Jump to content

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


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, bflat said:

1) No curvature has ever been seen by anyone other than freemasons. Neil the ass tyson, the freemason heliocentric priest has admitted this several times.

 And no, I was talking about how we know NOW that we see horizons far beyond (over ten times) where they should be. You make this hard on yourself when the video evidence is right there for you in the OP.

 

2) Water covers 70% of our supposed ball. The natural physics of water determines that it fills its container and lies flat on the top. The laser video in the OP illustrates this clearly.

 

3) It's all in the OP. Actual science is clear on this one, yet you began your response sarcastically with this:

Try to understand that simple and obvious graphic when NOT on drugs and read what follows concerning "infinite vacuum space" next to our pressurized system, let alone inside it, lol. All this was covered.

 

4) Just watch the video. It's very clear.

 

5) You skipped all the documents so I can assume you agree there.

so thank you for not explaining anything

1 I fly ultra light aircraft and believe  me I've seen the curvature of the horizon and I'm not a fucking Freemason

2 There is a bit of a difference between water in a container and the oceans of the earth , you put water in a glass and say the earth is flat ,why didn't you choose a triangle

3 you didn't answer any of my question and just quietly if you think space is a vacuum sorry pal but you haven't done your research 

4 Bullshit it is

5 You can assume anything you want, and you obviously you have ,try answering my questions ,but I believe you can"t  ,you have used the old fall back position in all your replies , look at the video or look at the graph that will explain everything ( because you don't want  to or more likely, can't) I hope you don"t mind if I assume that .I have had enough now . you will hear from me when I can post properly.

And for all the not so new members or the forum ,the old thread. Rockets cant propel in space is burning as hole in my frontal lobes at present

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peter said:

so thank you for not explaining anything

What is not clear to you from the OP? Please be specific.

 

1 hour ago, peter said:

1 I fly ultra light aircraft and believe  me I've seen the curvature of the horizon and I'm not a fucking Freemason

LOL, keeps deleting the rest of the post. See page one where neil the ass tyson explains that you have not seen what you think you have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peter said:

3 you didn't answer any of my question and just quietly if you think space is a vacuum sorry pal but you haven't done your research

I did. It was clear form the OP.

Interstellar/Deep Space = ~10^-17 Torr. To put that in perspective, nasa’s vacuum chamber with her two feet thick metal wall that is enclosed by six to eight feet thick cement walls, can only achieve 10^-6.

And right next to this infinite vacuum sits our pressurized system. It is actually inside this infinite vacuum, lol.

 

Why does nasa/modern astronomy refuse to even define where the earth’s gravity stops and “infinite vacuum space” begins?

 

 

I have done my research, you?

Edited by bflat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peter said:

4 Bullshit it is 

All these emergency landings fall in a straight line on our flat earth and make no sense if the pilots were navigating from a globe. At least watch the video in the OP. Truly unmistakable stuff there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peter said:

you put water in a glass and say the earth is flat

NO!

Multiple actual experiments using the latest technology has proved that water does not curve around a ball anywhere near 8 inches per mile squared as would be required if modern astronomy was correct.

 

You can test this yourself for under $500 dollars tomorrow.

 

Again, this is a simple matter of actual physics. Water fills its container regardless of shape and stays perfectly level on top. The earth's surface is around 70% water. Do the math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, bflat said:

What is not clear to you from the OP? Please be specific.

 

LOL, keeps deleting the rest of the post. See page one where neil the ass tyson explains that you have not seen what you think you have seen.

The post I did 3 hours ago had quite a few questions and you haven't answered one ,if you are going to, try doing it in your own words How much more specific would you like me to be

 Next time I go flying ,I will say to my mate don't worry that's not a curved horizon and that's not a fucking mountain directly in front of us either, I can't be bothered any more I will see you when I can post properly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bflat said:

NO!

Multiple actual experiments using the latest technology has proved that water does not curve around a ball anywhere near 8 inches per mile squared as would be required if modern astronomy was correct.

 

You can test this yourself for under $500 dollars tomorrow.

 

Again, this is a simple matter of actual physics. Water fills its container regardless of shape and stays perfectly level on top. The earth's surface is around 70% water. Do the math.

Actually it doesn't, if its in a glass the extremities of the water are raised where it comes into contact with the glass due friction and surface tension and if the glass is filled to the very top the water will dome due to surface tension and you can check that for nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, peter said:

The post I did 3 hours ago had quite a few questions and you haven't answered one ,if you are going to, try doing it in your own words How much more specific would you like me to be

 Next time I go flying ,I will say to my mate don't worry that's not a curved horizon and that's not a fucking mountain directly in front of us either, I can't be bothered any more I will see you when I can post properly

You have been answered three different times in three different ways and the OP was clear. Be specific... what don't you get? What has not been explained to you? To me this is basic math and science... just confused by your responses.

 

And tell your mate whatever, but modern astronomy is certain that in no uncertain way has anyone seen the curvature other than spacemasons.

 

1 minute ago, peter said:

Actually it doesn't, if its in a glass the extremities of the water are raised where it comes into contact with the glass due friction and surface tension and if the glass is filled to the very top the water will dome due to surface tension and you can check that for nothing

Pythagoras or eight inches per mile squared.. you pick. Stop getting distracted by glasses and friction... jeez.

 

TELEMMGLPICT000191681798_trans++A7N2CxnJ

 

ABOVE: Lake Baikal in Russia

 You can fit all the water of our Great lakes in that one lake. It freezes perfect;y flat every winter. At its longest stretch it is nearly 400 miles long. Based on what we learned from Pythagoras, three Mt Everests should fit beneath the bulge of that lake, one on top of the other. Just three, lol.

 

Think on that. As Russians drive their campers over it each winter.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone please explain to all of us sphere people how it is that no human being in 200,000 years has bumped into or fallen off the edge of the flat Earth.

 

Then explain how it is if i start travelling East, and I continue to travel East, I will eventually end up in the same spot I started from.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, motleyhoo said:

Someone please explain to all of us sphere people how it is that no human being in 200,000 years has bumped into or fallen off the edge of the flat Earth.

Be honest for a second. What is more likely? People would fall off of a flat, stationary plane

-or-

people would fall off a ball moving at a speed that is several times that of sound and in multiple different directions as it spins at over 1000 mph (faster than sound again)?

 

16 minutes ago, motleyhoo said:

Then explain how it is if i start travelling East, and I continue to travel East, I will eventually end up in the same spot I started from.

If you are using a compass to maintain an eastward path you will make a perfect circle around our magnetic north.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Forsaken Bankzy said:


I find that hard to believe. Only because I'm pretty sure we both observe the same thing with our eyes.

Well if we both see the same thing how come you don't see it as well

 

1 hour ago, bflat said:

You have been answered three different times in three different ways and the OP was clear. Be specific... what don't you get? What has not been explained to you? To me this is basic math and science... just confused by your responses.

 

And tell your mate whatever, but modern astronomy is certain that in no uncertain way has anyone seen the curvature other than space masons.

 

Pythagoras or eight inches per mile squared.. you pick. Stop getting distracted by glasses and friction... jeez.

 

TELEMMGLPICT000191681798_trans++A7N2CxnJ

 

ABOVE: Lake Baikal in Russia

 You can fit all the water of our Great lakes in that one lake. It freezes perfect;y flat every winter. At its longest stretch it is nearly 400 miles long. Based on what we learned from Pythagoras, three Mt Everests should fit beneath the bulge of that lake, one on top of the other. Just three, lol.

 

Think on that. As Russians drive their campers over it each winter.

 

 

 

First you tell me its perfectly flat  then you say there is a bulge  and I'm supposed to  think on the fact that Russians drive camper vans there in winter .

Mate you have won I can't compete with that logic PS are spacemasons any thing like Space monkeys, I will have to get in touch with Patti Smith to get the low down if they are 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, peter said:

First you tell me its perfectly flat  then you say there is a bulge

No!

And I hope these are reading comprehension issues and that you are not continually misrepresenting what I am posting on purpose.

 

To be clear:

I told you that the natural physics of water determines that it fills its container and remains perfectly flat on top.

You are the one telling me that water curves and sticks to the outside of a ball.

 

5 hours ago, peter said:

and I'm supposed to  think on the fact that Russians drive camper vans there in winter .

They were in the picture you quoted.

 

You simply have not understood that based on what amounts to high school level mathematics, over the 400 mile distance of that lake, it is required by the heliocentric doctrine that the water freezes NOT FLAT, BUT with a 20 mile bulge at its center point.

 

If you don't get the math, this is open sourced and can be verified by anyone you trust.

 

So, for a distance of 400 miles we get a height of:

20.1912 miles = 106609.44 feet

 

 

Explanation:

 

The Earth's radius (r) is 6371 km or 3959 miles, based on numbers from Wikipedia,
which gives a circumference (c)of c = 2 * π * r = 40 030 km

We wish to find the height (h) which is the drop in curvature over the distance (d)

Using the circumference we find that 1 kilometer has the angle
360° / 40 030 km = 0.009°. The angle (a) is then a = 0.009° * distance (d)

The derived formula h = r * (1 - cos a) is accurate for any distance (d)

 
   
   
  FTR, Mt Everest peaks at about five and a half miles. Should we really believe that three of them would fit, one on top of the other with miles of room to spare?
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I never said water stuck to the outside a ball ,your words and not mine,

Next I can see a couple of problems with your explanation

1  the equation assumes that the earth is a complete sphere which it is not, also the radius is assumed to be taken at see level

2 Is the lake you are referring to at sea level for a start

3 you haven't taken into account water viscosity, weight, air pressure  gravity etc

4 The biggest problem I can see  is you failed to take in to account  the perspective of the viewer and actual 3D reality

Using your diagram lets examine  the point where the hypotenuse and the height intersect the diameter, lets call that X, now from our perspective at the present time we are looking down at a two dimensional construct known as a circle ,Now if I was able to stand on point x I would be looking up towards H I would be  going holly shit that's high.

Now lets look at reality, for the purpose of ease of explanation  we will assume the earth is a three dimensional perfect sphere with no hills or valleys . Now you are able to stand on any point on the circumference of that sphere and it would appear to the observer from their perspective they are standing on the highest point there is and all their surroundings seem to fall away in a curve, just like the curved horizon at sea, no assumed buglers where there actually is none . anyone can cut a past wikipedia but you got to understand what your looking at. Or it could have been a not so brilliant slight of hand

I couldn't quote you Bflat as I keep getting blocked

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, screamingeagle said:

now that is argument,very profound ?

 

ofcourse it is,otherwise you would all be wrong 

I would not want to put words in her mouth, but I don't think you understood the point. Space being "fake" in my mind is simply about the idea of a big bang created "zero G," "infinite vacuum of space" we hear about over and over from these freemasons.

 

Long story short, this is zero G right here and we don't float around like the freemasons appear to do in "space" to the least of our critical thinkers.

 

Did you ever watch the nasa footage of the space shuttle? The docking they show us? Do you wanna really believe that that is taking place as these objects are free falling at over 17,000 mph or over 22 times the speed of sound? As the little freemasons show you video of them "floating" around in what appears to be a zero G environment?

 

They use shitty, obvious models, cgi cartoons, green screens, harnesses, and lies... and none of that should fool anyone willing to look honestly at this topic.

 

AstroNOTS with scuba gear... Air bubbles in space... LMAO!

 

 

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, unlocked and locked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl unlocked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...