorts of reasons ,however to create the same optical illusion you would have to create the same atmospheric conditions every time and that is just not possible either practically or hypothetically

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2020 at 2:25 PM, Comedy Time said:

 

1.jpg

 

It's really hard to explain this to people who seem to show little regard to reality but those rays aren't being viewed sideways on, they go back towards the Sun.

Besides.....EXPLAIN THIS! ie. where the crap is the Sun?? 

https://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/anti1.htm#:~:text=Crepuscular rays appear to converge,sphere directly opposite the sun.

 

Anticrepuscular_Rays.jpg

 

Would you like me to draw some rays for this?🙄

 

 

@amy G Tell everyone about anti-crepuscular rays. You looked at the rays from the sun, just like the ones on a train track and think they go straight up. Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, amy G said:

This part we both agree on, but you forgot to mention how air bubbles rise through water as water falls through air.

 

Please don't flatter yourself on the "attention" you are getting! You keep ignoring everything. You will ignore this because unlike you, I know what I am talking about.

 

Bubbles contain air which has less relative density to water. Buoyancy - simple physics. 

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

Clouds float perfectly and they are full of water.

 

Why don't you google it - you seem to have this colossal vacuum of knowledge.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-clouds-float-when/

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

Gravity can hold our whirling through space oceans

 

We aren't "whirling". Hey, you do "applied maths" - go work out the centrifugal force and offset it against gravity. It's tiny.  0.034 m/s2

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

our lakes appear as a glass mirror at times

 

The distortion from curvature is tiny. 

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

but gravity cannot remove a drop of dew from the long grass in the morning?

 

Why should it? Grass has tiny filaments that hold the water droplet with added water tension. The CURVED droplet sticks accordingly.

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

And anvils float in mercury as well.

 

Buoyancy!

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

 I don't know if this changes your mind, but it was important in my awakening.

 

You aren't "awake" dude.

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

There is a frame by frame video that debunks this experiment online if you are interested.

 

No there isn't.

 

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

This has simply been confirmed on video more times than I know. 

 

NO IT HAS NOT. None of the experiments are from reputable sources. You routinely doubt actual verified scientific experiments whilst entertaining the fumblings of amateurs. There was a laser video many pages back and I pointed out quite clearly how we can SEE the bloody laser curving as it points upwards.

 

Animation1cc8b20721e68ec70.gif

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

An assumed radius guarantees us an exact amount of  curvature that must be present, yet cannot be found.

 

Bullshit. Ships drop over the horizon, as do oil rigs, pylons, cities!! You ignore the whole lot and posit that ludicrous diagram a page back, that defies every known law of science.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

habitat-hillhouse-540x298.jpg

 

670c43488d5c0f1d9645a506b950584b.jpg

 

horizon-distance.jpg

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

We are seeing horizons far to far and it's that simple. 

 

No we aren't. We are seeing known variables in play.

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

The refraction argument certainly plays a role with certain objects, but there can never be a physical horizon obstructing an observers view while the horizon is clearly present in the background.

 

Yes there can, you were given ray diagrams and mathematics showing how this is the case. You were even given a bloody alternative oil rig picture to your blurred video version.

 

You ignored it all of course!

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

 Every single one of these experiments  falsifies r.

 

None of them do. You ignore everything and believe horseshit.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362

 

Behind the Curve

 

 

One of the more jaw-dropping segments of the documentary comes when Bob Knodel, one of the hosts on a popular Flat Earth YouTube channel, walks viewers through an experiment involving a laser gyroscope. As the Earth rotates, the gyroscope appears to lean off-axis, staying in its original position as the Earth's curvature changes in relation. "What we found is, is when we turned on that gyroscope we found that we were picking up a drift. A 15 degree per hour drift," Knodel says, acknowledging that the gyroscope's behavior confirmed to exactly what you'd expect from a gyroscope on a rotating globe.

"Now, obviously we were taken aback by that. 'Wow, that's kind of a problem,'" Knodel says. "We obviously were not willing to accept that, and so we started looking for ways to disprove it was actually registering the motion of the Earth."

Despite further experimental refinements, Knodel's gyroscope consistently behaves as if the Earth is round. Yet Knodel's beliefs seem unchanged when discussing the experiment at a Flat Earth meetup in Denver. "We don't want to blow this, you know? When you've got $20,000 in this freaking gyro. If we dumped what we found right now, it would be bad. It would be bad. What I just told you was confidential," Knodel says to another Flat Earther in attendance.

 

 

Campanella devises an experiment involving three posts of the same height and a high-powered laser. The idea is to set up three measuring posts over a nearly 4 mile length of equal elevation. Once the laser is activated at the first post, its height can be measured at the other two. If the laser is at eight feet on the first post, then five feet at the second, then it indicates the measuring posts are set upon the Earth's curvature.

flat-earth-laser-experiment-behind-the-curve-netflix-documentary

Campanella's proposed laser experiment, as seen in Flat Earth documentary "Behind the Curve," now streaming on Netflix.DELTA-V PRODUCTIONS

 

In his first attempt, Campanella's laser light spread out too much over the distance, making an accurate measurement impossible. But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.

flat-earth-light-experiment-behind-the-curve-netflix-documentary

Campanella's proposed light experiment, which seems to invalidate the Flat Earth theory at the ending of documentary "Behind the Curve," now streaming on Netflix.DELTA-V PRODUCTIONS

 

 

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

 

 

rabugento1.gifrabugento1.gifrabugento1.gifrabugento1.gifrabugento1.gifrabugento1.gifrabugento1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, amy G said:

I wish I had added that just for irony. 😲

 

That post was from June. You havent been on this forum before tho..only woke up a few months ago & found this thread on DIF.

Must have been one hell of a journey on your quest..trolololl.

 

8 hours ago, amy G said:

 

And I look at these same things every night. I have become a huge fan of our sky.

 

Explain GPS, onboard WIFI, Satellites, especially Starlink & ISS view from telescopes.

Also meteorite showers & comets.

Im curious if you have an opinion.

 

8 hours ago, amy G said:

 

 

This is another straw man fallacy. I believe that we do not need gravity to explain why things rise and fall. Relative density as a model has been discussed throughout this thread and explains all of our earthly observations. I have come to believe that it was invented for the heliocentric, space psyop to have some reason why we can be on a ball that flies through space.

 

Why are you trying to change the discussion again?? & avoiding all the questions ive asked you.

Ive already answered your questions you ignored about the meme that triggered you.

You havent replied or even tried to explain the direct flight.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Hey flatties, why are you ignoring this?

 

@amy G @zArk @alexa

 

 

Were going to disagree, but I find that could easily be a parabolic flight & find it unrelated to the topic Comedy. Not that I think space is fake. I always think of the footage of the Apollo astronauts that are meant to be far away from earth & have the 'experiment' card on the window. This proves they are in space to me, orbiting the earth in my opinion. But I dont want to change the topic & flerthers do this all the time & start talking about NASA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amy G

4 the invisible dome, once again if you didn't say this I apologize .

However since it has been mentioned time and time again , as you can guess I think it doesn't exist and the following are my reasons why

1 for an invisible dome to exist it would have to have been manufactured by some one or something

2 it has never been seen by the naked eye , with a telescope ,in UV or inferred light, with radio frequency or x ray

3 if there is an invisible dome who or what does the maintenance,

4 the main reason that I believe it's false is, no matter what transparent material it is made of, over time it will become etched due to the bombardment of charged particles in the form of cosmic rays and  as such become opaque which would in turn render it entirely visible which has never happened 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oddsnsods said:

 

Were going to disagree, but I find that could easily be a parabolic flight & find it unrelated to the topic Comedy. Not that I think space is fake. I always think of the footage of the Apollo astronauts that are meant to be far away from earth & have the 'experiment' card on the window. This proves they are in space to me, orbiting the earth in my opinion. But I dont want to change the topic & flerthers do this all the time & start talking about NASA.

 

Go to the appropriate thread....post your claim please. You have been misled and I can prove it.

 

It's also too long for parabolic flight and the Buzz sequence is longer than that excerpt.

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

Could easily be a parabolic flight 

 

 

 

@amy G @zArk @alexa There is no bullshit CGI or Hollywood speshul effex argument for this. It is 5 minutes of continuous weightlessness! Parabolic flights are 25 seconds of weightlessness, 5 seconds of intermediate, followed by 2Gs. 

 

I await your hurried explanation of this, or more probably cowardly evasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, peter said:

1a Air bubbles in water also  helium rising in air has also been mentioned as the reasons for both are the same I will concentrate on the bubbles in water.

The reason bubbles rise to the surface is because of pressure ,as you know you can't compress a liquid therefore the water molecules can produce more pressure  than the corresponding air molecules can  therefore the air molecules are the ones that will be displaced and it is reasonable to assume that they will only travel in one direction , and that is the direction of least resistance as the deeper into water  you go the more pressure is exerted

 

2a clouds as you know are made of very fine water droplets that form around airborne particulates there are different types of clouds I wont go into the thunder or rain clouds as you know when there is so much water the the prevailing atmospheric conditions cannot hold the weight of the water it rains I assume you agree with that so I will tackle what I think you mean as the nice fluffy white clouds floating along generally more so in the afternoon.

I agree that these clouds are filled with water droplets  however the water droplets are basically finer than a mist and held up there via the prevailing atmospheric conditions, predominantly thermals which tends to happen from 10 am in winter and as early a 7am in summer,I can tell you if you have ever flown through one of those lovely soft cotton wool clouds it is a very rocky ride indeed as the usually indicate the prevailing height of the surrounding thermals , also if you look closely at the edges of these clouds you woud see they are constantly evaporating and reforming and to do this the said water droplets have to be very fine indeed otherwise it would simply rain

 

1c you mentioned morning dew and gravity can't pull a water droplet from grass

Well as far as gravity as a force its not very strong as far as forces go  and not being able pull a water droplet of a blade of grass is rather a non statement as there a a great variables that can govern this .

Just of the top of my head

1 time of day

2 temperature

3  evaporation rate

4 the friction coefficient of the grass it's self

5 the angle of the grass blade with regards to the perpendicular

6 and of course the amount of capillary action with regards to the friction coefficient

7 the amount of foreign particulate matter in the droplet ,eg pollen's, dust etc etc

 

1d  the anvil analogy,  this is entirely governed by the ratios of the size of the anvil and the amount and surface tension and quantity of the mercury , just like aluminum will float on water given the correct conditions 

 

2 a frame by frame video debunking this, sorry but utube videos are in my opinion are made by people more interested in views and therefore money , as I said this is about you personal reasons for you beliefs not what some joker made a film about

I understand the narrative really well, I just no longer buy that the theoretical gravity explanation is required.

 

The relative density between objects and the medium they are in determines where everything ends up. Drop a rock. It will not fall forever. It will fall until hitting the ground and then stop or bounce and stop. This is because it hit something of an equal or greater density.

 

Now fill a balloon with helium. Let it go. It will not rise forever. It will rise until something of equal or greater density gets in its way like your ceiling, tree branches with leaves, anything other than air really.

 

As far as flat earthers making money off of youtube, that is simply false. Many of the legitimate flat earth accounts have been banned repeatedly. In addition to that, youtube links a wiki debunking page to all their videos, makes searching for even specific videos nearly impossible and even ghosts the video's creator's own posts.

 

And the ones up now cannot be monetized.

 

8 hours ago, peter said:

3The reason I believe in curvature is simple the ship disappearing over the horizon ,people say it is an optical ilusion ,however I couldn't count the amount of times I've seen this ,the people with the alternative view give all sorts of reasons ,however to create the same optical illusion you would have to create the same atmospheric conditions every time and that is just not possible either practically or hypothetically

Well, Aristotle allegedly believed the same thing when he saw this, so I guess you are in mindful company.

 

That said, it's not an illusion as much as how your brain interprets what the light coming into your eyes actually represents. There is an abundance of published material on just this. Comedy posted railroad tracks above. Now, I'm not even going to guess if he thinks those tracks are pointing at each other, but for the rest of this post I am going to assume that we both agree that those tracks are definitely parallel. Our brain has done this, cameras mimic it and if those tracks were flipped 90 degrees both ways and also 180 degrees, the same effect would be seen. What we find is that our brain sees things as if we were looking through a pyramid from the bottom to the top point. That point is called a vanishing point because everything vanishes from the observer at that point. This is where all lines converge. Nothing at all behind that point can be seen. In other words, these boats do not have to go over any curve to disappear from an observer.

04.png

 

Horizon line-is always at eye level. Picture yourself at the seashore and looking out at the ocean you notice that the water meets the sky at your eye level. This never changes. You may be in an airplane 1000 feet up and the level that the ocean meets the sky is still at your eye level! Or you may be lying down on the beach and the ocean level drops with you. Think of it as an invisible plane that cuts through everything, that always exists at eye level.

http://studiochalkboard.evansville.edu/lp-intro.html

 

Let's go a step further and assume for a moment that you are on a beach watching a ship move away and disappear. At the moment that ship is fully out of view, your friend hands you a pair of binoculars and just like that, the entire ship is in full view. The ship travels further and again, even through these binoculars, the ship begins to disappear again and just when it does, another friend offers you his telescope. You take a peek and are amazed to find that ship again in full view.

 

What does this tell us? Obviously, the boat does not need to go over any curvature to disappear, but more importantly, the above can continue with better scopes until atmospheric conditions simply will not allow for further observation.

 

The next time you are at the beach watching a ship move away and disappear, pay extra special attention to the horizon. Remember that it is always at eye level. This will help you if the day is particularly cloudy or hazy.

 

Is it still visible behind the disappearing boat? That is what I would encourage you to focus on. I posted a pic from a video of this exact situation. You blew it off as some flat earther lying, so try to see if you see this for yourself. I have seen this many times.

 

I'll be back for the "invisible dome" shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

 

 

@amy G @zArk @alexa There is no bullshit CGI or Hollywood speshul effex argument for this. It is 5 minutes of continuous weightlessness! Parabolic flights are 25 seconds of weightlessness, 5 seconds of intermediate, followed by 2Gs. 

 

I await your hurried explanation of this, or more probably cowardly evasion.

 

You are quoting me out of context. I said the clip of the space lab could be a parabolic, as is pretty much the size of a plane & very short clips.

This should be in the space is fake thread doesn't prove globe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, amy G said:

The relative density between objects and the medium they are in determines where everything ends up. Drop a rock. It will not fall forever. It will fall until hitting the ground and then stop or bounce and stop. This is because it hit something of an equal or greater density.

 

It will fall until it is in equilibrium with the gravitational mass attracting it! It is bugger all to do with it hitting anything:classic_rolleyes:🌎

 

If your bullshit explanation had any validity at all it could EASILY be proven. However the opposite is true. Things fall at the same speed in a vacuum proven in the video shown. They also fall at the same speeds regardless of bloody density. A banana will fall at the same speed as an identical shaped piece of lead - only air resistance alters the speed.

2 minutes ago, amy G said:

Now fill a balloon with helium. Let it go. It will not rise forever. It will rise until something of equal or greater density gets in its way like your ceiling, tree branches with leaves, anything other than air really.

 

Such astonishing ignorance of basic buoyancy. It will rise until it is matched in density by the surrounding atmosphere. Of course anything in the way will bloody stop it....duhhhh.

 

If density was the reason for gravity where does the force come from to move anything!? If it was density, something is starting the object to move downwards. In Mexico City the rules of gravity are the same as at sea level....right there your clueless claim debunked.

 

2 minutes ago, amy G said:

That said, it's not an illusion as much as how your brain interprets what the light coming into your eyes actually represents. There is an abundance of published material on just this. Comedy posted railroad tracks above. Now, I'm not even going to guess if he thinks those tracks are pointing at each other, but for the rest of this post I am going to assume that we both agree that those tracks are definitely parallel.

 

As are the crepuscular rays from the Sun! Oh and of course you ignored the anti-crepuscular rays didn't you.

 

2 minutes ago, amy G said:

That point is called a vanishing point because everything vanishes from the observer at that point. This is where all lines converge. 

 

OMG, is he really trying to show us he knows about the vanishing point?! This is where things farther away get smaller.....like the Sun on a flat earth would do:classic_rolleyes:

 

2 minutes ago, amy G said:

Nothing at all behind that point can be seen. In other words, these boats do not have to go over any curve to disappear from an observer.

 

The truly dumb claim that the boat isn't going over the horizon it's just out of sight.

 

 

2 minutes ago, amy G said:

Let's go a step further and assume for a moment that you are on a beach watching a ship move away and disappear. At the moment that ship is fully out of view, your friend hands you a pair of binoculars and just like that, the entire ship is in full view. The ship travels further and again, even through these binoculars, the ship begins to disappear again and just when it does, another friend offers you his telescope. You take a peek and are amazed to find that ship again in full view.

 

It tells us you are making a bullshit argument. When the ship disappears bottom first and continues to do with the top full in view, it isn't a vanishing point issue. 

 

2 minutes ago, amy G said:

What does this tell us? Obviously, the boat does not need to go over any curvature to disappear, but more importantly, the above can continue with better scopes until atmospheric conditions simply will not allow for further observation.

 

Provable bullshit. If you can only see the top part it's over the curve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

You are quoting me out of context.

 

Not intentionally. Just you mentioned Apollo.

 

9 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

I said the clip of the space lab could be a parabolic, as is pretty much the size of a plane & very short clips.

This should be in the space is fake thread doesn't prove globe.

 

The Skylab section is massive, there isn't a plane in the world that big and if you dive one of the massive planes like that you would really struggle. This proves weightlessness in space before CGI and obviously not hollywood fx. Space means orbits. Orbits mean planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

2 hours ago, peter said:

Amy G

4 the invisible dome, once again if you didn't say this I apologize .

Thank-you, I haven't... apology accepted.

 

2 hours ago, peter said:

However since it has been mentioned time and time again , as you can guess I think it doesn't exist and the following are my reasons why

1 for an invisible dome to exist it would have to have been manufactured by some one or something

I agree. And I know this is true of our Earth.

 

2 hours ago, peter said:

2 it has never been seen by the naked eye , with a telescope ,in UV or inferred light, with radio frequency or x ray

I don't know that, but I have never seen it and I have been spending many nights with my Nikon looking at the sky.

 

3 hours ago, peter said:

3 if there is an invisible dome who or what does the maintenance

Okay, for that matter, who or what does the maintenance for any of our natural world? I now have an enormous problem with an explosion from several billion years ago creating such perfect balance between us and the heavenly bodies.

 

3 hours ago, peter said:

4 the main reason that I believe it's false is, no matter what transparent material it is made of, over time it will become etched due to the bombardment of charged particles in the form of cosmic rays and  as such become opaque which would in turn render it entirely visible which has never happened

Okay, here there are too many assumptions that have never been proven to logically discuss that statement.

 

 

 

 

On 9/28/2020 at 11:48 AM, peter said:

5 the atmosphere can't exist near space

Not near, but next to without some barrier to separate the two environments, not allowing for them to reach equilibrium.

 

In that sense, it can't. Physics does not allow for it. As I wrote for your first point, I have become convinced that the big bang heliocentric model is impossible based on physical laws. The 2nd law of thermodynamics alone falsifies the idea that space exists in the way that freemasons have been pretending since they first began publishing sci-fi fantasies.

 

This thread has numerous posts on why a highly pressurized system like where we live cannot exist next to what amounts to a nearly empty space. Equilibrium must occur as it does everywhere in nature.

 

"Horror vacui," "nature abhors a vacuum"

--attributed to Aristotle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2020 at 2:03 PM, Bombadil said:

Fill a glass with water. Fill it to the point just before it spills over. Place your eyes at the same level as the top of the glass. Now you see water is not flat in this moment but curved.

What does that have to do with large bodies of water curving around or sticking to the outside of any object?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Grumpy Owl changed the title to The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)
  • Grumpy Owl locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...